Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2022-04-05pants 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, vlongCa)williamsmullen.com Date: September 5, 2021; First Revision: December 28, 2021; Second Revision: April 5, 2022 Re: ZMA202100008 Old Ivy Residences Zoning Map Amendment & ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved to Managed Steep Slopes Zoning Map Amendment - Review Comments 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 provided 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Proffer #2 - Parks & Recreation staff are supportive of this proffer, please see the comments attached below. Proffer #4- Based on Transportation Plannine comments and the review of the updated TIA. staff cannot recommend that the 1985 road improvement proffer has been satisfied at this time. Rev. 2: Comment stands. At this time, staff concerns regarding vehicular transportation network operations still persist. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to evaluate potential options to address the transportation deficiencies that will be exacerbated by the development. Please see attached Transportation Plannine and VDOT comments for further information. 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. Rev. 2: The revised concept plan dated 2/7/2022 shows wetlands in several locations across the overall site, which were not shown on previous versions. Sheet 8 does not show the wetlands, which is the sheet that is referenced in the proffer statement. Is there a reason the wetlands are not shown on that drawing? Regarding wetland disturbances shown elsewhere in the concept elan, please see Plannine staff comments under the Neighborhood Model Principles analysis below. Engineering Division comments also contain relevant considerations related to disturbance of wetlands. W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Additionally, the legend on the plan should say either sidewalk or shared use path so that it is consistent with proffer #3. See Transportation Planning comments for further information. 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). Rev. 2: Staff acknowledges that the affordable housing notes have been added to Sheet 8 of the Concept Plan that is being proffered. Please note that the proposed affordable units are still not entirely consistent with the County's housing policy which states that 15% of the overall units within a development should be affordable units. Planning staff recommend that the applicant contact Stacy Pethia, spethia@albemarle.org for further guidance on how to make the application fully consistent with the County's Affordable Housing Policy. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Daze 614. invalidated through recordation of DB 5330. Daze 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/proiections. Please consider revising the narrative footnote #7 link on page 15 so that the narrative references the updated ACPS study. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, the multipliers in the narrative are now correct. Please be aware that Albemarle High School is currently over capacity and is projected to remain over capacity through the 2030/2031 school year. The additional students that would be generated by this development would add to the capacity issues. This will be noted in the staff report. 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 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 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 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. Rev. 2: Central sewerage system application has been received and will be analyzed when this item goes to the Board. Please note that ACSA has stated that there are capacity issues with some segments of the existing sewer system. The applicant will need to continue to coordinate with the City of Charlottesville and ACSA regarding upgrades to the sewer system. Staff recommend that the applicant continue to work with ACSA and the City to verify that sewer utilities can accommodate the increased demand for service generated by this proposal. 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 #1a and #1b). Rev. 2: Comment stands, see attached VDOT comments. 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 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 proiects 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. Rev. 2: Comment stands. See attached Transportation Planning comments for further information. 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 proiect 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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). Rev. 2: Comment stands. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to evaluate potential options to address the transportation deficiencies that will be exacerbated by the development. See attached Transportation Planning comments for further information. 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 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 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 clarify whether those are shown for emergency access use only. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. There are two potential stub-out/connections shown on Sheet 8 of the concept plan. Staff acknowledges the applicant's response regarding the potential connection shown with property owned by University Village. At this time, it has been demonstrated that connections are possible. Final locations can be determined at site plan stage. 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 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. Rev. 2: A net density calculation is provided on Sheet 8 of the concept plan, so that portion of this comment is addressed. Please be aware that the net density calculation identifies 500 units as the total maximum units that could be built based on the acreage of the Urban Density Residential identified across the project area by the Master Plan. If the total maximum number of units being proffered was reduced to 500 instead of 525, that would strengthen the application. 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. Rev. 2: No further comments regarding phasing. 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, WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 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. Rev. 2: No further comments, see attached Zoning Division comments. 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. Rev. 2: See attached Engineering Division comments regarding wetlands and grading. Planning analysis on this matter is provided below in the Neighborhood Model Analysis section. 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 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. Rev. 2: Application has been revised to show a multi -use path along the frontage of the property which addresses the original question regarding bicycle facilities. As stated in Transportation Planning comments, even if the shared use path were constructed, there would still be gaps in the overall bike/pedestrian network, which remains a concern for transportation impacts posed by this application. 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. 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 proiect 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 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 based on comments #1 and #6 above, additional comment may be forthcoming. Rev. 2: If the applicant chooses to revise the proffer statement further, additional comments may be forthcoming. 2. Please see Zoning Division comments #3a and #3b regarding the existing proffers that apply to the parcels within this project. First revision: Comment stands pending completion of Zoning Division review. Rev. 2: Comment addressed per attached Zoning Division comments. SE202200011 Stepback Waiver ARB, Zoning, and Planning staff have reviewed the request to waive stepback requirements for the multifamily structures, and have no comments on the request. ARB staff have stated "Eliminating the stepback requirement on the Old Ivy Road face of the buildings is not expected to have a negative impact on the Bypass Entrance Corridor." SE202200017 - Parking Requirement Reduction Request The request to reduce parking requirements by 20% has been reviewed by Planning and Zoning staff. As noted on Sheet 8 of the Concept Plan and the special exception narrative, the applicant has identified 911 total parking spaces required based on their anticipated buildout through different unit types (totaling 490 units). The request is to allow 730 total parking spaces instead of the required 911. Staff acknowledges and supports the proposal to include a transit stop along the frontage of the development, as well as the proposed multi -use path. Staff also acknowledge that the Rivanna Trail will provide a means for some future residents to travel to and from the project and UVA grounds. However, staff have several concerns with this request, as summarized below: • Transit systems do not currently serve this segment of the Old Ivy Road corridor and it is unknown as to when service may be available. Staff cannot consider transit services as a viable justification for a parking reduction at this time. • The Rivanna Trail can pose challenges for regular/daily pedestrian usage as a primary means of transportation. Additional information is provided in Zoning Division comments. • The comparative communities cited in the applicant's narrative are located in a major metropolitan area that has extensive bus transit, light -rail transit, and bicycle/pedestrian networks available for commuters who do not rely on vehicles for transportation. Conversely, the Old Ivy Road corridor lacks complete sidewalk networks, paved multi -use paths, or transit services that provide access to necessary services for future residents of this project. It is likely that many residents of the Old Ivy Residences project would rely on personal vehicles as a primary means of transportation, which means more parking is needed. • Zoning staff have provided an alternative analysis of the minimum parking that could be supported by staff. Using ITE Parking Generation Manual, a table has been provided in the attached Zoning comments that estimates a need for 751 spaces in this project. At this time, staff do not support the request to reduce parking requirements as requested by the applicant. Plannine 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. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 d. em lmvwmwyve ewimd�ummur uemsn mwumn,o�mrm�eaoi.gaemwmrtdpmn,onmm dmxmimmm sgMw,,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 I 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. Rev. 2: Wetlands have now been identified by the applicant within the areas designated as Parks & Green Systems future land use. Grading is proposed in those areas in order to build improvements associated with the project. Please be aware that unless the wetlands are protected and conserved as identified in the Natural Resources chapter (chapter 6) and the Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways and Green Systems chapter (chapter 11). this will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report. W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Comments related to parkin¢ 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. 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? Rev. 2: Staff acknowledges the applicant's response regarding flexibility in housing types being the reason that only two housing types are technically being proffered. Please be aware that if commitments were made to providing all five housing types (as shown on the illustrative plan), this would strengthen the application's consistency with this principle. See Zoning Division comments for further comments. Furthermore, wetlands have not been identified by the applicant within the areas designated as Parks & Green Systems future land use. Grading is proposed in those areas in order to build improvements associated with the project. Please be aware that unless the wetlands are protected and conserved as identified in the Natural Resources chapter (chapter 6) and the Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways and Green Systems chapter (chapter 11). this will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report. 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 W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 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. Rev. 2: Staff acknowledges the applicant's response regarding flexibility in housing types being the reason that only two housing types are technically being proffered. Please be aware that if commitments were made to providing all five housing types (as shown on the illustrative plan), this would strengthen the application's consistency with this principle. See Zoning Division comments for further comments. Furthermore, staff acknowledges that the affordable housing notes have been added to Sheet 8 of the Concept Plan that is being proffered. Please note that the proposed affordable units is still not entirely consistent with the County's housing policy which states that 15% of the overall units within a development should be affordable units. Relegated Parking This principle is not fully met. As shown on various sheets of the Application Plan, parking areas will be located directly adjacent to Old Ivy Road at the southern end of the development. As stated earlier in the letter, each of these properties are located within the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Zoning District. To be consistent with the relegated parking principle and EC Design Guidelines, buildings should be located along the property frontage and face the street so that parking can be provided to the rear or sides of buildings. Strategy #2n from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states that "A building should never turn its back to the street; the front entry to a building should face the street. Walkways should be provided from the sidewalks along the street to the front entry. Having on -street parking or parking to the side or rear of the building means that pedestrians do not have to cross major parking areas when walking from a sidewalk to a building." If the multifamily buildings were moved so that their entrances face Old Ivy Road and no parking is provided between the right-of-way and the entrances, the proposal would be more consistent with this principle. Currently, a large parking area separates the buildings from the frontage. 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 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 screening measures may be needed. Rev. 2: ARB staff have no objections to the revised application. 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 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. Rev. 2: There are two potential stub-out/connections shown on Sheet 8 of the concept plan. Staff acknowledges the applicant's response regarding the potential connection shown with property owned by University Village. At this time, it has been demonstrated that connections are possible. Multimodal Transportation This principle is not fully met. Opportunities Page 62 of the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan contains recommendations for multimodal transportation opportunities in the vicinity of this project. The plan recommends developing "alternatives to provide for safe and convenient access to and through the Lewis Mountain/University Heights area by improving and extending the sidewalk network along the north side of Old Ivy Road" to the intersection of Route 250/Old Ivy Road. The application does not indicate whether any sidewalk improvements would be installed along and/or beyond the property frontage to be consistent with this recommendation. Per the applicant's narrative, the developer is willing to discuss inclusion of a transit stop at or within the project. Please contact Transportation Planning staff regarding this matter, as it could be a suitable opportunity to create a public transit option and result in the project achieving greater consistency with this principle. Per attached comments from Parks & Recreation and Transportation Planning staff, inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Old Ivy Road would help bring the project closer to consistency with this principle. W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 First revision: Sidewalks are now provided alone 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. Rev. 2: Bus stop is now shown. 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. 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. Rev. 2: As noted elsewhere in this comment letter, wetlands were not shown on previous iterations of the concept plan submitted for review. As noted under this principle, the Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways and Green Systems chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides expectation for this principle. Wetlands are a sensitive environmental feature that should be protected in Green Systems, and this application is proposing grading of several wetland areas. This will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report. W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Redevelopment This principle is met. Currently developed parcels would be redeveloped under this proposal. Respecting Terrain and This principle is not fully met. Careful Grading and Re- grading of Terrain Strategy #2q from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that "Where grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, functional, and easy to maintain, and promote interconnectivity of parcels. In all instances, developers and builders should work to preserve areas of environmental sensitivity shown on the Master Plans." The request to rezone and allow disturbance of Preserved Steep Slopes on TMPs 60- 24C3 and 60-24C4 is not consistent with the future land use classification (Parks & Green Systems) called for on the west side of the project. Eliminating the cul-de-sac at the north and focusing density in the south and east ends of the project would eliminate the need to disturb Preserved Steep Slopes, and thus the entire request sought through ZMA202100009. Per Planning and ARB comments, less severe grading is highly recommended in order to be consistent with this principle. 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. Rev. 2: Wetlands are now shown on the concept plan that were not shown on previous iterations. Some of these wetlands are shown as being disturbed for grading purposes on various sheets of the plan. Per Engineering Division comments, if reverse benches are needed, grading will be to an even greater extent than what is shown on the current concept plan. Please be aware that grading and disturbance of wetlands is inconsistent W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 with objectives from Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Obiective 6 identifies several strategies for conserving and protecting wetlands, which includes not allowing them to be disturbed or removed for development purposes. This will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report unless all disturbances to wetland areas are eliminated. Clear Boundaries Between the Development Areas and the Rural Area This principle is not applicable to the request. The nearest development area boundary is located approximately 1/3 mile to the northwest on the opposite side of the Route 250/Route 29 bypass. Department of Community Development - Zoning Division Requested changes, see attached comments from Lea Brumfield, Brumfield@albemarle.ore 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) No additional comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.ore. Department of Community Development - Engineering Division Requested changes, see attached comments from Frank Pohl, foohl@albemarle.ore. Department of Community Development - Historic Preservation Requested changes, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org. Department of Parks & Recreation See attached comments from Tim Padalino, tpadalino@albemarle.org. VDOT Requested changes, see attached comments from Doug McAvoy, douglas.mcavoy@vdot.virginia.gov. ACSA See attached comments from Richard Nelson, rnelson@albemarle.org Action after Receipt of Comments A public hearing for ZMA202100008 and ZMA202100009 was previously requested by the applicant for the May 10, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Staff have a slot on that meeting agenda for these applications to have a public hearing. 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 the applicant desires to move forward with the May 10, 2022 public hearing before the Planning Commission. Resubmittal 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.ore. Sincerely, W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Cameron Langille Principal Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 V LEA BRUMFIELD County Of Albemarle Senior 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 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Kevin McDermott CDD Planning See Recommendations The comment response states that the timeline for the proffer reafted to the funds provided for transportation has been extended to 16 years but the proffer appears to remove this timeline entirely and provide the $500,000 prior to issuance of the first CO. This funding is provided only if the developer is unable to extend the SUP beyond the frontage of the TMP proposed for rezoning under this application. Please clarify if this is the case. If all of the transportation proffers are completed there would still be significant gaps in the Bike Ped network that are necessary to provide utility to it. There would still be significant operational issues in the vehicular network surrounding the development. Staff understands that many of these issues exist currently and would only be exacerbated by the proposed development by a small amount. However, these existing and future transportation deficiencies remain a concem for County Staff that may not be able to be addressed. Staff requests that the applicant continue to evaluate potential options to address the transportation deficiencies that will be exacerbated by the development in a manner that can provide a recognizable benefit for the residents of the proposed development. Currently all solutions rely on a future project to address the impact of the development proposed under this rezoning. The legend on the site plan should say sidewalk or Shared -use Path to be consistent with the Proffer Statement Could the crosswalks shown in the intemal network be raised crosswalks to act as traffic calming features? Page: 1� County of Albemarle Primed On: 03/31 /2022 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Thursday, March 17, 2022 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski FcDD ARB - No Objection Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 03/31 /2022 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Thursday, March 31, 2022 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Frank Pohl --3 CDD Enaineerino See Recommendations - The latest plan shows wetlands that were not shown on the previous submittals. Grading is shown within the wetland near the rear of the project. The 2:1 slopes adjacent this wetland may need reverse benches, which would push grading further into the wetlands. Stream buffers are not required on the wetlands (Chapter 17), however, my understanding is that the Comprehensive Plan goals include preserving wetlands, even if a stream buffer is not required. Planning comments will address this further. Retaining walls may be required to prevent impacts to the wetland if impacts are to be avoided. Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 04/05/2022 Review Comments for ZMA2O21OOOO8 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Monday, March 21, 2022 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski Historic Preservation See Recommendations Parcel 60-51 includes a ca. 1930 Colonial Revival residence with outbuildings. The property has not been evaluated by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, but its date of construction places it within the standard 50-year period of consideration as a potential historic resource. Incorporating the residence into the new development would acknowledge the significance of its age, style and historic associations. The outbuildings, and the residence if it cannot be retained, should be fully documented in photos and drawings prior to demolition. Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee is available to assist with this documentation. Note that some archaeological testing in the vicinity has revealed some scattered artifacts. Previous ground disturbance may have destroyed other archaeological resources, and construction activity could uncover additional resources. Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 03/31 /2022 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Wednesday, Febr23, 2022 DepartmenUDivision/Agency: uary Review Status: Reviewer: Tim Padalino —2 Parks No Objection Please note: ACPR staff were not able to view the referenced Application Plan Sheet SP1.1 "Illustrative Conceptual Plan" which does not appear to be included in this most recent submittal. Previous ACPR review comments appear to have been addressed and resolved for this ZMA proposal. Thank you. Page: 1 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: f13/31 /2 222 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 March 18, 2022 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 #3 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 Collins Engineering, dated 7 February 2022, and offers the following comments: 1. Comments from Traffic Engineering on TIA: a. Page 17: In the vicinity of the project, Ivy Rd (US Route 250) is classified a Minor Arterial west of the Route 29 interchange and Other Principal Arterial beyond. b. Page 35 Ivy Road and Canterbury Intersection: "The mainline eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS C or worse during both peak hours with queues in excess of 500ft during both peak hours" — The remarks about the queues appear to pertain to only the PM scenarios per the reports. c. Page 48: Please confirm right turn lane length and storage per Appendix F, Section 3 Figure 3-1. 2. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices 13(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 March 18, 2022 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 ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes 2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Applicant is working with ACSA in regard to allowable sewer connection. Proposed water main connection is across Ivy Road. 3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures average around 75 psi. 4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? Several sewer segments along Ivy Road have been identified as needing upgrading by the developer to serve the site. The City of Charlottesville has also indicated that their sewer segments may not have adequate capacity as well. The developer will need to coordinate with the City on their requirements. A sewer agreement will need to be signed by the applicant stating the applicant will be responsible for upgrading the necessary sewer segments if capacity is exceeded by this development. 5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A 6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? Discussion regarding sewer capacity availability has already started with the engineer. 7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee? 8) Additional comments? RWSA and City of Charlottesville sewer capacity certification will be required prior to any site plan approval. 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