HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000012 Correspondence 2021-11-17 (2)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
November 17.2021
Cameron Langille
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia22902
RE: Response Letter #1 for ZMA202000012 White Gate Village NMD
Dear Mr. Langille,
Thank you for your review of the rezoning request for White Gate Village. This letter contains responses
to County comments dated November 6, 2020.Our responses are as follows:
1. Responses to General Application Comments
2. Responses to Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning, are attached
3. Responses to Daniel Butch, Transportation Planning, are attached
4. Responses to Margaret Maliszewski, ARB, are attached
5. Responses to Stacy Pethia, Housing, are attached
6. Responses to Frank Pohl, Engineering, are attached
7. Responses to Brian Becker, E911, are attached
8. Responses to Max Greene, VDOT, are attached
9. Responses to ACSA are attached
10. Responses to RWSA, are attached
General Application Comments
1. At this time, page 45 of the adopted Crozet Master Plan states "Property east of Park Ridge Drive
(Tax Map 56 Parcel 91A) is intended to remain rural and undeveloped to help break up the
appearance of continuous development along Three Notch'd Road." The Future Land Use Plan
also designates TMP 56-91A as Greenspace. The project is entirely inconsistent with the adopter
Master Plan's future land use recommendations for that parcel. Unless the current Crozet Master
Plan update results in a revised future land use designation on TMP 56-91 A, staff will not
recommend approval of the ZMA. Should a new Master Plan be adopted prior to this application
moving forth with public hearings, staff will be able to offer more guidance on the proposed land
uses.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Since the initial submission of ZMA2020-12, an updated and
revised Crozet Master Plan has been adopted. The 2021 Master Plan designates tax parcel 56-91A
and 56E-2 as middle density residential, neighborhood density residential, and Geenspace. This
rezoning application proposes development standards for building form, density, and use that
align with these designations.
2. The application must include a private street authorization request to allow the proposed internal
streets to be private. As currently designed, Private Alley A and B in Blocks 1 and 2 do not meet
Subdivision ordinance requirements for approval (see comment #5 under Application Plan below)
or the Neighborhood Model Design Guidance from the Appendix of the Comprehensive Plan.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Per the Subdivision Ordinance, "the term `alley' means a form of vehicular travel way
providing access to the rear and/or side lot line of abutting properties which front along
streets. An alley is privately owned and maintained, is intended to be used primarily by
the owners and occupants of the abutting properties and persons and vehicles providing
services to those properties, including emergency services vehicles, and is not intended
for through traffic. An alley is not a private street...
RESPONSE: Comment received. We have revised the alleys to be private streets and will
be designed to private streets standards.
ii. Per Section 14-403 of the Subdivision Ordinance, "each lot within a subdivision shall
have frontage on an existing or proposed public or private street." No public or private
streets are provided for frontage purposes in Blocks 1 and 2 and therefore the proposal
cannot be subdivided unless all lots have frontage on a public or private street.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The alleys of Blocks 1 and 2 are now revised as private
streets, which will provide frontage.
in. Per the Comprehensive Plan Appendix, "Alleys are apart of a block pattern, although
sometimes only half of a block is constructed. They are travel ways which help to provide
"back access" to buildings and especially to houses. They are considered to be
"secondary" in the sense that the street in front of the building should provide for
parking on -street. They should not be confused with private streets which are intended to
provide primary access to buildings and structures. "
RESPONSE: Comment received. We have revised the alleys to be private streets and will
be designed to private streets standards.
iv. Public streets would better accomplish the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for
access management as stated in Chapter 10 (pages 10.19-10.21).
RESPONSE: To enhance safety and accessibility within this predominately residential
development, a mixture of public and private streets is proposed. Chapter 10 of the
Comprehensive Plan outlines that "access management is a planning tool that provides
for more efficient roadways by consolidating or limiting driveways, entrances, and
median openings along collector and arterial roads." The proposed streets in White Gate
Village will not be classified as collector or arterial roads, and any roads with proposed
entrances onto collector or arterial roads are proposed to be public and must conform
with VDOT access management standards; Route 240 Three Notch'd Road is classified
as a minor arterial, while Park Ridge Drive is a local street.
The mixture of public and private streets within White Gate Village serve to provide
primary and secondary connections throughout the development. Public roads act as main
accessways around the blocks and provide access in and out of the site, whereas private
streets serve as tangential pathways within these residential blocks. Traffic on private
streets would be composed of only residents that live within that particular block, while
public streets serve all residential and commercial traffic. This development is expected
to create a neighborhood residential environment, with supporting commercial use, rather
than a high -traffic mixed -use center. Ample parks and garden spaces integrated
throughout the development, shared roadways between vehicular and non -vehicular
traffic, short blocks, and `side friction' of on -street parking encourage lower speeds and
higher visibility for drivers. With the anticipated conditions of such a neighborhood
environment, it is expected that the public and private street connections in White Gate
Village would sufficiently manage traffic and facilitate access management in and around
the development.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
V. Please be conscientious about avoiding the creation of double -frontage lots when
redesigning the alleys and streets in Blocks 1 and 2. See Section 14-401 and 14-419 of
the Subdivision Ordinance for further information about double frontage lot
requirements.
RESPONSE: Comment received, double frontage lots will likely not be created because
the design accounts for open space lots between the ROW and building areas for lots
where a double frontage condition could take shape. If double frontage lots do take shape
during site plan, required screening will be provided.
3. The Code of Development (COD) does not mention how bicycle networks will be achieved
within and around the development. Please be aware that the Bike Network implementation
strategy specified in the Crozet Master Plan Appendix and the new street recommended cross
section from Chapter 5 of the Crozet Master Plan state that all new streets should "should have
two lanes and be built with the features of an urban street." The implementation strategy
recommends requiring "construction of bike and pedestrian connections with development
projects."
i. Please be aware that if bike lanes are not provided, this will be cited as an unfavorable
factor in the staff report for this application.
RESPONSE: Comment received. We respectfully submit that the road conditions of
White Crate Village would not prompt bike lanes adjacent to the proposed roads. Speed
limits will not exceed 25 mph in this predominately residential development and truck
traffic would be reserved for the commercial portion immediately adjacent to the Park
Ridge Drive entrance. Bike lanes are typically recommended for streets with more than
3,000 trips per day, on roads with speed limits higher than 25 mph that additionally
experience high transit vehicle volume.
[https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/)
4. VDOT and County Transportation staff have requested that a turn lane warrant analysis be
conducted by the applicant for Park Ridge Drive and Three Notch'd Road. Please provide this
information on a future submittal. See comments from those reviewers below. Please be aware
that pending the review of the turn lane warrant analyses, staff may find that the application has
not mitigate all applicable transportation infrastructure impacts. Currently, the only transportation
improvement proposed with the application is an "approximate 30' wide ROW reservation" along
Three Notch'd Road that includes a 10' multi -use path. See below:
i. The Application Plan should provide more specificity regarding the ROW reservation.
Explain why the reservation is "approximate." When will the ROW reservation occur?
RESPONSE: As the boundary survey was pending at the time of submission, the initial
ROW reservation was determined to be approximate. Since the initial submission, a
boundary and edge of pavement survey has been conducted; the approximate ROW
reservation has been provided accordingly.
ii. Pending turn lane warrant analysis, staff may recommend that the ROW reservation be
revised in order to address traffic generation and street infrastructure improvement needs.
RESPONSE: A turn lane warrant analysis has been provided with this submission as well
as the surveyed boundary.
5. The Application Plan or Code of Development need to include a net density calculation so that
staff can verify that the total number of units complies with the Crozet Master Plan and
Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Net density is calculated by identifying the total acreage
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
of all future land use designations within the development, and then subtracting the acreage of
Greenspace. 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.
i. A line should be added to Table C on page 4 of the COD stating the net density in each
block, and the overall net density through the entire project.
RESPONSE: Gross and net density calculations have been provided within Table C.
6. There are areas of Preserved Steep Slopes within the development that appear to be impacted by
new roads and lots in Blocks 1, 5, and 6. See Zoning Division comment 419.
i. More information is needed in order for staff to evaluate and verify whether these
impacts are permitted. Consult Section 18-30.7.5 (b)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance for
further information.
RESPONSE: See responses to related zoning comments.
Section 18-33.18(B) Application Plan Comments
1. Revise the Magisterial District note so that it states White Hall.
RESPONSE: Comment received. This note has been revised.
2. Revise Sheet 2 so that it states all applicable overlay zoning districts. This includes Managed and
Preserved Steep Slopes and Entrance Corridor,
RESPONSE: Comment received. This note has been revised.
3. Regarding Sheet 2: at this time, TMP 56-91A only has "water to existing structures" ACSA
utility service. As stated above, an ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment Application will need
to be submitted with the next ZMA submittal, reviewed, and approved by the Board of
Supervisors in order to provide water and sewer to the development.
RESPONSE: The note has been updated and an ACSAJA application has been submitted with
this resubmission.
4. Private streets are proposed to serve new lots in Block 3. This requires Planning Commission
approval, per Section 14-233 (A)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Please submit a private street
authorization request in accordance with Section 14-234 (A). Provide evidence and information
as specified under Section 14-234(B) and explain how the request meets the findings under
Section 14-234 (C).
RESPONSE: Private street requests have been submitted with this application.
5. Per Section 14-236, the proposed private alleys in Blocks 1 and 2 cannot be authorized by the
agent. Per 14-236(B), The agent may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one or more
alleys in the development areas when street frontage exists or will be provided for all lots to be
served by the alley(s). Currently, all proposed lots except for the southernmost lots in Blocks 2 do
not have frontage on a public or private street and therefore cannot be subdivided. The proposed
alleys cannot be authorized as currently designed.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Alleys are removed and private streets have been requested.
6. Figure A on page 9 shows the landscape buffer along Route 240 being outside of the ROW.
Please explain who will own and maintain the proposed buffer.
RESPONSE: The portion of the landscape buffer that will be outside of the ROW will be an open
space lot maintained by an HOA.
7. Figure A on page 9 identifies a 10' wide buffer along Route 240 along the road frontage of
Blocks 1 and 2. However, the Neighborhood Model Design Guidance from the Comprehensive
Plan Appendix recommends a vegetated buffer measuring between 30' and 50' along roadways
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
adjacent to the development area boundaries. The proposed buffer should be widened to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The buffer has been widened to be consistent with the recently adopted Crozet
Master Plan.
8. Planting strips are required within the right-of-way along streets in the Development Areas, per
the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The Application Plan does not show planting
strips along the proposed private streets, per the cross-section on Sheet 11.
RESPONSE: Private roads A and B will not have a planting strip because they will effectively
function as alleys.
9. On Sheet 8, please show where sidewalks and walking paths will be provided throughout the
project.
RESPONSE: On sheet 8, the inset map has been updated to show sidewalks throughout the
project.
10. Sidewalks are not shown within Block 1 on Sheet 6 of the Application Plan. This is not consistent
with the Pedestrian Orientation or Multimodal Transportation Opportunities Neighborhood
Model Principles.
RESPONSE: Sidewalks and walking paths are now shown on this concept; the private streets
shown with one-way vehicular flow will function as alleys providing vehicular access to garages.
The main pedestrian space for the units that will gain access from the private streets will be
within the central greenspace shown flanked by the building areas.
Section 18-20A.5 Code of Development Comments
1. See Housing Planner comments regarding note changes on page 11.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The affordable housing note has been revised.
2. Remove references from uses that are not permitted in Table A on pages 2 and 3. See Zoning
Division comments.
RESPONSE: The uses that are not permitted in Table A are included, per Sec. 20A.5(f) which
requires that all uses expressly prohibited in the district shall be included in the Code of
Development, so that they may not be considered uses accessory to a permitted use however, if it
is the preference and current practice of the County for uses expressly not permitted within an
NMD to not be listed within the COD, the table can be modified to remove such references.
3. Consider adding single-family detached as a permitted use in Table A. This will allow for
different residential uses within the development without having to go through a future rezoning
process. It will also make the application more consistent with the Neighborhood Model
Principles regarding a mix of hou s and affordability. See Zoning Division comments.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Single-family detached dwelling units are now included as a
permissible housing type in Table A.
4. Add Family Day Home as a BR use in any blocks where residential uses are permitted.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Family Day Homes are now incorporated as a BR use in any
blocks where residential uses are permitted.
5. Delete Public Establishments, General Commercial Service and Institutional from the use table.
List uses as they appear in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: These general use categories have been removed and more specific uses have been
incorporated to reflect uses as they appear in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Change Tier I and Tier II wireless facilities to not permitted in Block 4.
RESPONSE: Comment received. While the block layout has been revised, Block 4 still
encompasses the stream buffer and the Tier I and Tier H wireless facilities are not permitted in
this block.
7. Daycare and restaurant are mentioned as potential uses in the narrative but are not listed as BR
uses in the use table.
RESPONSE: Daycare and restaurant uses are now listed in the use table; in the initial submission,
it was thought the "general commercial service" category would capture these uses.
8. A line should be added to Table C on page 4 of the COD stating the net density in each block, and
the overall net density through the entire project.
RESPONSE: Table C has been revised to incorporate gross and net areas and densities for Block
1. The net area for Block 1 is less the 100' buffer from the edge of Route 240 pavement. Blocks
2-4 do not have differing gross and net areas, therefore do not have differing gross and net
densities.
9. See Zoning and ARB comments regarding the building fagade examples on Sheet 7. Figure 2
does not include architectural elements consistent with Neighborhood Model Principles or
Entrance Corridor Guidelines and should be removed from the COD.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The image identified as "Figure 2" in the previous submittal has
been removed from the COD.
10. See Zoning and ARB comments regarding inconsistencies between architectural standard notes
and the renderings provided in the COD. Text under architectural standards should match the
images for purposes of clarity. Revise as recommended by Zoning and ARB staff.
RESPONSE: Comment received. See our responses below.
11. Delete the first two notes under "Fagade Treatments" on page 7. See Zoning and ARB comments
for further information.
RESPONSE: Comment received, these notes have been deleted.
12, Add minimum and maximum setbacks for accessory structures. See Zoning Division comments.
RESPONSE: Note 6 has been added to Table E, which establishes that accessory structures shall
have a minimum 5' setback for front, side, and rear.
13. It is difficult to ascertain how to apply/enforce the parking standards on page 9 based on the size
of the image provided. Please enlarge the image so staff can verify that the notes and standards
for parking are being met through the current design. See Zoning Division comments.
Additionally, perpendicular parking proposed in Block 1 is not consistent with the Neighborhood
Model Guidelines, see the attached Neighborhood Model Analysis for further information.
Further comments on parking standards may be forthcoming pending future submittal.
RESPONSE: Additional information has been added to the parking standards section. We will
continue to work with staff to ensure the regulations proposed are enforceable during site plan
development.
14. Provide more details on the size, width, and surface materials of the proposed multi -use path
along Route 240. Be aware that the Crozet Master Plan designates this segment of Route 240 as a
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Rural Road cross-section, which requires a walking/biking path along one side of the road.
Typically, this is a minimum 10' paved path.
RESPONSE: The proposed section for the multi -use path has been added to the Code of
Development. Because this multi -use path will be dedicated for public use, the path will comply
with VDOT regulations. VDOT requires a 10' path with a 2' graded shoulder on either side.
15. Please explain why sidewalks and bike lanes are not provided along Park Ridge Drive. Although
Park Ridge Drive is an existing street, it does not contain sidewalks or bike lanes adjacent to the
project. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle networks in Crozet generally, the Master Plan (page
41) states "For existing neighborhoods, which have rural section roads, paths are needed to
connect neighborhoods to Downtown and to each other." It also states "Pedestrian and bike
linkages to Downtown are especially important, and the Master Plan makes recommendations for
specific improvements to enhance mobility."
i. When "Main Street" is completed (see page 39 of the Crozet Master Plan), Park Ridge
Drive will be connected to downtown. Feasibly, downtown Crozet is within walking
distance of downtown. However, pedestrian and bike facilities are not currently available.
Please explain why the application does not proposed bike or pedestrian facilities along
Park Ridge Drive.
RESPONSE: At the time of this resubmission, the final draft of the Crozet Master Plan has been
released, which does not recommend a sidewalk along the Park Ridge Drive frontage. With the
proposed multi -use path along the Route 240 frontage, pedestrians would be encouraged to turn
into the Montclair development on Public Road B, turn onto Public Road C, which would lead
them to a crosswalk on Park Ridge Drive, towards an existing pedestrian walkway.
16. Provide more details on the width of the landscaping buffer and proposed landscaping materials
that will be provided in the buffer along Route 240. Be aware that the Neighborhood Model
Design Guidance states "A buffered boundary should consist of a heavily vegetated or
landscaped area of 30 — 50 feet alongside the roadway in the Development Area. This area
should screen development, especially if the area would otherwise expose the sides or rear views
of buildings. " Details of proposed landscaping materials and/or other screening measures should
be provided.
RESPONSE: As established in the Crozet Master Plan, a 100' landscape buffer is proposed from
the edge of pavement. As provided for in the Code of Development, units along the Route 240
frontage will be designed with front facades facing the roadway.
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 subject properties are identified as Tax Map Parcels (TMP) 05600-00-00-091AO and 056E0-00-00-
00200. Both properties are located in the Crozet Development Area.
TMP 56-91 A measures 12.19 acres and is zoned RA Rural Areas. It is located within the EC Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. Portions of the property lie within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District.
The property has been known historically as the White Gate Farm and it is occupied by a two-story
single-family detached dwelling measuring approximately 3,300 sq. ft. The structure is not currently
occupied and used as a residence. According to GIS records, the home was built in 1800.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
TMP 56E-2 measures 5.32 acres and is zoned LI Light Industry. It is located within the EC Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. Portions of the property lie within the Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes
Overlay Districts. There are not structures on the property. However, a paved driveway crosses the parcel
and is used as a vehicular access way to a structure on an adjoining property immediately to its south.
The Land Use Plan contained in Chapter 4 of the Crozet Master Plan designates three future land use
classifications on portions of both parcels:
1. Light Industrial (image removed);
2. Greenspace (image removed).
The Crozet Master Plan explains that the Light Industrial classification represents uses that involve
manufacturing, predominantly from previously prepared materials, of products or parts. It may include
processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of these
products. It does not include basic industrial processing. Light Industrial areas provide a place for
employment and commercial uses that need to be segregated from residential uses and other commercial
uses because of their impacts. Primary and secondary uses are as follows:
• Primary uses: Light manufacturing, storage, and distribution;
• Secondary uses: Office and retail activities (particularly wholesale), research and development
(R&D), flex;
• Secondary uses: other commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the area,
larger auto commercial service uses;
• Secondary: open space and institutional uses.
The Greenspace classification applies to all existing and proposed public parks, public open space,
environmental features and active park areas. It also contains important environmental features and
privately -owned park and recreational areas which may be active or passive. Sensitive environmental
features including stream buffers, flood plains, and adjacent slopes are included in this category.
Typically, only passive recreation and greenway trails will occur in the sensitive environmental areas,
while active recreation is planned for other areas.
The Crozet Master Plan states that Tax Map 56 Parcel 9 1 A is intended to remain rural and undeveloped to
help break up the appearance of continuous development along Three Notch'd Road.
The Master Plan identifies the general area where both properties are located as the "Music Today Former
Con -Agra Area." General recommendations on land use for this area are as follows:
• Support existing industries to retain existing employers.
• Attract new employers to the undeveloped areas.
• Support residential developments that create a live/work neighborhood. Encourage only office,
retail, and services that directly support industry in this area.
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
§ 18-33.27(B). 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.
Anticipated impacts on public facilities and services
Please revise the impacts to schools section of the narrative so that it identifies how many students will be
generated by the development using ACPS multipliers for each dwelling unit type proposed. Since
multifamily uses are not permitted, that row should be removed from the table. If detached single-family
dwellings are added as a permitted use to the COD, add a line and provide the calculation.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Currently, the narrative and application overall do not identify the impacts to school enrollment, and
whether anything is proposed by the applicant to offset enrollment impacts. Staff needs more information
and clarity on this.
RESPONSE: Additional information regarding anticipated impacts to school enrollment has been
incorporated into the project narrative.
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. A summary of the relevant principles
is provided in an attachment to this letter.
Community Meeting
Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a community meeting to be held prior to moving forward
with a public hearing. Staff has determined that the community meeting will be held virtually using Zoom
and Publicinput.com with the Crozet CAC on November 30, 2020.
Staff will send follow-up information regarding preparation of invitation letters to the community
meeting. Please be aware that invitation letters need to be sent out to surrounding properties at least 14
days in advance of the community meeting.
Zoning
Rebecca Ragsdale — Principal Planner
Code of Development
Page 2
1. Delete all uses that are not permitted from the use table.
RESPONSE: The uses that are not permitted in Table A are included, per Sec. 20A.5(f) which
states that all uses expressly prohibited in the district shall be included in the Code of
Development, so that they may not be considered uses accessory to a permitted use however, if it
is the preference and current practice of the County for uses expressly not permitted within an
NMD to not be listed within the COD, the table can be modified to remove such references.
2. Consider adding single family detached as an allowed use.
RESPONSE: Single family detached units are now included as an allowed use.
3. Add Family Day Home as a BR use in any blocks where residential uses are permittec
RESPONSE: Family Day Home is now provided in Table A as a permitted use within any block
where residential uses are permitted.
4. Delete Public Establishments, General Commercial Service and Institutional from the use table.
List uses as they appear in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
RESPONSE: Public Establishments, general commercial service and institutional as general use
categories have been deleted from the use table; uses have been revised to appear as they do in
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Daycare and restaurant are mentioned as potential uses in the narrative but are not listed as BR
uses in the use table.
RESPONSE: Daycare and restaurant are potential uses captured by the General Commercial
Service use that was listed in the initial submission however, since the use table has been revised
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
with this submission to be more specific daycare and restaurant uses are now listed as uses in
Table A.
6. Consider allowing a small inn as permitted use.
RESPONSE: Hotel is now listed as a by -right use in Block 2 with a 20 guest room limitation
noted in Note 3 to Table A.
Page 3
7. Delete Note 1. There must be no references to uses not defined by the ordinance or in this code of
development. It is also not necessary to restate what is already provided for in the ordinance
according to Section 8.5.5.2(c)
RESPONSE: Note 1 has been deleted.
Page 5 and 6
8. These pages can be combined.
RESPONSE: Table D and Table Dl are now provided for on the same page.
9. Note 3 is not needed as it is repeating the definition of Greenspace already in the ordinance. If it
remains, update the note to include "Greenspace, as defined by Section 3 of the Zoning
ordinance...."
RESPONSE: A reference to Section 3.1 has been added to this note.
Page 7
10, The examples provided in Figures 1-3 do not appear to illustrate the stated COD regulations.
RESPONSE: Figure 2 has been removed, per ARB comment.
11. The first two notes under Fagade Treatments should be deleted.
RESPONSE: Comment received, these notes have been deleted.
12. Clarify what is intended with the regulation for building facades adjacent to Route 240. Indicate
the location of the building envelopes this will apply to on the application plan and remove the
wording "building facades nearest to Route 240" or clarify in the COD.
RESPONSE: This note has been revised for clarity.
Page 8
13. Reword note 2 for clarity. Define "main" building.
RESPONSE: This note has been updated to reference Section 4.20(a)(1), which provides this
language.
14. Is note 5 intended to prohibit encroachments into side and rear setbacks or just prohibit
encroachments into the front setback? The way it is written, based on Section 4.11.1 up to a 4'
encroachment would be permitted into the rear setback.
RESPONSE: This note has been removed.
15. Include setbacks for accessory structures in the setback table.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to this table to establish that accessory structures shall be a
minimum of 5' from property lines.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Page 9
16. The Parking Areas section should be written with enforceable standards in lieu of just referencing
Figure 4. Are there relegating parking standards that will apply by block or road frontage?
RESPONSE: The Parking Areas section has been revised to call out relegated parking from Route
240 and Park Ridge Drive as key elements of the parking program shown in Figure 4. The
Parking Areas section has also been revised to note that required parking minimums may be
provided on or off -site.
17, If Figure 4 remains, it should be enlarged and noted so that it illustrates the parking standards that
need to be added to this section of the COD.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The figure has been resized for legibility.
Application Plan
Sheet 2
18, The Magisterial District is White Hall, not Crozet. Please make this correction.
RESPONSE: Comment received. This has been updated.
Sheet 3
19. The existing conditions sheet does not show easements (access/drainage/fencing/sign easement)
etc.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The existing conditions sheet has been revised to include all
applicable easements.
20. Preserved slopes are shown on this sheet as they appear in GIS. The application plan proposes
disturbance and uses not permitted on Preserved Slopes. Have these slopes been surveyed to be
less than 25%? If they are greater than 25%, then disturbance must be expressly authorized in the
COD and application plan. See ordinance language below.
Legislative zoning actions related to the underlying district. Any use or structure approved by the
board of supervisors in a zoning map amendment whose location is expressly authorized in an
approved application plan, code of development, or an accepted proffer, in a special use permit
authorized in the underlying district regulations, or in a special exception authorizing a waiver or
modification of the requirements of section 4.2.3; provided that the legislative action is still valid and
that the use or structure complies with all requirements and conditions approved or imposed in
conjunction with the legislative zoning action.
Slopes less than 25 percent based on new topographic information. Any use or structure
allowed by right or by special use permit in the underlying district, provided that the owner
submits new topographic information that is based on more accurate or better technical
data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the county engineer, that the slopes are less than
25 percent.
RESPONSE: The application plan has been updated to note the requested designation of some of the
preserved slopes on the property as managed. The ordinance notes that the location of the use or
structure is to be authorized in the application plan, code of development, or an accepted proffer. If
needed for clarity and consistency, we will work with Staff to incorporate language into the COD that
permits certain uses and structures on specific slopes.
Sheets 5 and 8
21. Combine these sheets.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: The Green and Amenity Space and Land Use sheets are now shown together on the
Land Use sheet.
22. Show on the sheet where walking paths/greenway will be located as described throughout the
COD and the narrative.
RESPONSE: The Land Use sheet conceptually shows the sidewalk and trail network in the
development. A multi -use path is proposed along the Route 240 frontage.
Transportation Planning
Daniel Butch — Senior Planner
1. Provide trip generation in submittal at max build out scenario. If over 1000 trips per day, evaluate
operations at Park Ridge and 240. Additional background traffic information on that intersection
from the Crozet Traffic Study is available which we can provide you.
RESPONSE: The `transportation" analysis in the project narrative has been updated to evaluate
the operations at Park Ridge and 240. The Crozet Traffic Study analyzed this intersection with an
anticipated build -out of 97 units on the Montclair property. There is an identified delay in the
future build condition of the northbound left maneuver from Park Ridge Drive on to Route 240.
Since this development will have an entrance directly from Route 240, it is anticipated trips from
this development will utilize that entrance to make a NBL maneuver onto Route 240 and
therefore would not greatly contribute to that maneuver from Park Ridge Drive.
2. Include sidewalk along Park Ridge frontage; and provide sidewalk circulation in and to Blocks 1
& 6 to other Blocks and Park Ridge frontage.
RESPONSE: Per the Crozet Master Plan, a sidewalk is not recommended along the Park Ridge
Drive frontage. Pedestrians would likely come off the proposed multi -use path on Route 240,
onto Public Road B, turn onto Public Road C, and utilize the crosswalk across Park Ridge Drive
to the existing pedestrian walkway to continue south.
Engineering
Frank Pohl — County Engineer
1. There is an existing stormwater management facility on TMP 56E-2. Removal will require an
amendment to the approved plan for that facility. Please also identify the facility (Facility ID
0010.01) on the application plan and state in the narrative that it will be modified.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please see the revised application plan and narrative.
2. The stream buffer extends from the beginning of the stream with a 100-ft radius, even if that is
currently where the existing stormwater facility is located. The existing SWM facility is allowed
within the buffer and maintenance/redesign of the facility may be allowed if the final land cover
of Block 5 meets forest and open space standards, however, redesigning to an underground
facility may not be permitted.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The conceptual stormwater plan has been revised to propose a
biofilter within stream buffer limits.
ARB
Margaret Mahszewski — Chief of Planning
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
1. If landscaping to create a true buffer is proposed along Rt. 240, a 10' width is insufficient.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The concept plan has been revised to provide approximately
50' from the proposed multiuse path and the residential units. Landscaping is to be provided in
this area to create a separation between Route 240 and the development.
2. The Code doesn't appear to be completely clear on the issue of building front orientation and
buffer planting. Buildings should be designed with fronts facing Rt. 240. If backs face Rt. 240, a
landscape buffer composed primarily of mixed evergreen species and a 20' minimum width
should be provided. The minimum requirements of 32.7.9.7 are insufficient in terms of plantings,
sizes, spacing and species.
RESPONSE: Buildings in this area will be designed with fronts facing Route 240, with a private
street along the rear to provide frontage as well as allow for garage access.
3. Figures 1 and 3 on sheet 7 of the Code of Development are appropriate examples of building
facades facing Rt. 240. Individual building fronts in Figure 2 lack depth and coordination. It is
recommended that Figure 2 be eliminated from the Code.
RESPONSE: Figure 2 has been removed from the COD.
4. The architectural standards section of the Code states that street -facing facades will not extend
more than 60' without change in plane. However, Figures 1 and 3 seem to illustrate facades with
plane changes much less than 60' apart. The text under "forms, massing and proportion" should
be revised to match the images. A 60' length without plane change seems excessive for attached
residential units.
RESPONSE: The text has been revised to require a change a plane at most every 40'.
5. Though proportional windows and painted wood finishes are appropriate, the first two bullets
under' Fapade Treatments" should be deleted from the Code.
RESPONSE: These notes have been removed from the COD.
Housing
Stacy Pethia — Housing Principal Planner
1. Page 11 of the Code of Development — under the For -Sale section, fourth line from bottom of
page, please change `the County or its designee may then have thirty (30) days' to `the County or
its designee may then have ninety (90) days' to conform with the marketing period.
RESPONSE: Comment received, this edit has been incorporated into the COD.
E911
Brian Becker — GIS Specialist
1. Critical Issues: Public roads Band C, private roads A and B, and private alleys A and B will each
require road names.
Comments: The public roads B and C, private roads A and B, and private alleys A and B will
each require road names, per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part B (page 2 of the PDF):
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed to serve
three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named... "
Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for each of the proposed roads and
alleys for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master
Road Names Directory can be accessed at the link in the Resources section.
RESPONSE: Comment received, road names will be provided at site plan.
VDOT
Max Greene — Area Land Use Engineer
1. Provide turn lane warrants for both Park Ridge Drive, Rt. 1250, and Three Notch'd Road, Rt.
240.
2. Public road "C" will need to line up with the entrance across Park Ridge Drive,
RESPONSE: Comment received. With the required entrance radius geometry, public road C is
aligned with the entrance across Park Ridge Drive.
3. 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.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
ACSA
1. Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Water to existing structures.
2. What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional site? On site.
3. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressures in the area are high. A pressure reducing valve (PRV) will be required for each
unit where pressures are greater than 80 psi.
4. Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? N/A
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? One of the parcels is currently in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water to
existing structures. The County is to determine when an ACSAJA amendment should be
reviewed.
7. If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implication sod you foresee?
8. Additional comments? RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments. The County has requested an ACSAJA application be
provided with this submission. This ACSAJA has been submitted concurrently with this submission.
RWSA
Dyon Vega — Civil Engineer
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision
Additional Comments:
None Known
5. RWSA has a 16" DI water line that runs through the front edge of this proposed close to the road.
RWSA would not allow any trees to be planted over the waterline. There is a picture attached for
reference as to where the waterline is in reference to the road.
RESPONSE: Thank you for sharing the image and for providing this information at this point in
the process. We will ensure that trees will not be planted over the waterline during site plan.
6. RWSA may request an additional easement with this project on TMP 56-91A.
RESPONSE: Comment received. A multiuse path is proposed along Route 240, which is to be
dedicated as public right-of-way.
Pedestrian
The application proposes sidewalks along all internal streets and Route 240,
Orientation
which is consistent with Strategy #2a of the Comprehensive Plan. However,
no sidewalks are provided along Park Ridge Drive. This presents a section of
discontinuity in pedestrian connections with surrounding streets.
The internal street network is laid out in a block fashion and will provide a
frame of reference for walkers using internal sidewalks. This is consistent
with Strategy #2b of the Comprehensive Plan. However, Strategy #2b
recommends that block lengths not exceed 600' in length. The COD does not
specify a maximum block length for residential blocks. Please clarify this.
This principle is not fully met.
RESPONSE: Per the 2021 Crozet Master Plan, a sidewalk is not
recommended along Park Ridge Drive. However, a sidewalk is recommended
on the other side of Park Ridge Drive. A multiuse path is proposed along the
Route 240 frontage and a robust sidewalk network through the development
would allow pedestrians to walk through the Montclair neighborhood, out to
Park Ridge Drive, and utilize a crosswalk to the recommended sidewalk
connection on Park Ridge Drive.
Although maximum block lengths are not included in the COD, if approved,
Montclair will be developed in general accord with the road network provided
in the application plan which does not include blocks that exceed 600' in
length.
Mixture of Uses
The application does not provide a mix of residential dwellings because only
single family attached is currently permitted. Some non-residential uses are
proposed such as office, retail sales & service, general commercial service.
However, these proposed uses are not consistent with the future land use
classification of TMP 56-91A (Greenspace) and TMP 56E-2 (Light
Industrial). In fact, the COD states that Light Industrial uses are not permit
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
at all on TMP 56E-2.
This principle could be strengthened by allowing additional residential use
types such as single-family detached dwellings. That said, unless the Crozet
Master Plan is updated to revise recommended future land use designations
on both properties, any mix of the currently proposed residential and
nonresidential uses specified in the COD do not meet the current future land
use recommendations.
This principle is not met.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Since the initial submission, the 2021
Crozet Master Plan has been finalized. The property is now designated as
Middle Density Residential, Neighborhood Density Residential, and
Greenspace. The proposed rezoning falls in line with the recommendations of
these land uses. Regarding the mixture of uses, the concept plan has been
updated to include a mixture of residential dwelling units. The development
proposes a mixture of single-family attached, duplexes, and triplexes, meeting
this principle.
Neighborhood
The Crozet Master Plan does not identify these properties as Centers.
Centers
This principle is not applicable to the request.
Mixture of Housing
The COD currently only allows single family attached uses. A mixture of
Types and
housing types is not provided.
Affordability
The application does meet the affordability aspect of this principle.
This principle is not fully met.
RESPONSE: A mixture of single-family attached, duplexes, and triplexes are
proposed with this submission. The Affordable Housing section of the COD
has been slightly revised per Stacy Pethia's comments.
Interconnected
The development will connect to Wickham Pond to the east, which is
Streets and
consistent with interconnectivity, requirements as specified by Strategy 92j.
Transportation
Networks
This principle is met.
Multi -modal
Pedestrian facilities are provided in most areas inside the project and along
Transportation
Route 240. However, no sidewalks are shown within Block 1 on Sheet 6 of
Opportunities
the Application Plan, which is inconsistent with this principle.
It is unclear whether bicycle improvements are being met along internal
streets and Park Ridge Drive.
No pedestrian facilities are provided along Park Ridge Drive. See
Transportation Planning for further information.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
This principle is partially met but could be strengthened.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Regarding bicycle improvements internal to
the property, please see our responses to Transportation. For Park Ridge
Drive, the 2021 Crozet Master Plan does not recommend bicycle
improvements in this area.
Parks, Recreational
The proposal does not demonstrate consistency with Crozet Master Plan
Amenities, and Opel
recommendations for Greenspace on TMP 56-91A.
Space
White Gate Village provides four (4) centralized park/outdoor amenities
throughout the development. These are places where residents can congregate
This principle is not fully met.
RESPONSE: With the finalized 2021 Crozet Master Plan, the Greenspace
designation on the property has shifted around the stream buffer. This area is
to remain as Greenspace, with passive amenity areas proposed.
Buildings and Space
The Code of Development is consistent with recommended building heigh
of Human Scale
However, there are several recommended changes to architectural standards
and facade treatments. See ARB, Zoning, and Planning Division comments
for further information. Until these aspects are revised, staff cannot say that
the proposed architecture and structures within the project meet scale,
massing, and treatment recommendations specified in Strategy 42m.
The Neighborhood Model Design Guidance section of the Comprehensive
Plan Appendix states that "The primary fagade of a building should face the
main public street to which it fronts. "
Structures in Block 2 along Public Road C should face Public Road C, so
please make the necessary revisions to page 7 of the COD where lots are
adjacent to a public street.
Additionally, as explained in the main comment letter, there are issues with
the proposed private alleys in Blocks 1 and 2. Depending on how the
applicant addresses the road comments (such as redesigning private streets to
public streets, maintaining alleys in some places while provided public streets
along lot frontages), the architectural standards specified on page 7 of the
COD may need to be revised to clarify where primary building facades will
face in those blocks.
This principle is not fully met.
RESPONSE: Comment received. We will continue to work with ARB staff
throughout the review process to propose regulations that ensure this
development is built to create buildings and spaces of human scale. Revisions
have been made to the architectural design guidelines per ARB comments.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
On -street parking shown along Road B is consistent with this principle.
However, the Application Plan shows perpendicular on -street parking spaces
in Block 1 which is entirely inconsistent with this principle.
Parking in Blocks 2 and 3 are not relegated to the side or rear of structures,
which is also inconsistent with this principle.
See Figures 16 and 17 in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan for examples
of how parking can be relegated to the side or rear, utilizing garages along
streets and alleys.
This principle is not met.
RESPONSE: The parking and street layout has been revised and parking is
now relegated from the streets.
Redevelopment
Both properties are currently undeveloped.
Phis principle is not applicable to the request.
Respecting Terrain
The property contains areas within both the Managed and Preserved Steep
and Careful Gradin;
Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning
and Re -grading of
Ordinance, Managed Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of
Terrain
Section 18-30.7.5 are adhered to. This includes future buildings and parking
areas.
However, the project shows impacts to areas of Preserved Steep Slopes in
Blocks 1, 5, and 6, which may not be permitted under Section 18-30.7.5. It
appears that some dwelling units in Block 1 overlap with Preserved Steep
Slopes. See Zoning Division comments regarding this. More information
( such as updated topographic information) is needed in order for staff to
evaluate and verify whether the proposed impacts/grading are permissible
This principle is not met.
RESPONSE: The application plan has been updated to show where
disturbance is proposed to preserved slopes and what improvements are
proposed on what are currently designated as preserved slopes. The slopes
that are proposed to be disturbed are not located within any designated stream
buffer and do not comprise a large contiguous area of slopes. It appears that
they have been previously disturbed by either the construction of Park Ridge
Drive, the travelway to the daycare, or the stormwater pond. There are
preserved slopes further south on the property that are within stream buffer
area where no disturbance is proposed.
Clear Boundal'iL.,
The subject property is located within the Crozet Development Area. It is
with the Rural Are:,
adjacent to the Rural Area boundary which is located across Three Notch'd
Road (Route 240).
A 10' wide landscaping buffer is proposed along Route 240 on the north side
of the development. However, the Neighborhood Model Design Guidelines
from the Comprehensive Plan Appendix recommend that a buffer measuring
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
between 30' — 50' be provided along development area boundaries such as
this. Therefore, the 10' buffer currently proposed does not adequately provide
a physical and visual boundary between the project and the Rural Area,
consistent with Strategy #2r of the Comprehensive Plan.
This principle is not fully met.
RESPONSE: The buffer area has been revised and reflects what is included in
the recently adopted Crozet Master Plan.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
kelsakshimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Kelsey Schlein
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com