HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800011 Review Comments 2019-05-30COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 30, 2019
Regents School of Charlottesville, Inc. c/o Courtney Palumbo
3045 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
cpalumbo(iDregents-school.org / (434)-293-0633
Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen
321 East Main Street, Suite 400, Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlonj(i�williamsmullen.com / (434)-951-5709
RE: Review Comment Letter #2 for SP-2018-00011 (Regents School — Reservoir Road)
Ms. Palumbo and Ms. Long:
The resubmittal materials (received April 29, 2019) for your Special Use Permit application SP201800011
have been reviewed by members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies. Review comments are
provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. After reviewing this letter, you may choose
to: revise and resubmit the application; proceed with requesting a public hearing with the Planning
Commission without revision or resubmittal; or withdraw your application.
Please note that SP20180001 I is currently "deferred — definite" pursuant to Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Section
33.52, with the approved deferral request stipulating that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) shall take action
no later than June 1, 2020. Please also be advised that in order to ensure BOS action on or before June 1,
2020, all finalized application materials would need to be received no later than March 1, 2020. Please
reference ZO Section 33.53 for important details about the applicant's responsibilities for requesting action
by the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors.
And as always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, or any
other aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Please contact me with any questions and/or requests for
assistance you may have. I can be reached at tpadalino(a)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3088.
Sincerely,
Tim tPaalino, AICP I Senior Planner I Planning Services Division
enc: Resubmittal Form
Resubmittal Schedule
Page 1 of 17
Plannin
In consultation with County staff and partner agencies, Planning staff has identified issues and questions
that you should be aware of; we remain available to discuss these issues, which include the following:
1. Transportation and Traffic Impacts:
a. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be submitted before staff can evaluate potential impacts
to Reservoir Road, Fontaine Avenue Extended, and the intersections associated with the
Fontaine Avenue "interchange" for the US 29 Bypass.
i. Staff are particularly concerned about the performance and safety of the Fontaine
Avenue "interchange." The results of the pending TIA will be a major part of the
analysis and evaluation of this proposed development. That TIA is a crucial piece of
information.
ii. If the TIA does not demonstrate that the proposed development will not negatively
impact the mobility, safety, or level of service for that interchange, then it may be
difficult for Staff to recommend approval of this proposal.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the preparation and submittal of the following traffic
analyses: the "Traffic Assessment Supplement" document dated March 6, 2019; and the
"Traffic Assessment Supplement — Year 2038 Traffic Results" document dated April 29,
2019 ("traffic assessment supplements"). Thank you.
However, after reviewing the detailed information contained in these traffic assessment
supplements in coordination with VDOT, CDD staff remains concerned regarding the
ability of existing transportation infrastructure to accommodate the increased traffic
volume generated by the proposed development, particularly in the AM hours — even if
the hours of operation were scheduled in a way that attempts to minimize vehicle trips
during times considered to be "regular peak hour" (7:45AM — 8:45AM). Please see review
comments from Kevin McDermott (CDD-Planning / Transportation) and Adam Moore,
PE (VDOT).
b. Planned transportation improvements at the Fontaine Avenue "interchange" for the US 29
Bypass would significantly increase the roadway capacity and Level of Service (LOS). Funding
for these planned improvements is not currently in place, but Smart Scale application(s) to
provide funding for the planned improvements at the Fontaine Avenue "interchange" have been
submitted to VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).
i. These Smart Scale applications are pending, and funding decisions will not be made
until Summer 2019. This creates a significant amount of uncertainty with regards to the
capacity of existing (or planned) infrastructure to accommodate the proposed
development.
ii. It is not clear how Staff will be able to accurately evaluate the potential impacts of this
proposal prior to the CTB announcing which Smart Scale applications have been
awarded/funded.
Update 5130: The Smart Scale applications that requested funding for these important
major transportation improvements (which would significantly increase the performance
and safety of the transportation infrastructure) were not awarded/funded — and as result,
these improvements remain unfunded.
Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the proposed level of development on
the subject property, with regards to the existing transportation infrastructure (capacity and level
of service).
i. The Site Traffic Assessment (dated October 12, 2018) indicates that an additional 1,161
VDT would be added to the current 400 VDT. Staff are concerned about that potential
Page 2 of 17
increase, given the current LOS for the intersections associated with the Fontaine
Avenue "interchange" for the US 29 Bypass, and considering the current capacity is
already in need of improvement.
Update 5130: As noted above, staff acknowledges the preparation and submittal of
the traffic assessment supplements; thank you.
However, after reviewing this detailed information in coordination with VDOT,
CDD staff remains concerned regarding the ability of existing transportation
infrastructure to reasonably accommodate the increased traffic volume generated
by the proposed development, particularly during AM hours. This includes
concerns about the US 29 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue Extended interchange, as
well as the intersection of Fontaine Avenue Extended and Reservoir Road. Please
see review comments from Kevin McDermott (CDD-Planning / Transportation)
and Adam Moore, PE (VDOT).
ii. Due to concerns about the adequacy of Reservoir Road, Reservoir Road would need to
be upgraded to VDOT standards (subject to input and approval by VDOT, the County
Engineer, and the Director of Planning).
Update 5130: Staff acknowledge the information contained in the Reservoir Road
Survey, which provides additional (new) details regarding the following proposed
improvements to Reservoir Road:
1. Modify vertical geometry of Reservoir Road in order to accommodate
increased traffic produced by the proposed development;
2. Regrading the roadway where vertical sight distance is inadequate;
3. Clearing of land where horizontal sight distance is inadequate;
4. Addition of a four (4) foot wide shoulder on the south side of Reservoir
Road; and
5. Addition of a drainage ditch on the north side of Reservoir Road.
However, after reviewing this detailed information in coordination with VDOT,
CDD staff remains concerned regarding the existing condition of the Reservoir
Road intersection with Fontaine Avenue Extended, and the capacity of that
intersection to accommodate increased vehicular traffic (including vehicle trips by
school buses). Please see review comments from Kevin McDermott (CDD-Planning
/ Transportation) and Adam Moore, PE (VDOT). Please also see comments from
Frank Pohl, PE, CFM (CDD-Engineering) for information regarding these
proposed improvements to Reservoir Road.
iii. Staff may also recommend that the owner dedicate ROW to accommodate future bicycle
and pedestrian mobility (multi -use path).
Update 5130: Staff acknowledge the proposal to reserve twenty-five (25) feet along a
portion of Reservoir Road for future dedication to the County for public use, and
to also reserve twelve (12) feet along an adjoining portion of Reservoir Road for
future dedication to the County for public use.
However, Note 3 on Sheet C4 of the SP Concept Plan should be revised to be less
specific when describing the right-of-way reservation areas; any such future
dedication should not necessarily be limited to "multi -use paths" or for "the
provision of interparcel connectivity." Other uses, improvements, or purposes
might potentially be permissible and/or appropriate in this (proposed future) right-
of-way.
Page 3 of 17
d. VDOT indicated on August 14 that their traffic report data can be used as background / baseline
data for the TIA.
i. Please submit the TIA for review by the County and by VDOT.
Update 5130: As noted above, staff acknowledges the preparation and submittal of
the traffic assessment supplements; thank you. Please see review comments from
Kevin McDermott (CDD-Planning / Transportation) and Adam Moore, PE
(VDOT).
e. Staff acknowledge that the proposed mitigation practices, as identified in the traffic
assessment supplements and other resubmittal materials, include the following:
i. The applicant will improve Reservoir Road (see review comment #1.c.ii, above);
and
ii. The applicant will modify the proposed hours of operation: establish a school start
time of 7:45am in an attempt to minimize vehicle trips during times considered to
be "regular peak hour" (7:45AM — 8:45AM); and
iii. If or when Regents School proposes to increase student enrollment beyond 230
students (up to a maximum enrollment of 468 students), and if VDOT does not
implement intersection improvements at the US 29 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue
Extended interchange, the applicant will modify the existing US 29 Bypass south -
bound turn lanes at the interchange intersection with Fontaine Avenue Extended
by establishing a dedicated (exclusive) left -turn lane and a dedicated (exclusive)
1,000' long right turn lane.
2. Entrance Corridor:
a. Site visibility and project visibility need to be more fully determined, including from 29, 64, at
interchange 118, and from 64 west approaching the 118 interchange.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the "cross-section diagram" exhibits (A and B, both
dated April 29, 2019) provided with the resubmittal; thank you.
Staff remains concerned about the project visibility as viewed from eastbound Interstate
64 during the long, descending straightaway approaching the 118 interchange. It is
anticipated that the proposed project will be highly visible from this Entrance Corridor
vantage point, due to the proposed locations of the proposed new structures being sited on
top of areas proposed for land disturbance, grading (fill), and retaining walls.
It may be possible to successfully reduce the visibility and visual impact of the proposed
project through revisions to the proposed grading and/or proposed retaining walls, as well
as through the use of additional landscaping that includes understory and canopy trees.
Additionally, please note that proposed grading and retaining walls will have to comply
with applicable Steep Slopes Design Standards (where applicable) and with Entrance
Corridor Design Guidelines (where applicable).
Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and approval will be required. Please see
review comments from Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning — Resource
Management.
b. The proposed athletic field creates questions and concerns about outdoor athletic lighting,
including the height of light poles, the type of luminaire, and the frequency and duration of the
use of outdoor athletic lighting.
i. Preventing glare and spillover (beyond a set level/location) are Code requirements.
ii. Screening of outdoor athletic lighting may need to be considered.
Page 4 of 17
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the Special Exception (SE) requests (dated April 29,
2019) regarding outdoor lighting for the proposed athletic facility. These SE requests will
be processed concurrently with the review of the special use permit application.
Staff requests clarification of the proposed luminaires at such time that the applicant
specifies the proposed luminaire (acknowledging the statement that "the precise lighting
fixtures have not yet been selected by the Applicant.")
Additionally, due to the difficulty of understanding the potential visibility of the proposed
outdoor lighting, and due to the subject property's proximity to and visibility from the
Interstate 64 Entrance Corridor, Staff requests that the applicant conduced a balloon test
that approximates the height and visibility of the proposed outdoor lighting. Such a
balloon test will contribute to staff being able to conduct an informed, accurate staff
analysis and evaluation of these SE requests.
c. See review comments (below) from Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning — Resource
Management.
3. Architectural Review Board staff in CDD-Planning Services Division:
Update 5130: From Margaret Maliszewski (see attached review comments dated May 22, 2019):
a. The lighted ball field could have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors. Information in
the applicant's April 29, 2019 Special Exception Request is confusing regarding the intent to
provide full cutoff field lights. Please clarify. The use of full cutoff fixtures is a recommended
condition of approval.
b. The illuminated field lights may be visible for a distance along the I-64 EC. Consider a balloon
test at the proposed light pole height to help determine the extent of visual impacts.
c. Sheets 4 and 6 use the label "School Preservation Area" and the legend identifies a "Tree
Preservation Area". Please clarify and coordinate.
d. Note that retaining walls visible from the EC street will be required to be terraced and planted if
6' tall or taller.
e. ARB review and approval of the proposed site and architectural designs will be required prior to
final site plan approval. Due to the scale of the proposed development, the applicant may wish
to consider a conceptual architectural review by the ARB prior to an initial site plan submittal.
4. School Operations:
a. A Parking Study must be prepared and submitted for evaluation by the Zoning Administrator, in
order to determine parking requirements (per Z.O. 4.12.6). See Zoning comments (page 9).
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the Parking Study (dated April 29, 2019) that was
prepared and submitted with the resubmittal materials.
Staff also acknowledges the letter provided by Trinity Presbyterian Church ("Trinity"),
dated April 29, 2019, which references the "excellent working relationship" with Regents
School and the "mutually beneficial development issues" which have been discussed at
several recent meetings. Staff further acknowledges that Trinity indicates in the letter
their expectation and intent to formalize a shared parking agreement and (potentially)
other agreements, subject to the relevant documentation being finalized and recorded.
Please see CDD-Zoning review comments (dated May 24, 2019) from Mr. Kevin McCollum.
b. The applicants need to provide the proposed hours of operation (for school as well as for other
activities at the theater, gymnasium and/or athletic field, including after school hours and/or
weekends).
Page 5 of 17
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the proposed hours of operation, which include a
proposed modification to establish a school start time of 7:45am in an attempt to minimize
vehicle trips during times considered to be "regular peak hour" (7:45AM — 8:45AM). Staff
also acknowledge that the Comment Response Letter (dated April 26, 2019) states that
"trips generated by school traffic do not significantly impact the [PM] peak hour flow of
traffic which is from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. because the trips generated by the school in
the afternoon are widely distributed from the end of the school day around 3 p.m. to the
end of extracurricular activities from anytime between 4-5 p.m. for practices and 5-8 p.m.
for games and events."
More information about the school bus operations should be provided, including whether one
bus parking space will be adequate (and if so, for how long).
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the comment response letter which explains the intended
shared parking agreement between Regents School and the existing parking lots at the
adjoining Trinity Presbyterian Church, including the potential to park buses at Trinity.
To utilize such an approach, a formalized, signed shared parking agreement would be
required in order to meet minimum parking requirements during the site plan review
process.
Please see CDD-Zoning review comments (dated May 24, 2019) from Mr. Kevin McCollum.
d. The amount, location, and type of outdoor lighting for areas other than athletic field is a
question which should be addressed (at least conceptually) during the SP review process.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the comment response letter which explains the
applicant's intentions for the proposed project to comply with Outdoor Lighting
regulations contained in Z.O. Section 4.17, and to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness
through ARB review and approval.
e. The athletic field may need to include net fencing to help contain sports equipment on site and
within the intended area (any sch fencing would need to be located outside of stormwater
management facilities, preserved steep slopes or tributary to Moore's Creek, or other similarly
sensitive areas).
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the comment response letter which notes that such a
feature will be considered after additional details (such as a grading plan) are finalized.
5. Terrain / Topography:
a. Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the proposed amount and configuration
of development on the subject property, with regards to the existing topography, and as shown
on the conceptual grading plan shown on the illustrative plan.
i. For example, the reliance on extensive 2:1 slopes and numerous retaining walls
(sometimes in very close proximity to preserved steep slopes) as shown on the
illustrative plan are a concern. This appears to represent a level of development that
pushes the limits of what this site can appropriately accommodate while still meeting
Neighborhood Model Principles.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges that the proposed development and land
disturbing activity are all contained within the areas with a future land use
designation of "Neighborhood Density Residential," and that the limits of
disturbance do not include any of the areas with a future land use designation of
"Parks and Green Systems." Staff further acknowledges the proposed five (5) foot
minimum setback from Preserved Steep Slopes.
Page 6 of 17
ii. 2:1 slopes should be minimized; 3:1 slopes are strongly encouraged.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the applicant's commitments to comply with the
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual (which limits constructed slopes to a
2:1 slope) and to utilize 3:1 slopes "to the greatest extent reasonably possible."
iii. See "Development Areas" chapter of Comp Plan — Strategy 2p and Strategy 2q.
b. Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the amount, extent, and type of grading
in proximity to preserved steep slopes and stream buffer.
i. Grading and development may need to be subject to "enhanced" erosion and
sedimentation control measures to protect the tributary to Moore's Creek and steep
slopes, subject to decision by County Engineer.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the applicant's comment response letter which
states that the recommendation for a 20% increase in storage volume in sediment
traps and sediment basins (as recommended by the County Engineer) is
reasonable.
ii. Grading and retaining walls may need to be subject to Steep Slopes Standards, subject to
decision by County Engineer.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the applicant's comment response letter which
explains the applicant's intent to comply with the Steep Slopes Design Standards
specified in Z.O. Sections 30.7.5.(b), (c), and (d), and "accepts these standards as a
condition of approval."
iii. County Engineer may recommend that the stormwater facilities shall not discharge
waters over or across steep slopes (and must be piped or otherwise conveyed to an
appropriate destination).
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the applicant's comment response letter which
explains the applicant's inability to commit to such a recommendation at this time,
but which also notes the applicant's awareness of Steep Slopes Design Standards
and intention to "find discharge alternatives that minimize disturbance of
preserved slopes."
6. Natural Resources:
The site's adjacency to a designated Stream Conservation Unit along the tributary to Moore's
Creek is a concern, due to possible erosion and sedimentation associated with extensive
clearing, grading, and creation of managed steep slopes.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the applicant's intentions to prepare and submit a
Conservation Checklist in accordance with Z.O. Section 30.6.3.e, and further
acknowledges the proposed "Preservation Area" and the five (5) foot minimum setback
from Preserved Steep Slopes.
b. The site's proximity to an "Important Site" on (Fox Haven Farm) identified by Albemarle
County Natural Heritage Committee is also a concern, as this designation highlights the overall
environmental sensitivity and biological importance of this area at the edge of the Ragged
Mountains.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the proposed "Preservation Area" which, "in addition to
complying with existing regulations, [preserves] portions of the site outside of the
floodplain, the WPO [buffer], and preserved slopes."
c. Please see the attached review comments from David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager for
Albemarle County, dated 8/8/2018.
7. Conceptual Plan:
Page 7 of 17
Identify proposed "use envelopes" within proposed "limits of school campus" area identified as
13.2 acres.
i. Staff acknowledge the level of (conceptual) details contained in the "Illustrative Plan of
Development Exhibit" that was provided with this submittal, but that is described as
being for illustrative purposes only. In contrast, the Concept Plan (Sheet C3 of 4) does
not indicate proposed (conceptual) locations, areas, or envelopes for structures; parking;
athletic fields; or other improvements.
ii. The "limits of school campus" appear to be analogous to a "limits of disturbance"
exhibit; more information about the proposed uses should be included in this Concept
Plan sheet.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges that Sheets C3, C4, and C5 of the revised Concept Plan
provide additional information about the locations of the proposed use envelopes within
the School Campus Site as well as the location of the proposed Preservation Area.
8. Cumulative Effect of Anticipated Impacts:
a. Staff have concerns about the overall appropriateness of this proposed use at these specific
subject properties and location?
i. Can the existing transportation infrastructure accommodate this type and intensity of
development? If not, how will infrastructure improvements be realized — and when?
ii. Is there too much program for this site (relative to site -specific environmental
constraints)?
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges that the proposal is limited to approximately 13 acres (or
approximately 69% of the site), and that approximately 6 acres (or approximately 31 % of
the site) would be an "Undeveloped Residue" outside the limits of disturbance and would
be a "Preservation Area."
Staff also acknowledges the proposed improvements to Reservoir Road, including the
Right -of -Way Dedication Areas" shown on the Concept Plan and as otherwise detailed in
the "Reservoir Road Survey" plans. However, after reviewing this resubmittal in
coordination with VDOT, CDD staff remains concerned regarding the ability of existing
transportation infrastructure to reasonably accommodate the increased traffic volume
generated by the proposed development, particularly during AM hours, even when
considering the proposed hours of operation that attempt to minimize vehicle trips during
times considered to be "regular peak hour" (7:45AM — 8:45AM). This includes concerns
about the US 29 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue Extended interchange, as well as the
intersection of Fontaine Avenue Extended and Reservoir Road.
Community Meeting
Staff acknowledge that the required Community Meeting was conducted at the Regents School's current
location on Ivy Road on Thursday, August 30. A summary of the applicants' discussion with members of
the public during the community meeting include the following questions, issues, and concerns:
Project scale/intensity: questions and concerns about the proposed size of the school and
number/frequency of school activities (including rental of school properties/facilities to non -school
entities) at this constrained site, off of a relatively unsafe Reservoir Road, in this location with
significant existing traffic congestion issues.
Project phasing: questions about the general timeframe and sequence for constructing the various
improvements shown on the conceptual plan.
o Applicant's response: This would not all be constructed at one time; this is a long-term
master plan intended to be constructed in phases. The "early phase," which has a general
Page 8 of 17
time horizon of four years, tentatively includes the athletic field and either the gymnasium
building or one lower school building.
School operations: questions about school drop-off details; questions and concerns about frequency
and size of school activities and parking capacity during various activities; questions and concerns
about outdoor lighting.
■ Transportation impacts to Reservoir Road: concern about current road deficiencies and safety;
concerns about increased traffic volume; questions about proposed improvements to the roadway;
questions and concerns about the sight distances and safety of the two proposed entrance locations;
concerns about safety during University Montessori School operations (drop-off / pick-up when
parents and children park at Trinity Presbyterian Church and walk across Reservoir Road).
■ Transportation impacts to Fontaine Avenue / Fontaine Avenue Extended / US 29 Bypass: concerns
about current roadway and intersection deficiencies and level of service; concerns about impacts to
Buckingham Circle residents; questions about transportation improvement plans, funding, and
timing.
Update 5130: Staff acknowledges the revised resubmittal materials that attempt to address the issues
identified during the community meeting and also identified in the first review comment letter.
Comprehensive Plan
Updated comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) are provided below; additionally, comments regarding conformity with the Comp Plan will
be provided to the PC and BOS as part of the staff report.
The Comp Plan designates the majority of these subject properties for "Neighborhood Density Residential"
land use(s) in the Future Land Use Plan for the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan
(Master Plan). As noted in the "Land Use Categories and Guidelines" in the Master Plan (S+W. 34), this
designation represents "residential areas with a desired density of 3 — 6 residential dwelling units per acre."
Primary uses are residential uses; and private schools are included in the list of secondary uses "where they
are deemed compatible with nearby and adjoining land uses."
A portion of these properties is designated for "Parks and Green Systems" future land uses. This
designation corresponds with natural resources and environmental features, such as the tributary to
Moore's Creek, the floodplain around the tributary, and preserved steep slopes.
The Master Plan also provides additional information and recommendations regarding this area of Fontaine
Avenue Extended and the nearby US 29 / Interstate 64 interchange, as follows:
"Neighborhood Centers " —
There are two designated Centers near the subject property:
o The "Morey Creek Center" (Center 4) is located near the intersection of Fontaine Avenue
Extended and Reservoir Road. The Master Plan states that "it will be a major employment
center which is affiliated with UVA" and recommends that "the uses be limited to office uses
and commercial uses in conjunction with those offices. The Plan highlights the importance of
providing pedestrian connectivity to uses and Centers on the other (eastern) side of US 29.
(S+W 36)
o The other Center is the "southwest quadrant of the Route 29 and I-64 interchange" (Center 6).
This is designated for "Regional Mixed Use," to include Industrial uses and Parks and Green
Systems uses. However, despite the proximity to the subject properties, this Center has very
little land use relationship with the subject property due to the separating presence of Interstate
64, and the lack of vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle connectivity. (S+W 37)
Page 9 of 17
"Other Areas of Importance " —
• Foxhaven Farm, located across Reservoir Road from the subject properties, is identified as an "Other
Area of Importance" for its potential to accommodate future "educational uses, including but not
limited to, a research station." (S+W 46)
o However, considering the ownership of Foxhaven Farm (The UVA Foundation), the future
"educational uses" appropriate for this area likely refer to University -affiliated education and
research, and not necessarily a private school unaffiliated with the University.
"Plan for Future Parks and Green Systems " —
• Natural Resource Protection Recommendations (S+W 53):
o "The stream buffers, systems of steep slopes, floodplain, and wetlands adjacent to ... Moore's
Creek ... should be preserved."
o "Minimize stream impacts and improve the health/quality of Moore's Creek..."
• Cultural and Scenic Resources Protection Recommendations (S+W 53):
o "Preserve and maintain the vegetation that exists along Entrance Corridors and especially I-64
... to protect the quality and character of these roads and help to provide a visual and sound
buffer to developments."
Trails Recommendations (S+W 54):
o "Provide a greenway trail to the Ragged Mountain Natural Area."
"Plan for Future Transportation Network" —
• Transportation Plan for Western Urban Neighborhoods (S+W 57):
o Figure 37 identifies the US 29 / Fontaine Avenue interchange as one of two targeted
Intersection Improvement projects.
• Transit Recommendations (S+W 63):
o "Provide transit service on Fontaine Ave. Extended to connect Morey Creek Office Park to
other University -related uses."
In summary, the proposal to develop these subject properties for use as a private school are potentially
partially consistent with the Master Plan. A private school might be an appropriate secondary use, if it is
developed and operated in a way that is "compatible with nearby and adjoining land uses."
However, as noted throughout this review comment letter, the compatibility and appropriateness of
this development proposal is partially dependent on consideration of other issues closely related to
land use, such as the adequacy of existing transportation infrastructure and proposed
improvements, potential impacts to natural resources, and potential impacts to the Entrance
Corridor in relation to important project details such as the conceptual grading plan and proposed
outdoor athletic lighting.
Staff acknowledges that the "Limits of School Campus" shown on the Illustrative Plan and Concept
Plan would leave approximately 31% of the subject properties out of the school campus, and
designate that "Undeveloped Residue" (an area approximately 6 acres in size) as a "Preservation
Area." Staff further acknowledges that this "Preservation Area" includes all the areas designated
for Parks and Green Systems future land uses, and includes all Preserved Steep Slopes overlays and
all Flood Hazard overlays, as well as additional areas outside the Parks and Green Systems
designation (which are designated for Neighborhood Density Residential future land uses). Staff also
acknowledges the proposed five (5) foot minimum setback from the "Preservation Area" as a
measure to reduce impacts to critical resources and to areas designated for Parks and Green
Systems, as called for in the S+W Master Plan.
Page 10 of 17
Neighborhood Model:
In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model was developed to guide
the "form" of development. The Neighborhood Model recommends that the Development Areas and new
development have twelve characteristics. General comments on how well the proposed development meets
the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided below. More detailed comments may be
provided at a later date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
Sidewalks and crosswalks are shown within the proposed private school campus. Street trees
Orientation
are shown along the improved edge of Reservoir Road along the majority of the front
property line.
Principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
The proposed use is a private school. The future land use designation is Neighborhood
Density Residential, which primarily calls for Residential uses (at a density of 3-6
units/acre), and which supports private schools as a secondary use. The future land use plan
does not call for mixed uses in this location.
Principle is partially met, as this proposal would result in a school being located in a
residential area. However, this principle is not fully applicable to this proposal or location.
Neighborhood
The proposed project is a private school, which does not appear to have any direct
Centers
association with, or impact (positive or negative) on, the recommended future Centers.
The applicants stated during the community meeting (8/30/2018) that they intend to rent the
gymnasium, athletic field, and/or possibly other facilities to community groups or other
organizations, potentially to include providing use of facilities at reduced costs or for no cost.
If such rental/use is allowed, the private school would serve some community purpose
beyond its primary intended use (private school). But even this extended use would not
establish the private school as a "neighborhood center" as defined in the Master Plan.
Principle is not immediately applicable.
Mixture of Housing
This principle is not immediately applicable — the proposed project is a private school.
Types and
Affordability
Principle is not applicable.
Interconnected
The applicants stated during the community meeting (8/30/2018) their intention to provide a
Streets and
future interparcel pedestrian connection to Trinity Presbyterian Church which adjoins the
Transportation
subject properties to the east. This proposed pedestrian connection is shown on Sheet C6 of
Networks
the Concept Plan (which is denoted as being "For Illustatrative Purposes Only"). A vehicular
interparcel connection does not seem critically important in this location, and the existing
conditions (most notably topography) result in such a connection having relatively low
feasibility.
Principle is partially met.
Multi -modal
This private school proposal includes school bus services. Bicycle racks on the site should be
Transportation
provided in order to support and advance the use of alternative transportation modes. Staff
Opportunities
acknowledges the comment response letter which states that "the inclusion of bike racks on
the site may be explored during site plan."
Principle is met.
Page 1 1 of 17
Parks, Recreational
Staff acknowledges the "Preservation Area" proposed for approximately 31 % of the site (or
Amenities, and Open
approximately 6 acres), an area which would be an "Undeveloped Residue" and which
Space
would include all of the areas designated for Parks and Green Systems future land use plus
additional areas. Staff further acknowledges the proposed five (5) foot minimum setback
from the Preservation Area. Additionally, the proposal includes recreational amenities such
as a lighted ball field, a school green, and courtyards between school buildings.
Principle is met.
Buildings and Space
Staff acknowledges that increasing the spatial enclosure and architectural presence along
of Human Scale
Reservoir Road (by increasing the building elevation or utilizing a higher finished floor
elevation) would result in increased impacts to the Interstate 64 Entrance Corridor.
Additionally, the proposal does not represent a development that is overwhelming in scale or
appearance.
Principle is partially met.
Relegated Parking
The Illustrative Plan and Concept Plan do not show any parking between primary buildings
and the public right of way.
Principle is met.
Redevelopment
The subject properties are currently undeveloped.
Principle is not applicable.
Respecting Terrain
Staff remains concerned about the extensive proposed cut and fill operations that would
and Careful Grading
create an unnaturally large plateau of relatively flat ground (or a "pad") in order to
and Re -grading of
accommodate almost all of the School Campus program at a similar finished floor elevation.
Terrain
Staff encourages the applicants to explore opportunities to utilize grading, terracing, or
similar practices throughout the site (and not just at the edge of the proposed "pad") in order
to better situate this campus into this site without creating such an extensive pad surrounded
by retaining walls and constructed steep slopes.
However, staff also acknowledges that the proposed conceptual grading and site layout
would contain all development and land disturbing activity within the "School Campus," and
would leave approximately 6 acres of "Undeveloped Residue" in a "Preservation Area." Staff
further acknowledges the proposed five (5) foot minimum setback from the Preservation
Area in order to minimize grading near Preserved Steep Slopes and other sensitive features.
Principle is partially met.
Clear Boundaries The subject properties are not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary.
with the Rural Area principle is not applicable.
Zonin
The following written review comments were provided by Kevin McCollum, CDD-Zoning, on 5/24/2019
regarding the above noted application. These comments are also attached as a memo.
Parking
a. The Parking Study and Concept Plan both show 84 parking spaces available to staff, visitors,
and students. This number of parking spaces appears to be sufficient for the number of student
and employee projections shown on the Regents School Parking Study (dated 4/29/2019) until
at least the year 2028.
b. Staff recommends that a written parking agreement be solidified with Trinity Presbyterian
Church for any potential overflow parking. The 84 parking spaces appear to be sufficient for
Page 12 of 17
the normal everyday school use, but it is recommended that an agreement be agreed upon for
any exceptionally high parking demand days such as multiple sports outings, concerts,
graduations, etc. This parking agreement should note the location and number of available
shared spaces.
If the current application is approved please be aware that an amendment to the approved
special use permit will be required if the use intensifies or the projections of number of
students, employees, or amount of parking needed for the use changes.
2. Lighting
a. There are concerns about the visibility of the poles in the entrance corridor as well as the
overflow of lighting onto other parcels as other departments have mentioned. Staff does not
have an issue with the two special exception requests if the spillover of lighting does not
exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle onto public roads and adjacent properties and the applicant
can justify the need to build the poles to 70 feet and have them not be full cut-off.
Conditions
a. Staff is recommending that there is a condition that limits the maximum enrollment to the
2028 projections (230 students). For the use to expand beyond that, there needs to be a formal
parking agreement between Regents School and Trinity Presbyterian Church which would
require an amendment to an approved SP.
Engineering
No updated review comments have been received from Engineering Division staff. Updated Engineering
review comments will be promptly forwarded upon receipt. Please note that the Planning comments
(above) were composed with input from County Engineer Frank Pohl, PE, CFM.
Please also note the previous Engineering comments, which were originally provided on 8/31/2018, and
which are provided in this letter for your reference:
Engineering has no objections to the proposed Special Use Permit, but recommends the following
conditions of approval:
— Discharge of SWM facility located adjacent the gymnasium shall be piped to join the discharge of
the SWM facility located behind the library to minimize disturbance of preserved slopes.
— Discharges to the stream may require an easement from VDOT since the property does not include
the stream.
— Recommend additional erosion and sediment control measures (i.e. an additional 20%),
considering proximity of this project to the stream.
— Recommend constructed slopes meet the steep slopes design standards as outlined in paragraphs b,
c and d of Section 30.7.5 Overlay Districts of Chapter 18 of the County Code, considering the large
area to be disturbed.
— Culvert(s) will be required in natural drainage channels that are partially filled (or some other
solution must be presented for review). This can be addressed during VSMP permitting.
— Flood Zone A is identified on this property. Base flood elevation data shall be determined for this
development considering the site exceeds 5 acres [30.3.13.C].
— Please add elevation labels to the contours, especially in the middle of the exhibit, to allow for a
better understanding of the amount of cut or fill needed for the site.
Page 13 of 17
VDOT
No updated review comments have been received from VDOT. Updated VDOT review comments will be
promptly forwarded upon receipt. Please note that the Planning comments (above) were composed with
input from Adam J. Moore, PE, Area Land Use Engineer. Please also note that Mr. Moore recently
explained that VDOT review of SP201800011 is ongoing in the Traffic Engineering section, and review
comments will be provided after a review of the technical components of the traffic study is completed.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, PE, indicated that ACSA has no additional review comments and confirmed that ACSA
has a review status of "No Objection" for SP201800011.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Dyon Vega, RWSA Civil Engineer, provided the following review comments on 5/23/2019:
RWSA has reviewed the Special use Permit application and Concept Plan for Regents School as prepared
by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated 04/29/2019 and recommends approval of the special use permit.
With this approval, RWSA offers the following general comments for the applicant:
General:
l . RWSA has concerns regarding the proposed grading over the existing 18" raw water main (built in
approximately 1908) for the proposed exit driveway. Depending on the timing of construction RWSA
may request that a portion of the raw water main be replaced with ductile iron prior to placing fill over
this area. Coordination between the property owner and RWSA will be necessary during construction
to minimize other impacts to the existing raw water main.
2. RWSA is currently in preliminary phases of design for a new raw water main along reservoir road to
replace the existing 1908 cast iron raw water main. RWSA may require easement on TMP 76-17 for
construction of the raw water main and are currently looking to start construction in 2023-2024.
3. RWSA is no longer considering this site as a possible location for future raw water pump station
Sheet 5:
1. Please show label on RWSA facilities including material, size, and owner.
2. Please label RWSA's existing easements to include deed book and page numbers, and the correct width.
Sheet 6:
1. Please show label on RWSA facilities including material, size, and owner.
2. Please label RWSA's existing easements to include deed book and page numbers, and the correct
width.
3. Excess slopes and proposed grading will place excessive fill over RWSA facility, please revise.
4. No trees are allowed in RWSA current or future easement, please relocate trees in easement.
5. Proposed sewer line is placed within easement and within 10' of RWSA line, please use a min of 10'
from pipe for placing sewer facilities per VA Waterworks regulations.
Albemarle Fire -Rescue
No written review comments have been received from Fire Rescue staff. Fire Rescue comments will be
forwarded upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments
As noted above, after reviewing this letter you may choose to: revise and resubmit the application;
Page 14 of 17
proceed with requesting a public hearing with the Planning Commission without revision or resubmittal;
or withdraw your application. Please note that SP201800011 is currently "deferred — definite" pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Section 33.52, with the approved deferral request stipulating that the Board of
Supervisors (BOS) shall take action no later than June 1, 2020.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form(s). There is a fee for the second resubmittal. The
resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling public hearings with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is
necessary:
$336.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement for Planning Commission public hearing
$215.00 = Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$551.00 = Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing for SP201800011
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing is needed, as follows:
$336.00 = Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing for SP201800011
$887.00 = Total amount for all notifications for SP201800011 Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for
both the PC and BOS public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be
required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date.
Page 15 of 17
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt tt Ck# Bv.
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or �F
a.
Zoning Map Amendment F +`w`.
PROJECT NUMBER: S? 2o18 o2o t l PROJECT NAME: 17 t:66<5 9E-SE1zo_.iK go.
�~ )[ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
_— ---- -- _ _. __ Date
Signature Date Signature
17ULIc
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$538
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
❑ First resubmission --
FREE.
Each additional resubmission
$1,075
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
ElFirst
❑
resubmission
Each additional resubmission
FREE
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission
$1,881
❑
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'1 notice fees will be required
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Panning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEIPAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up w fitiy (5f)) notices $215 *actual oust of first-class postage
$ l flo for each additional notice + actual
Y Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first-class postage
Actual cost
Y L.egal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)_ (minimum of $280 for total o1 4 ublications) _
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
I:2'4!17 Page I of I
Page 16 of 17
2019 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments given to the
Applicant
Applicant requests PC
Public Hearing AND
Payment Due for Legal
Ad (no additional
resubmittals)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing No sooner
than' COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Jan 16
Jan 25
Feb 19
Jan 07
Feb 06
Feb 08
Mar 05
Tue Jan 22
Feb 20
Feb 22
Mar 19
Feb 04
Tue Feb 19
Mar 06
Mar 20
Mar 15
Mar 29
Apr 09
A r 23
Mar 04
Apr 03
Apr 12
May 07
Mar 1$
Apr 17
Apr 26
May 21
Apr 01
Ma 01
May 10
Jun 04
Apr 15
Max15
Max31
Jun 25
Apr 29
may 29
May 31
Jun 25
Ma 06
Jun 05
Jun 14
Jul 09
May 20
Jun 19
Jun 28
Jul 23
Jun 03
Jul 03
Jul 12
Au 06
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 26
Aug20
Jul 01
Jul 15
Jul 31
Au-9 14
Aug09
Aug30
Sep 03
Sep 24
Jul 29
Aug28
Sep 13
Oct 08
Au 05
Se 04
Sep 13
Oct 08
Aug19
Sep 18
Sep 27
Oct 22
Tue 5e 03
Oct 02
Oct 18
Nov 12
Se 16
Se 30
Oct 16
Oct 30
Oct 18
Nov 08
Nov 12
Dec 03
Oct 07
Oct 21
Nov 06
Nov 20
Nov 08
Nov 19
Dec 03
Dec 17
Nov 04
Nov 18
Dec 16
Dec 30
Jan O6'
Dec 04
Dec 18
Jan 15 2020
Jan 29.2020, '
Feb 08 2020
Dec 20
Dec 20
Jars 24 20 ,;
Feb,07 2020
Feb 07 2020
—Jon 14
Jan 94 2{i20
Feb 18 2020
Mar 03 2020
Mar 03 2020
Bold italics = submittailmeefing day is different due to a holida
.
Dates with- shaded 4qkgroUnd.are not 2019.
2020 dates are tentative.
'Public hearing dates have be t b
en se y the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen
circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to
the closest available agenda date.
Page 17 of 17
Review Comments for SP201800011 :New Special Use Permit
Project Name: REGENTS SCHOOL - RESERVOIR ROAD
Department/DivisionlAgency:
Date Completed: Wednesday: May 22, 2019 Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski
CDD ARB
E 'RequestedChanges
1. The lighted ball field could have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors_ Information in the applicants /Apni zu, zu IZI
Special Exception Request is confusing regarding the intent to provide full cutoff field lights. Please clarify_ The use of full cutoff
fixtures is a recommended condition of approval.
2 The illuminated field lights may be visible for a distance along the 1-64 EC_ Consider a balloon test at the proposed light pole
height to help determine the extent of visual impacts-
3- Sheets 4 and 6 use the label "School Preservation Area' and the legend identifies a free Preservation Area". Please clarify
and coordinate_
4. Note that retaining walls visible from the EC street will be required to be terraced and planted if F tali or taller.
5. ARB review and approval of the proposed site and architectural designs will be required prior to final site plan approval. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, the applicant may wish to consider a conceptual architectural review by the ARB prior
to an initial site plan submittal_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed Cn: 0513012019