HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202200004 Correspondence 2022-10-04 (3)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
October 3, 2022
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #1 for ZMA2022-00004 1906 Avon Street Extended
Dear Andy,
Thank you for your review of the zoning map amendment request for 1906 Avon Street Extended. This
letter contains responses to County comments dated August 8, 2022. Our responses are as follows:
Planning — General Application Comments
1. This application proposes a density that is significantly higher than what is recommended by the
Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan, for these properties, at nearly twice as
dense (10.43 units / acre proposed vs. a maximum of 6 units / acre recommended). It proposes a
density that is more appropriate for the Urban Density Residential land use designation, whereas
these parcels are designated at Neighborhood Density Residential. The proposal is not in
conformance with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan.
RESPONSE: The Comprehensive Plan is to be general in nature and designate the general
character of an area. This proposal meets the general character of the area by proposing a form
and concept that is consistent with the surrounding context and the character of the Avon St
corridor. The site is surrounded by designated land uses, such as Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial, Community Mixed Use, Urban Density Residential, and Neighborhood Density
Residential, all within a 500' radius. The Avon Street corridor features a diversity of land uses
and built form, that should lend itself to higher density. Avon Street additionally provides direct
access to the City of Charlottesville as well as Interstate 64, allowing for regional access for
future residents. Providing density where appropriate becomes more salient as the County seeks
to work towards an updated Comprehensive Plan. According to the AC44 2022 report, Planning
for Growth: Future Land Use Buildout, "from 2016 to 2021, the total residential density approved
through rezonings was approximately 58 percent of the maximum recommended density per
future land use designations for these properties" (16). To accommodate growth over time in the
County without expanding the Development Areas, additional density should be strategically
considered in areas with multimodal transportation opportunities, public utility access, and access
to green and open space. The subject property is located on a planned transportation corridor,
with current and future improvements underway, within ACSA jurisdictional limits, with access
to green and open space internal and external to the site, and surrounded by a variety of land uses,
the project is a strong contender for increasing the recommended number of units from a
maximum of 21 units to 38 units. 17 additional dwelling units within the existing Development
Areas, along a mixed -use corridor would integrate strategic density, where "under current zoning,
there is likely not sufficient capacity to accommodate 20 years of growth" in addition to zoning
map amendments continually falling short of the recommended maximum.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
2. Multi -family residential uses, as proposed for some of the units within this development, are not
identified as a primary use within the Neighborhood Density Residential land use designation.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The justification for providing a multi -family housing
opportunity in this location is consistent with the justification provided for density in this location
in the previous response.
3. Revise the application materials with the assigned application number, ZMA202200004.
RESPONSE: The application plan and narrative have been updated to include the assigned
application number.
4. On sheet 2 of the concept plan, in the zoning note, it may be helpful to clarify the proposed
zoning as "R-15 Residential with Proffers."
RESPONSE: The proposed zoning description has been updated to clarify that proffers are
included with the zoning map amendment.
5. The Open Space section on sheet 2 of the concept plan references a cluster development.
However, there does not appear to be any commitment in the application that this project would
be developed using the cluster regulations.
RESPONSE: A cluster development is proposed to be pursued to realize the proposed concept
plan as the minimum lot size for a conventional development cannot be realized for some of the
townhome lots.
6. Sheets 2 and 4 of the concept plan identify separate densities for Blocks 1 and 2. However, the
acreage of each proposed block is not provided, so staff is not able to analyze the exact size and
determine the density of these blocks.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The density calculation has been updated to include an area
calculation for each block.
7. On sheet 4, is there a proposed maximum number or range of units in each of the two blocks?
RESPONSE: There is a commitment to limit the overall property density to a maximum of 38
units or 11 DUA. To maintain flexibility, we would like to request the per block density remains
open, however, if Staff feels strongly about setting a maximum density per block, we are willing
to work with Staff to determine the density per block.
8. What are the proposed numbers or ranges of each unit type in this development? Densities are
provided; however, staff is unable to analyze how many of these are proposed to be townhouses
or multi -family.
RESPONSE: Sheet 4 has been updated to clarify that Block 1 is proposed as 13 DUA, or 22
single-family attached units and Block 2 as 9 DUA, or 16 multifamily units.
9. Is there a proposed maximum number of residential units in each of the multi -family buildings?
RESPONSE: The concept plan currently proposes the multifamily buildings as four unit
buildings.
10. How many stories are the multi -family buildings expected to be?
RESPONSE: The multifamily buildings are proposed as 3 stories above a garage. The structure
would appear as 2 stories from the proposed Public Road A and 4 stories from Avon Street.
11. A lack of a direct vehicular connection with Avon Street does not promote the policy of
interconnectivity, with potential conflicts regarding access with the existing Avon Park
subdivision. It is recommended that a direct connection is provided to Avon Street.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
There also does not appear to be any pedestrian connections between the proposed residential
units and Avon Street.
RESPONSE: Following ongoing discussions with VDOT, it is our understanding that extending
Hathaway Street to the northern property boundary to allow for future interconnectivity would
promote VDOT's policy of interconnectivity, by allowing for the adjacent parcel to tie into this
public street connection at the time of redevelopment. Furthermore, in order to provide a
connection from the end of existing Hathaway Street to Avon Street within the subject property,
design waivers would need to be pursued as this road connection is not possible within typical
VDOT design requirements. This is due to the existing slope of Hathaway Street, which has an
upward slope towards its existing termination, where the grade is approximately at 683'. This
upward slope would need to be maintained for a certain distance before sloping downwards to
adhere to vertical curve requirements. Where Hathaway Street would connect to Avon Street
within the subject property, the existing grade is approximately 640', which would require the
extension of Hathaway Street to negotiate nearly 40' of grade change. To realize this connection,
maximum road grade as determined by VDOT would need to be waived, as well as sight distance
requirements related to the vertical curve. These requested waivers would negatively impact safe
access, whereas a connection to Avon Street through the adjacent parcel 90-33A would allow
additional distance for Hathaway Street to slope towards the existing Avon Street elevation. An
exhibit is attached for Staff and VDOT review, demonstrating (1) the extension of Hathaway
Street to Avon Street within the subject property, which would require several design waivers and
(2) the extension of Hathaway Street to Avon Street through the adjacent property TMP 90-33A.
We request that the attached exhibits be distributed to VDOT for further review.
Please note that the concept plan has been updated to propose a pedestrian connection from
Public Road A to Avon Street. This pedestrian connection would be located through a greenspace
area.
12. What is the proposed amount/percentage of green and/or open space being provided with this
development? There appears to be a minimal amount of open space proposed for the requested
density.
RESPONSE: The intent is to develop as a cluster development, which will require a minimum of
25 percent of the total property. With the mixture of single family attached and multifamily
structures, the provided open space would exceed this requirement. The concept plans have been
updated to clarify the other possible areas of greenspace that may be utilized by the community.
13, Provide more information on the green space and proposed recreational facilities, so that staff can
analyze whether there is sufficient area provided to accommodate the minimum rec facilities
required by the ordinance, such as the rough size of the central open space area. (Staff recognizes
that final size and facilities would be determined at the site planning stage.) If any substitutions to
the required rec facilities are requested, a substitution request will be required at the site planning
stage for review by the Planning Director.
RESPONSE: Per Sec. 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum of 200 square feet of
recreational area per unit is required for every development with 30 units or more. The proposal
for the development of 38 units would require 7,600 square feet of recreational area. For 38 units,
one tot lot, within 2,000 SF of area. With the central greenspace designed as 5,000 SF, the
supplementary recreational areas in each block would meet the required 7,600 SF of recreational
area for residents to enjoy.
14. Is sidewalk proposed to be constructed along the Avon Street frontage of this property? See also
comments from the Transportation Planning division below.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: The sidewalk is currently being constructed along Avon Street by the County. We
have included this existing connection in the concept plans and have proposed a pedestrian
connection from the development to this newly constructed sidewalk.
15. There do not appear to be any pedestrian connections to the central open space area. It is
important to provide some connections for safe access from the residential units to the open space
area and any rec facilities that would be located there.
RESPONSE: Comment received. A crosswalk has been added from the sidewalk along Public
Road A, across to the central open space area.
16. Although ARB guidelines are not currently being applied to this corridor, it is recommended that
the 104 retaining wall be terraced. This wall would be very visible to pedestrians along Avon
Street and does not conform with the neighborhood model principles.
RESPONSE: Comment received. We have revised the wall to be terraced. Additionally, please
note that the wall is designed to be increasingly further from the sidewalk. While the closest point
to the sidewalk is approximately 8', at its furthest point, the wall is over 100' from the sidewalk.
With this increasing distance, there would be minimal impact to pedestrians walking along the
property's frontage.
17. In the narrative, include a section on the impact of this development on police and fire -rescue
services.
RESPONSE: The narrative now includes a section on the anticipated impact of the development
on police and fire -rescue services; please see "Impacts on public safety services" for an analysis.
18. Is it proposed that this development will be subdivided? Or will the entire project remain under
common ownership?
If subdivision occurs, then the applicable regulations in Chapter 14 of the County Code would
have to be met, such as frontage requirements, sidewalks, and planting strips. An entity would
also need to be created or designated for ownership and maintenance of common features of the
development.
If the development is subdivided as a condominium, then the Code requirements for condos will
need to be met (see 18-4.5).
RESPONSE: Comment received. The intent of the development is to be subdivided and will
follow the applicable regulations per Chapter 14 and/or Section 18-4.5.
19. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks and planting strips to be provided on both sides of a
street, unless waived by the Planning Commission. Staff notes that waiver requests have been
submitted with the rezoning application.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please see our responses below.
20. Public streets in residential developments are preferred over private streets in the development
areas of the County. Staff notes that a private street request has been submitted with the rezoning
application.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The street network is intentionally designed as a mixture of public
and private streets. The extension of Hathaway Street (Public Road A) would remain public
through the property, where an interparcel connection to the north could be provided in the future,
connecting to Avon Street. This connection to Avon Street would serve the residents of 1906
Avon Street, Avon Park, Avon Park II, and the Faith Temple Church property; the public street
designation would be appropriate as Hathaway Street would serve each of these communities.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
The scope of service of the private streets within the subject property differ from that of
Hathaway Street. Because Private Streets A and B only serve to provide direct access to
residences, the level of service is significantly lower than Hathaway Street. Private Street A is
anticipated to serve 16 dwelling units and Private Street B is anticipated to serve 12 dwelling
units, whereas Hathaway Street would serve all 38 units within the subject property, the dwelling
units of Avon Park 1/II, and the church.
21. Student generation numbers and school capacity have been closely considered by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors recently. Mountain View Elementary School and
Monticello High School are both currently over capacity, and this development would generate
additional students for these schools.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The narrative takes into account the multipliers provided by the
County's Subdivision Yield Report (2021) and anticipates that three students could be added to
Mountain View Elementary and one student to Monticello High School.
22. Is the open and amenity space proposed to be privately owned (such as by an HOA) or dedicated
to public use? If an HOA is proposed, will this HOA be a separate entity, or will it merge with the
existing Avon Park HOA?
RESPONSE: The open and amenity space would be privately owned by a neighborhood entity,
such as an HOA. This entity would be separate from the Avon Park HOA.
23. Advisory Comment: Be sure that sufficient guest parking is accommodated in the design of the
project. The townhouses and the multi -family units will all require guest parking, and there does
not appear to be space for common parking spaces along the private streets where the townhouses
are located.
RESPONSE: The extension of Hathaway Street (Public Road A) has been designed to VDOT
SSAR standards, which accommodates on -street parking on both sides of the street. In the interest
of reducing impervious area and enhancing community greenspace where possible, guest parking
may take place along Hathaway Street. On -street parking would additionally create more of an
urban streetscape along this public street and provide `side friction' to slow down any through
traffic.
24. Advisory Comment: If this rezoning application is approved by the Board of Supervisors,
additional site development plans will be required, which include initial and final site plans, ARB
plans, VSMP plans, WPO plans, subdivision plats (if applicable), etc.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
25. Advisory Comment: See the attached compilation of community correspondence received by
staff regarding this proposed development.
RESPONSE: Thank you for sharing the community correspondence.
Private Street Request
1. In the development areas of the County, public streets are preferred in new developments.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please see response to comment 20 above.
Sidewalk and Planting Strip Waiver Requests
1. Provide an exhibit specifically identifying those areas where sidewalks and planting strips are
proposed to be waived.
RESPONSE: An exhibit identifying where sidewalks and planting strips are proposed to be
waived are provided with this submission.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
2. Pedestrian connections need to be provided from the residences to the central open space to
provide safe and easy access.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The concept plan has been updated to include a crosswalk from
the sidewalk to the central open space.
Neighborhood Model
Pedestrian Orientation
This principle could be strengthened, as there are no pedestrian
connections provided to the central open space area, along the Avon Street
frontage, or connecting from the residential units to Avon Street. The
SAWUN master plan recommends a sidewalk or multi -use path along
Avon St. Ext. (See also comments from Transportation Planning.) A ten-ft.
retaining wall along sidewalks is not conducive to pedestrian orientation,
especially where the proposed retaining wall nears the Avon Street
frontage. Retaining walls near or along sidewalks could create unfriendly
environments for pedestrians and could act like barriers for pedestrians.
RESPONSE: The concept plan has been updated to include a crosswalk
that provides access to the central open space. The retaining wall has been
revised to be terraced, creating a more welcoming environment for
pedestrians. Additionally, the retaining wall has intentionally been
positioned to be increasingly further from the sidewalk to minimize any
ossible im acts topedestrians.
Mixture of Uses
Although only residential uses are proposed for this property, a mixture of
different housing types are proposed, including multi -family and single-
family attached units. There are not similar multi -family units in the
surrounding area.
Neighborhood Centers
The central green space area could act as a center for this development.
However, it is unclear how large this space is proposed to be. There are no
recreational facilities identified or provided. There are also no proposed
pedestrian connections to this area. With more information to analyze,
these areas could fulfill being a neighborhood center, depending on the
amenities and recreational facilities proposed to be located there.
RESPONSE: A crosswalk has been added to provide access from the
sidewalk to the central open space, which is approximately 5,000 SF. As
noted within the concept plan, recreational facilities will comply with Sec.
4.16, which will require a tot lot to serve 38 units. This tot lot will likely
be located within this central open space to provide ease of access for
residents. Concept plans included with the resubmission have been
updated to include other areas of greenspace that may take shape on the
property.
Mixture of Housing
A mixture of housing types is being provided, including single-family
Types and Affordability
attached units and multi -family units, which also adds to the larger mix of
housing types in the surrounding area. There may be a mixture of
affordability provided because of the housing types mixture. The applicant
also proposed affordable housing in conformance with the
recommendations of the comp plan and the Coun 's housing policy,
Relegated Parking
The main parking area for the multi -family units is relegated from Public
Road A, however, it would be visible from Avon Street, on a hillside
overlooking that road. The large retaining wall to hold up this parking area
would also be very visible from the Avon Street frontage. Are there any
plans to screen this area from Avon Street? Significant landscaping wor
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
be important. Terracing the retaining wall would also help to reduce the
impact of the parking area's visibility from the Avon Street frontage.
RESPONSE: The retaining wall will be terraced to encourage pedestrian
activity along the Avon Street corridor. Although the retaining wall is
approximately 8' from the sidewalk at the closest point, the retaining wall
is designed to angle away from the sidewalk. Distance between the
retaining wall and sidewalk steadily increases, and would minimize impact
for pedestrians walking along the sidewalk. At the furthest point, the wall
is more than 100' from the sidewalk. Due to this distance, there is
ade uate area for landscaping in this area.
Interconnected Streets
The proposed interconnections with Hathaway Street to the south and the
and Transportation
vacant parcel to the north are important for creating a more well-connected
Networks
street network in the southern Avon St. corridor. However, staff has
significant concerns about the lack of a direct interconnection with Avon
Street.
RESPONSE: Please refer to our response to Planning comment 11. At the
time of the adjacent parcel's redevelopment (TMP 90-33A), the
connection to Avon Street would be completed. Due to the existing
conditions of Hathaway Street, a connection to Avon Street cannot be met
within the subject property without the pursuance of various VDOT
waivers, impacting safe access and movement on the extension of this
public street.
Multimodal
There do not appear to be multimodal transportation opportunities with
Transportation
this project. No bus stop is provided for this development. Is there a
Opportunities
nearby bus stop? In addition, no sidewalk or multi -use path is provided
along Avon Street, as recommended by the SAWi JN master plan. There
are no sidewalks provided connecting the residences with the Avon Street
frontage. Providing opportunities for multi -modal transportation is
important to create a more livable community.
RESPONSE: The CAT bus route does not currently provide service to the
portion of Avon Street within the County (south of I-64). The County is
currently constructing a sidewalk along the property's frontage and
edestrian access to this new sidewalk will be provided.
Parks, Recreational
Staff is unable to provide much analysis on parks and open space at thi,
Amenities, and Open
time, as the amount of open space proposed to be included in the
Space
development was not provided. It is recommended that the size of the
proposed central open space is labelled. In addition, staff is unable to
determine if there is sufficient open space area provided to accommodate
the minimum number of recreational facilities required by the ordinance.
There also do not appear to be sidewalks or crosswalks provided to the
open space area, allowing easy and safe access from the residences to the
open space.
RESPONSE: The revised concept plans with the resubmission have been
updated to include other areas of conceptual greenspace, in addition to the
central greenspace area. The proposed plan would only be feasible through
a cluster development, which requires 25% of the property to be in open
space. Furthermore, the recreational amenities will be met, under Sec.
4.16, to be located within the shared open space. The concept plan as
shown would exceed the minimum 25% and would provide ample area for
residents. Please note that a crosswalk has been added from the proposed
sidewalk to the central greenspace, providing safe pedestrian access.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Buildings and Spaces of
The proposed ten-ft. retaining wall does not contribute to a sense of hur
Human Scale
scale in the development. Terracing this wall into separate shorter walls
would help to reduce its impact and create a more welcoming space of
human scale.
The transition from the townhouses of the existing Avon Park subdivision
to the multifamily units in this proposal may also create a space that is not
accommodating of human scale, depending on the size and massing of the
multi -family buildings. Has it been considered to flip the northernmost
short row of townhouses with the southernmost multi -family structure?
This may create a better transition.
RESPONSE: Due to the mixed -use nature of the Avon Street corridor, we
have proposed the multifamily structures within the Block 2 area of the
site. The current site layout proposes a density of 9 DUA along the Avon
Street Corridor, and 13 DUA to the rear of the site.
Redevelopment
This principle is met, as these three subject parcels are proposed to be
redeveloped with a higher density of residential units than what currently
exists on the property.
Respecting Terrain and
There are areas of managed steep slopes on this property. These areas can
Careful Grading and
be disturbed; however, careful grading of these areas will be important,
Regrading of Terrain
and any retaining walls proposed for these areas must meet the
requirements identified in the zoning ordinance. A ten-ft. retaining wall, as
is proposed, can be a concern for pedestrian orientation, however. It is
recommended that the retaining wall be terraced. In addition, such a
retaining wall could present a safety hazard and would require a railing at
the top.
RESPONSE: The grading plan has been revised and any walls within the
m ed slo es will be a maximum of 6'.
Clear Boundaries
This principle is not applicable to the request.
Between the
Development Areas and
the Rural Area
Planning — Transportation
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Jessica Hersh-Ballering,
Transportation Principal Planner, jhballeringga,albemarle.org:
Albemarle County is in the process of constructing a sidewalk on the west side of Avon Extended from
Stoney Creek Drive to Arden Drive; the applicant should show this sidewalk on the project sketch,
especially pages 7 and 9. Per Albemarle County Code Sec. 32.7.2.3.c, the applicant should add sidewalk
or a shared use path from the intersection of Hathaway Street and Private Road "A" (or from the north
end of Hathaway Street) to connect pedestrians to sidewalk currently being constructed on this section of
Avon Street Extended. The applicant might also consider adding sidewalk from Hathaway Street (at the
southern end of the parcel) to the new sidewalk along Avon Street Extended. The applicant can reach out
Michael Stumbaugh (mstumbaughgalbemarle.org) in Facilities & Environmental Services for details on
the new Avon Street Extended sidewalk.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments. We have updated the drawings to include the new sidewalk
along the west side of Avon Street Extended, denoted as existing. To facilitate pedestrian access, we have
added a proposed pedestrian connection from Hathaway Street to Avon Street, through a proposed
greenspace area. The type of pedestrian connection is to be determined at site plan.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Zoning Division — Community Development Department
General Development/Concept Plan
a. On Sheet 4 for the Side Minimum setback— Consider just setting a 5' side minimum.
RESPONSE: The additional language within the side setback has been removed, leaving only a
5' minimum.
b. On Sheet 4 for the Side Minimum setback — Consider making the side and for both blocks
adjacent to Avon Park 20'.
RESPONSE: Because Block 1 features the same building type as Avon Park, we would like to
maintain the 5' side setback. Adjacent to Block 2, there is an existing buffer strip owned by the
Avon Park HOA, ensuring a perpetual buffer would remain in this area. Due to the presence of an
existing perpetual greenspace, we would like to maintain the 5' side setback for Block 2.
c. Consider removing the stepback if the building height is proposed at 40'.
RESPONSE: Thank you for calling out that the stepback requirement would not be necessary if
the maximum building height is set to 40'. This has been removed from the table.
On all pages showing Public Road "A" Hathaway extend the street all the way north to Parcel
33A.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The drawings have been updated accordingly.
e. On Sheet 9 provide the open space #s for verification of the 25% (39,673 sgft)
RESPONSE: Comment received. The illustrative exhibit has been revised to include conceptual
SF, to ensure that the development would meet the minimum 25% open space requirement.
En2ineerin2 & Water Resources Division_ Communitv Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the Deputy County Engineer,
Emily Cox, ecox2(c�r�albemarle.org:
• Please provide a cross section for the "parking envelope" travelway.
RESPONSE: This cross section has been added to the sections sheet.
• Please provide dimensions on all street cross sections.
RESPONSE: To allow for flexibility in design at the site plan phase, dimensions are omitted at
this time. To ensure design requirements will be met at site plan, a note has been added that the
site plan is to comply with applicable County and VDOT regulations, unless a waiver is pursued
at a future time.
• Please note that there can be no parking spaces in sight distance lines.
RESPONSE: Comment received. This note has been added to ensure that parking is not to be
permitted within the sight distance triangle.
• Will the existing driveways be closed? If so, please depict or note on the plan.
RESPONSE: Yes, the existing driveways are to be closed. These demo notes have been added to
the existing conditions sheet.
• It appears that a signed and sealed engineering retaining wall design will be necessary for WPO
VSMP Plan approval.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The retaining wall design will be provided at the WPO VSMF
plan phase.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
Albemarle County Service Authority
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the ACSA contact, Richard
Nelson, melsonkserviceauthority.org:
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? Water and
sewer located at the end of Hathaway Street.
RESPONSE: Comment received. We have proposed a water connection through Hathaway Street
and the sanitary is proposed to connect on Avon Street as shown, through Spring Hill Village.
3. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water
pressures in the area are low. Booster pumps may be needed. A second water main connection
along Avon Street may be needed for fire flow requirements.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. This will be noted for the future site plan phase.
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 major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware? 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? Items brought up can be addressed during site plan stage.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your review. These notes will be kept in mind for the future site plan
phase.
7. If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee?
8. Additional comments?
Virginia Department of Transportation
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the VDOT contact, Douglas
McAvoy, Jr., douglas.mcavoy@vdot.virginia.gov:
1. 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. Please note that in response to Planning Staff and the desired
connection from Hathaway Street to Avon Street within the subject property, we have provided
additional exhibits demonstrating that this connection is not possible without pursuing VDOT
design waivers, whereas extending the connection through the adjacent parcel TMP 90-33A
would allow for road design within VDOT design standards.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
rachel@shimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Rachel Moon
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com