HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100008 Correspondence 2022-02-08 (4)Response to Comments dated December 28, 2021
Old Ivy Residences
ZMA 2021-008
ZMA 2021-009
To: Cameron Langille
Date: February 7, 2022
Enclosed are the follow resubmittal materials in connection with this application:
1. Updated application narrative
2. Updated Concept Plan by Timmons Group
3. Updated Proffer Statement (including a blackline version showing the February 7, 2022 draft against
the prior version from November 11, 2021)
4. Updated Traffic Impact Analysis
S. Parking Reduction Request
6. Request for Central Water and Sewer System
7. Updated application narrative for ZMA 2021-00009 re Preserved Steep Slopes
Also, please note that with our initial application for ZMA 2021-00008 in July, 2021, we included a special
exception for a building stepback request. We note that this application does not appear to be logged into
CountyView. We would appreciate it if you would let us know if it is logged in, and if so, what the
application number is. You will note that there is a reference to that application on sheet 2 of the enclosed
Concept Plans, but we left the number blank since we could not located it in CountyView.
General Application Comments:
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 provided with the resubmittal.
Please see comments from Parks & Recreation. Housing, and Transportation Planning 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.
Response: Affordable Housing note has been added to sheet 8.
Proffer #2 - Parks & Recreation staff are supportive of this proffer, please see the comments attached below.
Response: See below for response to Parks & Rec comments.
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.
Response: See updated proffers for transportation and bike/ped facilities provided to address impacts of
the development on transportation. See also response to Transportation Planning comments below.
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 provided so that 15% of the units that
could be built on TMPs 60-51 and 60-24C1 be affordable. This would be 22 affordable units
(15% of the 144 units that could be developed on those parcels).
Response: The note on sheet 8 has been modified to include language that clarifies that the current R-15
zoning on the majority of the parcels, and the R-1 zoning of TMP 60-51 permits up to 144 units, and that
15% affordable units will be provided above 144 units. Since it is unknown at the rezoning stage if the
project will be developed to the maximum units requested, the proposed language provides flexibility
while ensuring that we provide the number of affordable units required above the 144 permitted by -
right.
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? 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.
Response: The Affordable Housing note has been added to sheet 8.
b. Please see comments from the Housing Planner attached to this letter. Planning staff
encourage the applicant to contact Stacy Pethia, spethia@albemarle.org to obtain further
information on the County'sHousing 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.
Response: See below for response to comments from the Housing Planner.
3. 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 identifying 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
Response: The narrative has been updated accordingly.
4. 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" First revision: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA review of the
revised applications are not yet 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.
Response: A central sewerage system and water system request is included in the resubmittal. Greystar
acknowledges that should the sewer design require infrastructure upgrades, they will coordinate any
required upgrades with ACSA.
5. 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 #1a and #1b).
Response: The technical revisions have been made and an updated copy of the TIA is included with
this resubmittal package.
6. 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 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 10 years or they will be returned to the owner.
There are not currently any County VDOT CIP projects or plans in place to upgrade the Old IvK
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.
Response: In response to a conversation with the Transportation Planner on 1/1112022, the proffers have
been updated to extend the timeline for the funding to be utilized from 10 years to 16 years. In addition,
the proffer has been amended to provide that the Applicant will construct a multi -use path along the
frontage of the project property, which will support both pedestrians and bicyclists. And that proffer notes
that if the adjacent parcels to the east donate the necessary land, that the Applicant will also construct the
multi -use path across the frontage of those parcels. We that to occur, the multi -use path would extend
from the by-pass ramp east all the way to the Ivy Gardens Apartments boundary, a distance of
approximately 1,275 feet.
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 travelway.
Response: The plan has been updated to clarify the proposed sidewalks into and within the
development, as well as changing the sidewalk along the frontage of the property along Old Ivy Road
to be a multi -use path to provide infrastructure for both pedestrians and bicyclists in this area.
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).
Response: In response to a conversation with the Transportation Planner on 1/1112022, the proffers have
been updated to extend the timeline for the funding to be utilized, as well as the addition of a new proffer
to construct a multi -use path on the north side of Old Ivy Road if the land is donated by the property
owners. As noted in the TIA, and as well established by VDOT studies and others, the operational challenges
with the Route 250 Bypass/Route 250 intersection west of the project site are pre-existing, and VDOT has
not identified any immediate solutions to address the pre-existing operational issues. The project will add a
very small percentage of trips to that intersection. As directed by the County Transportation Planner, the
project's proposed transportation improvements are therefore focused on Old Ivy Road. The commitment
to the multi -use path along a distance comprising approximately 1,275 linear feet will provide much -
needed pedestrian and bike infrastructure in an area where it has been needed for decades. In fact, the
records associated with the 1985 rezoning that resulted in the 1985 proffer specifically identified the need
for a sidewalk along Old Ivy Road. This proffer goes beyond that and provides infrastructure that supports
both pedestrians and bicyclists, and mitigates any transportation impacts of the project. Given that we
expect that many of the future residents will work at or attend the Darden Business School or the Law
School, or the future redeveloped Ivy Gardens area that will include classroom space, a childcare center, and
a grocery store, among other uses, this multi -use path will provide a safe and convenient route to those
destinations.
a. Per attached Zoning Division comments, additional access points and vehicular, bicycle, and/or
pedestrianconnections into the proposed development could allow staff to better evaluate the
request to amend theZMA1985-21 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 601132-1. 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 6062-1 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.
Response: The owner of TMP 60132-1, the University Village Owners Association, has requested
that we remove any references to future interconnectivity points or stub outs adjacent to their
Id
property from our plans. However, given that interconnections are important to the County,
required by the County Code, and one of the Neighborhood Model principles against which
rezoning applications are reviewed, we have not removed the potential interconnections from our
plans. While we are clear on UVOA's position, based on our experience with similar situations in
prior applications, we expect that not having these points of potential future interconnectivity
would reflect negatively on the application as it continues through the review process. Given that
the interconnectivity references on the plans neither impose any obligation of cooperation on
UVOA, nor provide the Applicant with any right to actually construct any interconnection, we feel
it appropriate to maintain that element of the application plans. Finally, we note that it is at least
possible that future members of UVOA's Board might have a different opinion on the matter,
since an interconnection would provide both a second point of access to University Village in the
event of an emergency, and safe and convenient access for University Village residents to the
Rivanna Trail. In addition, such an interconnection may be required if University Village pursues
further development of its property. As such, we feel it is prudent to at least not preclude any
future interconnections, however unlikely they may be. For all of these reasons we have elected to
retain the references to future interconnections, but if staff believes these should be removed
given UVOA's objection, we can remove them.
Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments:
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 landuse designation. The remaining acreage figure is the net
acreage. Divide the total number of units proposed by thenet 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 designated 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.
Response: Net density calculations have been added to sheet 8 for reference, however, we believe the
intent of the Parks & Green systems designation, as described in the Southern and Western Master Plan
(below), is to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and planned park areas. The project preserves those
sensitive areas.
'Areas shown on that Plan (Parks & Green Systems Plan) are parks, greenways and other preserved open
space, schools (which act as public park sites), water bodies, streams, and critical slopes"- Page 21 in Southern
and Western MP.
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. From Zoning comments of 10 January.
2022: Applicants note phasing is not intended.
3. 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 addressed.
4. Please identify the areas and any amenities that would qualify as passive recreation on the plan. The
pond wouldserve 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: label the apparent trail connecting the multi -family
buildings to the pond. Otherwise comment addressed.
Response: The trail has been labeled on the plan per Zoning's recent comments.
S. 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.
Response: The application does demonstrate compliance with maximum 6' wall heights, stepped when
necessary, and benching on slopes as required by Section 4.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. It should also be
noted the grades shown on this concept plan are not final and any minor adjustments necessary for
compliance can and will be made at the site plan stage. The intent of the conceptual grading shown on the
Concept Plan is to demonstrate that at the site plan stage the project will be able to meet the requirements
of the County Code.
6. 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 overthe Route 250/29 bypass that includes a 4' wide shoulder that could
accommodate bicycle or pedestrian facilities. First revision: Comment has partially been addressed
through 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.
Response: The sidewalk along the frontage has been modified to be an asphalt multi -use trail that will
accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, a proffer has been offered to extend the multi-
use trail along Old Ivy Road if the property is donated. Please also see the response to #7.a above for more
information about this proposed infrastructure.
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 forthcoming.
Response: Please see the updated proffer statement provided with this resubmittal.
2. Please see Zoning Division comments #3a and #3b regarding the existing proffers that apply to the
parcels withinthis project. First revision: Comment stands pending completion of Zoning Division
review. [No additional comments regarding these proffers were received by ZoningL
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.
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 ComprehensivePlan 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 tothe 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 thetravel way poses safety concerns due to vehicles speeding because of
the length of thestreet. Traffic calming measures could reduce these risks.
Alternatively, reducing the length of the travel way could result in a more
compact development form that wouldprevent vehicles from speeding and
posing safety issues with the on -street parking.
7
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.
Response: Please refer to the application narrative for a detailed history of the of
)roperty with regard to its Comprehensive Plan designation. Large areas of the
)roperty were only designated as Parks & Green Systems because at the time the
:omprehensive Plan was last updated in 2015, VDOT had acquired the area for
:onstruction of the Western Bypass. While that designation did not necessarily
nake sense given the area's future use for major transportation infrastructure, it
vould not have been designated that way if the property had been in private
)wnership at the time, since there was not a park designated for that area, and
arge areas so designated do not contain sensitive areas. Instead, only the
environmentally sensitive areas and the Rivanna Trail areas would have been
iesignated for Parks & Green Systems. Please also refer to the property's prior
iesignation on the 1996 Land Use Map, where the entire area was designated for
Jrban Density Residential development. Since 2015, the Bypass project has been
:ancelled, and the property has been returned to the prior owners. At the pre-
ipplication meeting for this application, Community Development staff advised
he applicant and its representatives to focus on preserving the environmentally
sensitive areas. This application continues to enhance those areas.
✓ith regard to pedestrian orientation specifically, this application more than
atisfies that principle. A number of pedestrian facilities have been added to the
Ian, which are now highlighted in blue on sheets 8-13 of the Concept Plan. The
ivanna Trail is being retained and enhanced within the development, sidewalks
re proposed to be located along the travelways and throughout the site (see
lote 1 on sheet 2 of the revised Concept Plan), additional trails are located in the
pen space, a multi -use path has been added along the frontage of the property,
nd a proffer has been offered that would continue the multi -use path along Old
y Road. In addition, the sensitive areas are being preserved within the site. All of
iese improvements, together with the narrative outlining the history of the
omprehensive Plan and land use for the properties, demonstrates that the
pplication more than satisfies this Neighborhood Model Principle. The
ombination of the on -site sidewalks, multi -use paths across the frontage and
long Old Ivy Road, and the extensive on site trail network (including the Rivanna
rail) will result in an extraordinary amount of pedestrian facilities and
ifrastructure at this Project. There is no question that this principle is fully
atisfied.
1:1
__gdength along the internal travelway that make the lava,
With block length recommendations from this principi
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
Neigh borhoodsMaster Plan.
However, the proposed layout/location of residential lots and other
infrastructure (suchas roads) is not consistent in areas recommended as Parks &
Green Systems future landuse 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 asresidential 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 impactsto 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 re ort.
W,
Response: Please see the response above. In addition, in conversations with staff,
we understand that the Parks & Green Systems designation is meant to preserve
and protect those environmentally sensitive features, as well as any park like
amenities, such as the Rivanna Trail, and that the current Land Use Map does not
reflect current planning practice for protecting these areas. Our plan preserves the
stream and buffer, as well as the pond, and while it reroutes the Rivanna Trail, it is
maintained and will be an important component within the development. We
recognize the importance of this trail and have proffered to maintain it on -site
and enhance it by connecting additional trails to it, including a multi -use path
along the frontage of the development. In addition, we have located those
sensitive areas, outside of the man-made slopes we are requesting to be
disturbed, within the open space. The narrative has also been updated to better
clarify the land use designation and history of the site including the prior
Comprehensive Plan maps.
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 Ian that identified the three
single-family housing es is there a reason that has been removed?
Response: Housing types will be determined at the site plan stage and will be in
accordance with the permitted types under the R15 zoning. We would like the
flexibility to adjust housing types as the market demands during site plan,
however we anticipate a variety of attached, detached, and multi -family units to
be provided.
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 andis not adjacent to the subject properties.
Mixture of Housing
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions.
Typesand Affordability
A mix of housing types is provided and the application is consistent with that
aspect ofStrategy #2g from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is not consistent with the affordability component of Strategy #2g,
or Chapter 9 Strategy #61b 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
10
and how that relates to the proposed ZMA.
First revision: Please see attached Housing comments regarding affordable housing.
Response: Sheet 8 has been updated to address the Affordable Housing policy
and to clarify the by -right credit.
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 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
Design Guidelinesbuildings should be located along the property frontage and
face the streetso 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 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 noparking is provided between the right-of-way and the entrances, the
proposal would bemore 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)
plannerregarding 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
11
screening measures may be needed.
Response: Noted.
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 wayswithin 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.
There appears to be potential to provide connections to an adjacent parcel to
the east, specifically TMP 060B2-00-00-00100. Although TMP 060B2-00-00-
00100 is subject toan 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 explainwhy no
connections is currently proposed.
First revision: The concept plan has been revised to show two stub -outs to the east
toTMP 6082-1. 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 clarify whether
those are shown for emergency access use only.
Response: See response to comment #7a.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is not fully met.
Opportunities
12
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" tothe intersection of Route 250/01d Ivy Road. The application
does not indicate whetherany 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 this 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 Roadwould 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.
Response: As noted previously in this response letter, a multi -use path is provided
along the entire frontage of the property and a proffer has been offered that
would extend that path long Old Ivy Road to the east if property is donated by the
owners of those parcels.
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_
staffcan verify that the area could actually be utilized for a bus stop and pull -off area.
Response: Sheet 8 has been updated to show where a potential bus stop could be
located, however it is noted that this may be adjust based on future coordination
with the County, CAT, and/or UVA.
13
Parks, Recreational This principle is not tully met.
Amenities, and Open
Space Strategy #21 from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states "important
environmentalfeatures, 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 consistentwith this principle, uses within the
project should be consistent with applicable land usedesignations. 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 theexisting Rivanna Trail through areas of steep slopes (exceeding 25%) would
create a trailsystem 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%thatare not proposed to be disturbed be located within open space areas.
See attached comments 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.
Per Parks & Recreation comments, staff recommends that the concept plan
identifyadditional pedestrian facilities at the site entrance onto Old Ivy Road. This
could be sidewalks or pathways that connect the entrance to the crosswalks located
furthernorth into the proposal where dwelling units are proposed.
Additional comments regarding recreational facilities may be forthcoming pending
completion of Zoning Division review.
Response: See response above to Parks and Green Systems designation. The
Concept Plan has been updated to indicate the pedestrian facilities along the
frontage and into the site and connections to the Rivanna Trail, and specifically
connecting the entrance to the crosswalks located further north into the
14
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
architecturaldetails, scale, massing, and form of proposed buildings. Without
such details, it is notpossible for staff to say that the proposed buildings will
meet Strategy #2m from thisprinciple and also comply with Entrance Corridor
Design Guidelines.
A primary concern of staff is the orientation of the apartment buildings and their
currentlocation, which is not parallel to Old Ivy Road/the Entrance Corridor.
Additionally, moredetails 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
withinthe project would result in a more organized and cohesive form. Please
see attachedARB 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_
thatperimeter of the EC. ARB will review all units (other than single-family detached
uWW at the site plan stage and additional screening measures may be needed.
Response: Noted.
Redevelopment
This principle is met. Currently developed parcels would be redeveloped
under thisproposal.
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- 240 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 atthe north and focusing density in the south and east
ends of the project would eliminatethe need to disturb Preserved Steep Slopes,
and thus the entire request sought through ZMA202100009.
15
Per Planning and ARB comments, less severe grading is highly recommended in
order tobe 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
theCountyCode.
Response: The application does demonstrate compliance with maximum 6' wall
heights, stepped when necessary, and benching on slopes as required. It should
also be noted the grades shown on this concept plan are not final and any minor
adjustments necessary for compliance can and will be made at site plan. The
intent of the conceptual grading shown on the Concept Plan is to meet the
requirements of the County Code.
Clear Boundaries Between
This principle is not applicable to the request. The nearest development area
the Development Areas
boundaryis located approximately 1/3 mile to the northwest on the opposite
andthe Rural Area
side of the Route 250/Route 29 bypass.
W
Department of Community Development - Zoning Division
Review not yet complete, comments from Lea Brumfield, IbrumfieldCcbalbemarle.org will be forwarded to the
applicantupon receipt.
Response: Per Zoning Division comments of 10 January, 2022, the only comment requiring action is
Comment 2d: First revision: label the apparent trail connecting the multi -family buildings to the pond. Otherwise comment
addressed. The concept plan has been updated to label the trail on sheet 9.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning
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 ZMA 1985-21 which explicitly address the
development of TMPs 60-240 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 County's
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 costof 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 internal trave ay network with this second submittal
there are still concernsfor 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.
Response: In response to a conversation with the Transportation Planner on 1/1112022, the proffers have been
updated to extend the timeline for the funding to be utilized, as well as the addition of a new proffer to
construct a multi -use path on the north side of Old Ivy Road if the land is donated by the adjacent property
owners.
Please see response to comment #7a above for information related to interconnection with adjacent property.
Department of Community Development - Planning Division - Architectural Review Board (ARB)
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
Response: Noted.
Department of Community Development - Engineering Division
1. 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
publicly 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 bythe Board
if proposed [Chapter 161. 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.
Response: A request for approval of a Central Sewer and Water System is enclosed with this resubmittal
package so that it may be reviewed and acted on concurrently with the ZMA 2021-00008.
Department of Parks & Recreation
Comment #1 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 Trail" 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.
1. Comment #2 Update (12/9/2021): ACPR acknowledges the proposed sidewall along Old Ivy Road
that would connect with the proposed Relocated Rivanna Trail, as well as the proposed
sidewalk/crosswalk across rnd livy Road to the existing sidewalkon the opposite side of the roadway_
The proposed crosswalk across the entrance to the project is set back approximately 100' 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.
Response: See updated plan set. A crosswalk that is closer to Old Ivy Road has been incorporated in
response to this comment.
Additionally, the revised Concept Plan does not appear to include any bicycle oriented
infrastructure or other accommodations within the 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.
Response: The sidewalk along the frontage has been modified to be an asphalt multi -use trail that will
accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, a proffer has been offered to extend the multi -use
trail along Old Ivy Road if the property is donated.
Department of Social Services - Housing
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.
M
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 madeaffordable 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.
Response: The note on sheet 8 has been modified to include language that clarifies that the current zoning of
the property would permit 430 units to be constructed, and that 15% affordable units will be provided above 430
units. Because the concept plan and proffers limit the total permitted units, which is below what is permitted
under R15 zoning, there is a difference in the calculated units. See attached detailed calculations. Since it is
unknown at the rezoning stage if the project will be developed to the maximum units requested, the proposed
language provides flexibility while ensuring that we provide the number of affordable units required above the
by -right credit.
VDOT
1. Comments from Traffic Engineering:
a. Note that the SB right -turn movement is currently running an Overlap with phase5 but that
is not included in the Synchro files provided. This would need to be added to each of the
Synchro files.
The Synchro model has been updated in each scenario to account for the SB right -turn
overlap. This has resulted in minor improvements to the intersection and the SB approach
as a whole.
b. Please verify the queue length for the SB Left-Thru under the existing conditionat 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 hasdecreased by 285 feet under the
2025 Background Conditions. It does not makesense with no roadway improvements for
the queue length to decrease when thetraffic has actually increased.
Per TOSAM regulations, existing analysis is completed using the PHF of the
existing data and any future year analysis utilizes a 0.92 PHF (for urban areas). In
this case, the adjustment of the PHF from a lower number (0.72) in existing
analysis to 0.92 in the background/future analyses. A higher peak hour factor will
spread traffic across the peak hour more efficiently, which is what results in the
reduction in queues that is observed.
W"
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.
It is acknowledged and understood any roadway improvements within the VDOT Right -
of -Way will be in conformance with the VDOT Road design Manual and any other VDOT
regulations/requirements. It should be noted the on site travelways are private.
20
Affordable Housing Calculation Table:
By -Right Unit Yield:
Tax Map Parcel
Acreage
Zoning & Max
Density
Max Residential
Units
24C
11.58
R-15 (15 DUA)
173.7
24C1
2.53
1.561 at R-15 (15
DUA), .969 at R-10
(no units, med
facility)
14.53
240
13.29
R-15 (15 DUA)
199.35
24C4
2A7
R-15 (15 DUA)
37.05
51
5.52
R-1 (1 DUA)
5.5
Total:
35.39
430.1
Proposed Rezoning Unit Yield:
Tax Map
Parcel
Acreage
Proposed
Zoning
Max
Residential
Units
24C
11.58
R-15
173.7
24C1
2.53
R-15
37.95
240
13.29
R-15
199.35
24C4
2.47
R-15
37.05
51
5.5
R-15
82.8
Total:
35.39
530.85
Max units allowed by right: 430.1
Max units if all zoned R-15: 530.86
Max units per application: 525
Max units per KTGY Illustrative plan: 495
If build out to max of 530.86 per all R-15 zoning
530.86 - 430.1 = 100.76 x 15% = 15.11
Rounded = 16 affordable units (Note: this matches the figure on the attached spreadsheet; when you assume
that all 530.86 units (total acreage x 15) will be constructed. But the ZMA application limits the max to 525).
If build out to max of 525 per ZMA:
525-430.1 = 94.9 x 15% = 14.23
Rounded = 15 Affordable Units
21
Revised Affordable Housing Note on Concept Plan:
Under the existing zoning of the Property, 430 units could be constructed by -right (the "By -right Unit
Yield"). Fifteen percent (151/6) of the constructed units above the By -right Unit Yield shall be affordable to
households making up to 80% of the Area Median Income for a period of ten (10) years. "Affordable' means
that the rental rate may not exceed 30% of 80% of the Area Median Income ("AMI"), as listed and annually
updated on the Virginia Housing (formerly VHDA) website, based on household size, less estimated utility costs
as defined by Virginia Housing for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. AM[ and utility allowance schedules
available at www.VHDA.com."
22