Author: Jim Duncan

via email from Joe Fore

The Crozet Park’s proposal for an expanded recreational facility goes back before the Planning Commission this Tuesday, September 28, at 6 pm. (Meeting information here.) I support this amended plan, and I hope others do, too. (For the record, I’m not affiliated with the Park in any way—just a Crozetian who spends a lot of time there with my preschooler.)

The Park’s initial proposal did, indeed, raise many issues—from parking to construction traffic to loss of tree cover to noise levels—and the revised proposal has made numerous changes that mitigate or eliminate the vast majority of the community’s concerns. So I think this is actually a terrific example of the Park and the community working together: neighbors raised legitimate issues, and the developer took them seriously and used that feedback to improve the project. Aside from the Downtown Crozet Plaza, that kind of collaboration is rare in Crozet. It should be a model for other projects.

I’d encourage everyone to see for themselves the Park’s presentation, which details the current plan and the revisions they’ve made in response to community members’ concerns. (As just one example, I was originally upset that the plan would eliminate the small playground just to the south of the pool. The revised plan addresses that by adding a brand-new playground just to the west of the facility building.)

Online, some Crozetians have opposed the project because, in their view, it would result in a loss of “greenspace.” After looking at the revised plan, I wanted to briefly respond to their specific points.

(1) The proposal doesn’t meaningfully “reduce existing greenspace”

Yes, it’s true that this proposal would increase the amount of concrete in the Park, but it’s not a huge increase—compared to the overall Park land. The Park’s presentation (p. 8) notes that buildings would go from taking up 1.6% of the Park’s total land to 4.6%. Sidewalks and parking lots would go from about 10% to 12.5% of the park’s total area. So, overall, the project would increase the Park’s hardscape from about 12.5% of the Park’s total land to about 17%. But more than 80% of the Park would remain “open space” and athletic fields.

More importantly, though, it’s not as if they are clear-cutting forest or building on undeveloped land to do this. Consider what’s currently on the land where they propose to build the facility: A recreation center, pool, parking lots, roads, playground, and trees. And what does the Park propose for that site? A larger recreation center, pool, parking lots, roads, playground, and trees. To be sure, not all of those replacement trees will be mature; they’ll take time to grow. And, yes, we’ll lose a bit of grassy field—though in a part of the park that folks hardly use. But it’s not fair to equate this with other kinds of new development that we’ve seen in Crozet—like the clearing of virgin forest to build neighborhoods.

Lastly, a quick point about the trees: while the project will require removing some trees, the project will actually result in a net gain of 150 trees. Page 10 of the report notes that they will have to remove 44 trees; but they are planting 194 new ones to replace the ones lost and to create a visual buffer.

(2) “Greenspace” doesn’t just mean “open land”

As some have correctly noted, Crozet Park is currently designated as “Greenspace.” But “Greenspace” is a bit of a misnomer; that designation isn’t reserved for vacant, untouched forest or natural areas. Even under the 2010 Master Plan, the “Greenspace” category included both “environmental features, “open space,” and “privately owned park and recreational areas which may be active or passive.”

Moreover, the updated Crozet Master Plan (page 13) clarifies this somewhat confusing category and replaces “Greenspace” with two separate designations: “Green Systems” and “Public Land.” “Green systems” are what we typically think of as “greenspace,” and it includes “sensitive environmental features,” “privately-owned open space,” and “natural areas.” But Crozet Park is designated as “Public Land,” which is intended for “active, passive, or social recreational use.” Indeed, the Plan specifically says that while such land should contain few buildings, “community serving uses such as public recreational amenities can be considered.” That’s exactly what this project is.

(3) The proposal doesn’t reduce recreational opportunities; it increases them

Some commenters have noted, correctly, that the Crozet Master Plan’s Conservation section emphasizes enhancing “outdoor recreation.” But (a) the proposed facility doesn’t decrease outdoor recreation opportunities, and (b) outdoor recreation is not the only type of recreation we need in the area.

First, the proposed facility doesn’t diminish Crozetian’s opportunity for outdoor recreation. The proposed facility is being built on the sparsely used western side of the park. I’m at the park several times per week with my preschooler. We specifically play and practice our bicycle riding on that side of the park because there’s rarely anyone there. The proposed facility won’t disturb the walking trail, the soccer fields, the baseball fields, the basketball courts, the pickle ball courts, the dog park, or the large playground, and it will retain a smaller playground in the area. So where are we losing opportunities for outdoor recreation?

Second, while the Master Plan’s Conservation chapter emphasizes outdoor recreation, that’s not the only type of recreation we need. Sure, outdoor recreation is great when the weather is warm and sunny. But what about rainy days—or the entire months of December, January, and February, when the weather is often too cold to play outside for long periods? (Of course, kids can bundle up and do some things, but it’s pretty tough to play basketball in gloves and a ski coat.)

Moreover, the facility will be more than a pool and a gym: it will be an important community gathering place. For example, the Park Board has noted that the facility will allow for greatly expanded after-school programs for kids–something that’s sorely lacking in our area.

These kinds of amenities are desperately needed in Crozet. And where would be a better place to build them? On some undeveloped open space elsewhere in town? On some currently wooded area that we’d have to clear-cut? Clearly, the least-disruptive place to put a new recreation center is right where there is already a recreation center.

---

While there may be minor things we can quibble with at this point, the overall plan is sound, and I hope that others will attend the planning commission meeting and support this important project.

---

Continue reading “Crozet Park’s Expanded Facility Doesn’t Threaten Crozet’s “Greenspace””

via email

The Crozet Park Developer continues to pursue changes in the zoning rules that will allow them to build a for profit athletic center in a public park. What the developer proposes is not a building compatible with the location or surrounding neighborhoods – rather the complex is a way out of scale for the field in which it is proposed. In fact, the athletic center is more comparable to the Harris Teeter on Rte. 250 with all of its parking then any building in a 22 acre park should be.

The developer is requesting that it be granted the right to add more traffic on the local roads that are already over taxed and acknowledge what changes to the roads will have to done will be determined after it has this right.

The developer is asking for a zoning exemption to build its building closer to neighboring properties than is allowed. The developer justifies its position not by accommodating the required setback but, instead by changing the measuring points without regard to how it impacts the rights of the adjacent neighbors.

The developer’s proposal includes the intention to buy Nutrient credits rather than deal with Storm Water run-off created by its elimination of green space even though this was a specific criticism of its earlier submission.

The developer’s presentation includes new charts and renderings that rely on exceptional artistic license and appears to circumvent the criticisms raised by the Planning Commission who disapproved the proposal in March 2021.

The Planning Staff issued a point by point criticism of the project in March based on the comments from the Planning Commissioners which the developer has avoided addressing directing. On the following pages is an annotated version of the complete text of the Commission’s March comments.

Read the PDF Here.

THIS LETTER FROM THE COUNTY OMITS STRONG COMMISSIONER COMMENTS REGARDING THE LACK OF OUTREACH BY THE PARK TO COMMUNICATE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS.

THE PARK HAS NOT ASKED TO MEET WITH THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE BOARD OR RESIDENTS OF HILLTOP STREET.

---

Important Disclosure: I live in the neighborhood adjacent to Crozet Park. I have my opinions about the project, but I’ll not share them here.