HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100009 Action Letter 2022-04-04V
LEA BRUMFIELD
County Of Albemarle Senior Plannerll,Zoning
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IbrumfieldRalbemarle.o
ree
tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3023
To: Cameron Langille, Principal Planner
Date: 4 April 2022
Re: 3rd revision comments for ZMA202100008 Old Ivy Residences, and ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved
Slopes to Managed; initial comments for SE202200011 and SE202200012 Old Ivy Residences Stepback Reduction
and SE202200017 Old Ivy Residences Parking Reduction
The following comments are provided as inputfrom the Zoning Division regardingthe above noted applications.
1. Preserved Slopes -ZMA202100009
a. The evidence provided for the reclassification of the preserved slopes shown on page 2 of the
ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved Slopes narrative does indicate that the slopes were
constructed and not natural. For this reason, staff recommends approval of this reclassification. However,
the reclassification of the slopes is not directly offset by the preservation of the forested area west of the
slopes, as the destruction of the slopes, regardless of whether they are man-made, would impact the
watershed and erosion potential of the development differently from the destruction of the forested area.
2. Stepback Reduction - SE202200011 and SE202200012
a. Zoning Staff has no objection to this request. The Stepback requirements intended to avoid the canyon
effect are less impactful on a property with the spacing and surrounding undeveloped acreage as provided in
this application. Additionally, the structures to which the stepback requirement would apply do not closely
abut any public street or sidewalk.
3. Parking reduction - SE202200017
a. Multi -modal transportation opportunities. Based on the unknown and unprojected timeline for transit
expansion to the Old Ivy corridor, County staff does not recommend it be considered towards a reduction in
parking requirements. However, staff does appreciate the provision of a future transit stop in the project,
and recommends it remain on the plan.
Additionally, if the provision of bicycle racks is intended to ameliorate the need for parking, include their
provision on the Concept Plan or in another binding agreement.
b. Anticipated tenancy. While the development property's boarder is indeed less than mile as the crowflies
from the shared campus for the UVA Darden School of Business and University of Virginia School of Law,
the only walking path between the two properties is the Rivanna Trail. The trail, while an excellent
recreational path, is narrow, not paved, and frequently muddy. It is not a suitable commuting path,
particularlyfor students and staff who will often be required to dress in business professional clothing.
Additionally, the anticipated tenancy described by the applicant is comprised almost entirely of graduate
students. There is no information about student makeup of the comparative developments in Charlotte, NC
provided by the applicant as justification for the parking reduction. The parking requirements of
undergraduate students are generally lower than the parking requirements of graduate students.
c. Applicant's Garden -Style Pipeline Product. In addition to the differences of expected tenancy, the
applicant's provided parking ratios for Charlotte, NC belie the assumption that the applicant's pipeline
projects are located in similar metropolitan areas. Charlotte, NC is a major metropolitan with a population
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
of over 800,000, and over 70 transit routes, including alight rail system. The Charlottesville -Albemarle
metropolitan area has a population of just over 200,000 and 13 transit routes, none of which currently run
on Sunday. The closest grocery store to the proposed development is .8 miles away, on a road with no
sidewalks that passes under a narrow railway bridge. There is no safe walking path to any retail area, and the
proposed development is located in an area accessed only by automobile. Due to the differences in
metropolitan area, the applicant's other projects should not be used as a
d. ITE Parking Generation Manual. The ITE data used for the projected parking demand uses Multi -Family
(Low Rise) parking demand of 1.21 spaces per unit. However, ITE's definition of Multi -Family (Low Rise)
"includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the some building with at least three other
dwelling units and with one or two levels (floors) of residence." Per the special exception for stepbacks submitted
with rezoning, and the provided Illustrative Concept Plan, the multi -family apartment buiWing wiII be four
stories in height, falling under ITE's definition of Multi -Family (Mid Rise), which has an average rate of 1.31
parking spaces per unit.
Additionally, the ITE 5th Generation graphical data lists parking spaces by bedroom as well as by dwelling
unit. Under the calculation of Multi -Family (Mid Rise)'s average of .75 parking spaces per bedroom, and
assuming the applicant's provided unit type yield rate provided on page 2 of the parking reduction request
(assumed 60%of 2-3 bedrooms as 2 bedrooms, and 40%as 3 bedrooms), the required parking rate would be
1.35 spaces per unit.
Land Use
Units
Spaces/Unit
Total spaces
Single family detached (garage)
25
2
50
Single family detached and duplex (no garage)
94
2
188
1-bedroom Multi -Family (Mid Rise)
138
.75
103.5
2-bedroom Multi -Family (Mid Rise) - 60%of 186
112
1.5
168
3-bedroom Multi -Family (Mid Rise) - 40%of 186
74
2.25
166.5
Multi -Family (Mid Rise) -Apartments
438
2-bedroom Multi -Family (Low Rise) - 60%of 47
28
1.32
37
3-bedroom Multi -Family (Low Rise) - 40%of 47
19
1.98
38
Multi -Family (Low Rise) - Townhomes
75
Total estimated required (calc. by bedroom)
751
e. Recommendation. Zoning staff cannot recommend approval of the currently requested parking reduction
due to the reasons stated above.
4. Concept Plan - ZMA202100008
a. Rental units. The applicant states on page 3 of the Application Narrative dated February 7, 2022 that the
provision of rental units, including single-family units, provides for a necessary type of housing option for
the County. However, there is no binding requirement for any of the development to be provided as rentals.
If this application is intended to expand the range of housing options in the County and provide rental
inventory, include the requirement for the development to be provided initially as rental units in a binding
document, such as the concept plan or proffer statement.
b. Unit types. On Sheet 8 of the Revised Concept Plan, Proposed Site Map, dated February 7, 2022, the
applicant lists two development types, multi -family units and single family units, while in the narrative, the
applicant proposes up to three development types, including multi -family, single family attached, and single
family detached. However, the provision of multiple development types is not listed as a major element on
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
the Concept Plan, and is therefore not binding. In order to meet the Neighborhood Model Principles of a
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability, list the provision of at least two development types as a major
element of the concept plan.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 2281 Charlottesville, VA22902-4596