Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800011 Review Comments 2019-07-01PROJECT MANAGEMENT HIM CIVIL ENGINEERING ' LAND PLANNING ENGc,�i I I � Mr. Tim Padalino Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 July 1, 2019 RE: Response Letter #2 for SP-2018-00011 (Regents School — Reservoir Road) Dear Tim, Thank you for your review of the above mentioned zoning request. This letter contains responses to County comments dated May 30, 2019. The letter lists County provided comments in gray followed by our responses in black. Best, Kelsey Schlein Kelsey@shiMp-engineering.com 1 (434) 227-5140 Cc: Valerie Long vlong(i�williamsmullen.com Justin Shimp Justin(oDshimp-en ineerin .com In consultation with Countv 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 (toad, 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 analv5'is and evaluation of this proposed development. That TIA is a crucial pieceof intioniiation. ii. If the TIA does not demonstrate that the proposed development will not negatively impac( the mobility, safety, or level of service for that interchange, then it may be difficult for Staff to recommend approval of this proposal. U(Iote 5/3#:'Staff acknowledges the preparation and submittal of the following traffic analyses: the "Traffic Assessment Supplement" document dated March G, 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 ANI hours — even if the hours of operation were scheduled in a way that attempts to minimize vehicle trips during timesconsidered to be "regular peak hour" (7:45A:M — 8:45AM). Please see review comments from Kevin McDermott (CDD-Planning / Transportation) and Adam Moore, i, (VDOT) The applicant proposes an initial enrollment of 280 students with a 7:45 a.m. school start time. A supplemental traffic memo dated June 14, 2019, included with this resubmittal, compares the impact of a build scenario with a 7:45 a.m. start time and 280 students in the year 2028 (the "build -scenario") and the no -build 2028 AM peak hour (the "no -build scenario"). This memo demonstrates that in the build scenario the Route 29/Fontaine SB intersection will function at a LOS B with a 12.0 second delay while in the no -build scenario, the overall intersection will function at a LOS D with a 30.1 second delay. At present, an estimated 32 trips through the Route29/Fontaine SB intersection in the AM peak hour are generated from Regents School parents driving from areas north of town along Route 29 to the School's Jefferson Park Avenue location and from parents dropping off children at both the Jefferson Park Avenue and Ivy Road locations who travel through the intersection between dropping off children at their respective schools. If the property were to be developed by -right, with approximately 23 dwellings, additional trips from these homes would likely be added to the peak hour in addition to the trips generated by Regents School traffic if the school is to remain in its existing two locations. By allowing the school to operate on the Reservoir Road property with a 7:45 a.m. start time, not only would the existing Regents School trips be removed from the peak hour, but also the potential trips generated from the development of single family homes on the property would not be added to the peak hour traffic. 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 de funding for or the planned improvements at the Fontaine Avenue "interchange" have been submitted to 'DOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB iii. 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. iv- It is not clear how Staff will be able to accurately evaluate the potential impacts ofthis propo$al prior to the CTB announcing which Smart Scale applications have been awarded/funded. U,12date 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. b. Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the proposed level of development on the subject pt-Operty, with regards to the existing transportation infrastructure (capacity and level of service). i. The SijIte'fraffic Assessment (dated October 12, 20 18) indicates that an additional 1,161 VDT ",ould be added to the Current 400 VDT. Staff are concerned about that potential increase, given the current LOS.for the intersections associated with the Fontaine Avenue -interchange- tor the US 29 Bypass, and considering the current capacity is already in need of ImproVement. ft J130 - __: 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 (N'DOT). The applicant proposes significant improvements to Reservoir Road that are proportional to the anticipated traffic impacts generated by the school. The proposed improvements to horizontal and vertical curves along Reservoir Road will greatly increase sight distance and improve certain road conditions for all drivers on Reservoir Road. Although the school will contribute to increased traffic through the Route29/Fontaine interchange given the existing infrastructural design and capacity of this interchange, the school proposes a 7:45 a.m. start time and an initial enrollment of 280 students. These measures will significantly reduce, if not eliminate, impacts from the school during the peak hour. The Route29/Fontaine interchange has existing peak hour delays and these delays are expected to increase over the next ten years. The proposed improvements to Reservoir Road in conjunction with the enrollment and start -time restrictions allow for the transportation infrastructure to reasonably accommodate the increased traffic volume generated by the proposed development. ii. DUC w concerns about the adequacy of Reser oir 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). UuIyLe 5132: 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 Ro A revised road plan is provided with this resubmittal. The revised plan includes additional information about proposed improvements to Reservoir Road. It is our understanding Community Development Department's concerns regarding the adequacy of the Reservoir Road and Fontaine Avenue intersection are only maintenance related and that the functional operations of the intersection are adequate to accommodate increased traffic from the school. in. Staff may also recoanuend that the owner dedicate ROW to acco nrnodate future bicvcic and pedestrian inobility (multi -use path.). G mate 5134, 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- .tt'.;l Note 3 on Sheet C4 of the SP Concept Plan has been revised to remove the second sentence of the note. The use table on Sheet C4 describes the variety of uses that may be allowed in the ROW. VDOT indicated on August 14 that their traffic report data can be used as background / baseline data for the TIA. iv. Please submit the TIA for review by the County and by VDOT, LX7 1 a : 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 (N'DOT). c. 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. The applicant would like to retract previous commitments to Route 29 SB exit ramp improvements and Fontaine WBL turn lane improvements. After conducting additional analysis, the interchange can function adequately to accommodate traffic from 280 Regents School students with a 7.45 a.m. start time. 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 .vest approaching the 118 interchange, Update 54 0: 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 vi?alls, 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 nri-Oirable) qwixkifli V ilti once Corridor Design Guidelines (where applicable}. An additional cross section from the 1-64 EB straightaway is provided with this resubmittal to provide more context about the topography and existing vegetation from the 1-64 viewpoint to the site. AA-c iteciurut Reijcvv Board (AR6) review and approval will be required. Please see review comments from Margaret NIaliszewski, 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 ofthe use of outdoor athletic lighting. i. Preventing glare and spillover (beyond a set level/location) are Code requirements. ii. Screening of outdoor athletic lighting inay need to be considered. U) ate 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 "ill contribute to staff being able to conduct an informed, accurate staff Regents School is willing for the approval of the Special Exception to be conditioned upon the school submitting a lighting plan at the site plan review stage that demonstrates that all footcandle levels around the site and along property boundaries would be in compliance with the spillover standards required by County Code 18- 4.17.4.b.1, which allows for footcandle levels of up to 0.5 at a property boundary. This would also protect the adjacent Entrance Corridor of Interstate 64, which will be located over 100 feet away. Our project team has discussed the minimum height of the light fixtures necessary to adequately light any standard soccer field or lacrosse field with the project architects, who have confirmed that the required height is 70 feet to avoid detrimental impacts. If the pole height is limited to 35 feet, the fixtures would have to be mounted at a significant angle to cover the entire field, and that would result in significant impacts to the area, including the Entrance Corridor. Thus, the requested Special Exceptions will actually result in a condition that has far less of an impact than if the height of the poles were limited to 35 feet. As noted previously, this request is the same as that made for numerous other applications that were recently approved, all of which are along County -designated Entrance Corridors. As noted in the staff report for B2019002019A1 (Monticello High School Stadium Lighting Special Exceptions): "Lighting systems that both fully comply with the requirement for a full cutoff luminaire and provide sufficient and safe illumination of athletic fields as recommended by the illuminating Engineering Society of North America have become available in recent years — but these lighting systems are significantly more expensive than the proposed Musco LED luminaires. Even though the proposed Musco LED luminaires do not meet the County's standards for the use of full cutoff luminaires as required by Section 18-4.17.4.a, the proposed luminaires have been determined to be a reasonable alternative that would provide adequate lighting levels, reduce spillover, and limit light emitted above the horizontal plane. Musco lighting has been approved at many other athletic facilities located in the County." Furthermore, as noted in the staff analysis of the similar special exception request for SDP-2018-00077 "Crozet Park Phase III Athletic Field Improvements," the proposal would allow the applicant to "conduct games and practices during nighttime hours, thereby expanding opportunities for youth in Crozet and the surrounding area to participate in organized active recreation" as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The same could of course be said about Regents School's proposal. c. sc aL ', i 1 �l'ti111i i t> [ii� tt�i) 'i)iii .LitiZ` cllt t l'iii9l ll lYst�l, Lille t tit 1lI�i1111In ,j —t Resource Management:: 3. Architectural Review Board staff in CDD-Planning Services Division: t;% drztg 5130: From 1 1argaret Maliszewski (see attached review comments dated May 22, 2019): a. The lighted ball field could have a negative impact on the Entrance: Corridors. Infornlation in the applicant '.s April 29. 2019 Special Exception Request is confusing regarding the intent to provide full ebtoff field lights. Please clarify. The use of fiill cutoff fixtures is a recommended condition of approval. (response to comment included below comment "b.") b. The illuminated field lights allay he visible for a disialie~e along the I-64 EC. Consider aballoon test at the proposed light pole height to help deternune the extent of visual impacts. Repeat Response. Our project team has discussed the minimum height of the light fixtures necessary to adequately light any standard soccer field or lacrosse field with the project architects, who have confirmed that the required height is 70 feet to avoid detrimental impacts. If the pole height is limited to 35 feet, the fixtures would have to be mounted at a significant angle to cover the entire field, and that would result in significant impacts to the area, including the Entrance Corridor. Thus, the requested Special Exceptions will actually result in a condition that has far less of an impact than if the height of the poles were limited to 35 feet. As noted previously, this request is the same as that made for numerous other applications that were recently approved, all of which are along County -designated Entrance Corridors. As noted in the staff report for 132019002019A1 (Monticello High School Stadium Lighting Special Exceptions): "Lighting systems that both fully comply with the requirement for a full cutoff luminaire and provide sufficient and safe illumination of athletic fields as recommended by the illuminating Engineering Society of North America have become available in recent years — but these lighting systems are significantly more expensive than the proposed Musco LED luminaires. Even though the proposed Musco LED luminaires do not meet the County's standards for the use of full cutoff luminaires as required by Section 18-4.17.4.a, the proposed luminaires have been determined to be a reasonable alternative that would provide adequate lighting levels, reduce spillover, and limit light emitted above the horizontal plane. Musco lighting has been approved at many other athletic facilities located in the County." Furthermore, as noted in the staff analysis of the similar special exception request for SDP-2018-00077 "Crozet Park Phase III Athletic Field Improvements," the proposal would allow the applicant to "conduct games and practices during nighttime hours, thereby expanding opportunities for youth in Crozet and the surrounding area to participate in organized active recreation" as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The same could of course be said about Regents School's proposal. Sheets 4 and 6 use the label "School Preservation Area" and the legend identifies a -Tree Preservation Area". Please clarify and coordinate. Note revised to "tree preservation area" for consistency. d. Note that retaining walls visible from the EC street will be required to be terraced and planted if 6' tall or taller. Noted. e. ARB reviekv and approval of the proposed site and architectural designs will he required priorto final site plan approval. Due to the scale of the proposed development, the applicant DIaV wish to consider a conceptual architectural review by the ARB prior to an initial site plan submittal. Noted. 4. School Operations: a. A Parking Study inust be prepared and submitted for evaluation by the Zoning Adininistrator,in order to detcniiine parking requirements (per Z.O. 4.12.6). See Zoning coninients (page 9),_ L"adate S/30: 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 2 ' 9, 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 CID -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 forother activities at the theater. LVIT)naSILIin and,;or athletic field, including after school hours and,,'or weekends). U; date 5-430: 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 JPINIJ 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 anilime 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 CHID -Zoning review comments (dated May 24,2019) from Mr. Kevin McCollum. If during site plan review it is determined a shared parking agreement is required to meet parking requirements, the applicant will provide a signed shared parking agreement to accommodate on -site parking needs. d. 1-11e amount, location, and type of outdoor lighting for areas other than athletic field is a question xvhleh should be addressed (at least conceptually) during the SP review process Udate 513L): 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 scb fencing would need to be located outside of storrnwater management facilities. preserved steep slopes or tributary to Moore's Creek, or other similarly sensitive areas). date 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 hown 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. U! dat� 51,12: 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. i i. 2:1 slopcs should be minimized, 3:1 slopes are strongly encouraged. Update Staff acknowledges the applicant's commitments to comply with the Albemarle Count-8, Design Standards Manual (which limits constructed slopes to a 2:1 slope) and to utilize 3:1 slopes "to the greatest extent reasonably possible." Hi. See ­De��elopincnt 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- ading, in proximity to preserved steep slopes and stream buffer. I 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. SLib�iect to decision by County Engineer. ULaLt�, 51.30: 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, 5M : 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." iil, County Engineer may recommend that the stormikvater facilities shall notdischarge tivatcrs over or across steep slopes (and must be piped or otherwise conveyed to an appropriate destination). L,"d &j1-3 : 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: a. 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, grad ' ing, and creation of managed steep slopes. Ubdate U/ 0: 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 acknowledge's the proposed "Preservation Area" and the five (5) foot minimum setback from Preserved Steep Slopes. The Conservation Checklist will be submitted during ARB review. 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 theoverall environmental sensitivity and biological importance of this area at the edge of the Ragged Mountains. Update / i 30: Staff acknowledges the proposed "Preservation Area" which, "in addition to complying with existing regulations, (preserves] portions of the site outside of the floodplain, the NVPO [buffer], and preserved slopes." c. Please see the attached review comments from David Hannah, Natural Resources Mana,yertor Albemarle Countv, dated 8/8/2018. L- 7. Conceptual Plan: a. Identify proposed "use envelopes'* within proposed "limits of school campus" area identified as 13.21 acres. t. Staff acknowledge the level of (conceptual) details contained in the "Illustrative Plan of Development Exhibit" that was prof ided with this submittal, but that is described as being for illustrative Purposes only. In contrast, the Concept flan (Sheet C3 of 4) does not indicate proposed (conceptual) locations. areas, or envelopes for structures, parking, athletic fields; or other improvements. li. 'File -I imits of school campus" appear to be analogous to a "limits of dtistu rbance" exhibit; more information about the proposed uses should be included in this Concept Plan sheet. Lpdo& 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 -- andwhen'? ii. Is theme too much program for this site (relative to site -specific environmental constraints)`? (I�te J12 ,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 byihe proposed development, particularly during AN1 hours, even when considering the proposed hours of operation that attempt to minimize vehicle trips during times considered to be "regular peak hour" (7.45A�1�1— 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. Repeat Response. The applicant proposes significant improvements to Reservoir Road that are proportional to the anticipated traffic impacts generated by the school. The proposed improvements to horizontal and vertical curves along Reservoir Road will greatly increase sight distance and improve certain road conditions for all drivers on Reservoir Road. Although the school will contribute to increased traffic through the Route29/Fontaine interchange given the existing infrastructural design and capacity of this interchange, the school proposes a 7:45 a.m. start time and an initial enrollment of 280 students. These measures will significantly reduce, if not eliminate, impacts from the school during the peak hour. The Route29/Fontaine interchange has existing peak hour delays and these delays are expected to increase over the next ten years. The proposed improvements to Reservoir Road in conjunction with the enrollment and start -time restrictions allow for the transportation infrastructure to reasonably accommodate the increased traffic volume generated by the proposed development. c,L)Inliltt7tllt' ! C'C'ltlt Staff acknowledge that the required Community Meeting was conducted at the Regents School's current location on Ivy Read on Thursday. August 30. A summary of the applicants' discussion with members of the public during the cominIunity meeting include the following questions, issues, and concerns: I'r ect 5� alc 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. RKQj�gct phajgg: questions about the general timefrarne and sequence for constructing thevariOLIS iniproverrients shown on the conceptual plan. c) 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," kvInch has a generalt i irric horizon of four years, tentatively includes the athletic field and either the gymnasium building or one lower school building. I 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 arid concerns about outdoor lighting. I 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 -tip when parents and children park at Trinity Presbyterian Church and walk across Reservoir Road). Transportation impacts to Fontaine Avenue �' iDe Avenue Extended /US 29 By ass: 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 tuning. LILTateL._10: Staff acknoNvIedges the revised resubmittal materials that attempt to address the issues identified during the community meeting and also identified in the first review comment letter. (Lottjwrehcn,sii,e Platt Updated comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) are provided below; additionally, comments regarding conforrnitN with the Comp Plan will be provided to the PC and BOS as part of the staff report. The Comp Plan designate es 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 -W14), 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 tile list of secondary uses '*where they are deemed corripatible with neat -by and adjoining land uses." A Portion Of these properties is designated for -Parks and Green Svsterns" future land uses. This designation corresponds %,ith natural resources and environmental features, such as the tributaryto Moore's Creek, the floodplain around the tributary. and prcseiA,ed steel) slopes. The Master Plan also provides additional infort-riation and rccornincndations regarding this area ofFontaiae Avenue Extended and the nearby US 29 / Interstate 64 interchange, as follows: Centcrs There are two designated Centers neat, 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 DIVA" and recommends that "the uses be limited to office uses and commercial uses in conjunction with those offices. The Plan 111-ghlights the irriportanceof providing, pedestrian connectivity to uses and Centers on the other (eastern) side Of US 29. S_�_W 36 Th e other Center is the "southwest quadrant of the Route 19 and 1-64 Interchange" (,('enter 6). This is designated for *'Regional Mixed Use.- to include In dustrial ndustrial uses and Parks and Green Systems uses, I-lowcvcr, 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) "Other Areas of Importance " -- • Foxhaven Farm, located across Reservoir Road from the subject properties, is identified as an"Other Area of Iniportance":for its potential to accommodate future "educational uses, including but not limited to, a research station," (S-t-W 46) o Hmvevcr, consideringI., 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. "P'lan,lbr I''Iltllre 1'clrks and Green Svstenis 0 Natural Resource Protection Recommendations (S+W 5' )): • "The stream buffers, systems of steep slopes, floodplain., and wetlands adjacent to ... Moore's Creek ... should be preserved."' • "Minimize stream impacts and improve the health/quality of Moore's Creek,.." 0 Cultural and Scenic Resources Protection Recommendations (S4_W 53): o '-Preserve and; maintain the vegetation that exists along Entrance Corridors and especially 1-64 ... to protect the quality and character of these roads and help to provide a visual and sound buffer to developments." 0 Trails Recommendations (S+W 54): o "Provide a grecinvay trail to the Ragged Mountain Natural Area." "Plan for future Transportation Venwrk 0 Transportation Plan for Western Urban Neighborhoods (S-W 57): c Figure 37 identifies the US 29 /Fontaine Avcaue interchange as one of twotargeted Intersection Improvement projects. k Transit Recommendations (S-W 63): cl, "Provide transit service on Fontaine Ave. Extended to connect Morey Creek Office Parkto other University -related LISCS." In summary, the proposal to develop these subject properties for use as a private school are potentially partially consistent with the Master Plait. 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. A school use on this site, within the area designated as "Neighborhood Density Residential' is consistent with recommendations for Neighborhood Density Residential designated land as stated in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. The applicant has explored multiple enrollment and school start time alternatives in order to minimize traffic impacts in the peak hour. A school use on this property is ideal for controlling how traffic generated from development on the site will impact the Route29/Fontaine interchange. A school has the autonomy to designate a start time that keeps school traffic out of the peak hour. Additionally a school can influence the number of student drivers driving to school individually by allocating a minimum number of parking spaces to students, further reducing individual trips and encouraging car pool amongst student drivers. If the property were to be developed by right, with approximately 23 single family homes, there would be no control over this traffic and how it would impact the peak hour traffic. Most of the trips generated by the by -right development would likely contribute to increased trips in the AM peak hour. Further, if the property were to be developed at its Comprehensive Plan recommended density, at approximately 50-100 residential units, this unregulated traffic would have significant impacts to the interchange especially during the AM peak hour. The applicant proposes to keep development on the site within a "school use boundary", as shown on the concept plan provided with this application. A significant portion of the site is slated to remain as "tree preservation area." If the property were to be developed to its by -right potential, there may not be such a significant portion of the site designated to be preserved. The by -right development scenario may have a greater impact on the entrance corridor because of the possibility of increased tree removal. A,eiahborhood Model: In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model, The Neighborhood Model was developed to guide the "forrn" of development. The Neighborhood Model recommends that the Dcvelopinent 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 :ffe shown along the improved edge of Reservoir Road along the majority of the front ,0rovertv line. I . W Prillci,ole is Inet. Mixture of Uses I -lie proposed use is a private school. The future land use designation is Neiallborhoot-1 't Z:�, Density Residential, which primarily calls for Residential uses (at a density of 3-6 utlits/acre), and which supports private schools as a secondary use. The future land use PlUi do'es not call for nixed uses in this location. Pllillcil)lc isparlia,1117 Inet, 4rs this lwol-)osal wolll(l /-c,sil/t in el st,11ool heillg located ill a re'sidCliti'll area. llonvver; this princil)lc is llot fid/i� aly)licahh, to this 1.)rol)osal or' locatioit Neighborhood l he proposed project is a private school, which does not appear to have any direct Centers issociation with. or impact (positive oi- negative) on, the recommended future Centers. Fhe applicants stated during tl-.Le community meeting (8!30,"2018) that they intend to rent thf: ,;!Nlilinasiulli, athletic field, and/or possibly other facilities to colulnu nity groups or other orLyanizations, potentially to include providing use of facilities at reduced costs or for no cost. If such rentaliuse is allowed, the private school would serve some coirirnunity 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 Pl'illcil't", is not illillwdiatcli- aJ)J)1icabL Mixture of Housing I his principle is not immediately applicable - the proposed project is a private school, Types and is llol Interconnected The applicants stated during the community meeting (8;'30120 18) their intention to prow de Streets and Cuture interparcel pedestrian connection to Trinity Presbyterian Church which adjoins the Transportation subject properties to the east. This proposed pedestrian connection is shown oil Sheet C6 of Networks the Concept Plan (which is denoted as, being ­FOr 1HUStatrative Purposes OnIC). A vehicL]!,, connection does not seem critically important in this location. and the existing "onditions (iriost notably topography) result in such a connection having relatively low , =�asibllit�% ! ',­i1loio1'c is Partiolli, Illet. Multi -modal I firs prB ate schooll proposal school bus services. Bii"LiC ol11� Sl"s Transportation 01,0VIded in order to support and advance the use of alternative transportation modes. Staff Opportunities jCknoNvtec4,,es the continent response letter M'Ilicll states that "the inclusion of bil<Q of the site may be explored during site plan." il,/c 1'� met, Staff acknowledges u .: arc a°` proposed file approxi .. , : ; e site (ox 'approximately 6 acres). an area w llicli would be an "Undeveloped Residue" and which ��,,ould include all of the areas designated for Parks and Green Systems future land use plus adelitiotlal areas. Staff flirther acknowledges the proposed five (5) foot minimum setback , oju the Preservation Area. Additionally, the proposal includes recreational amenities such Asa lighted ball held, a school green, and courtyards between school buildings. r"r?•ifreii Buildings and Space Staff acknowlcdlLcs that increasing the spatial enclosure and architectural presence along of Human Scale, Peservoir Road (by increasing the building elevation or utilizing a higher finished floo7 l nation) would result in increased impacts to the Interstate 644Entrance Corridor. \dditionalty, the proposal does not represent a development that is overwhelming, in scale or appearance, rcil�le is partialIV 172a Relegated Parkin; i lie Illustrative Plan and Concept Plan do not show any parking between primary building !!Id the public right of way. 1^illciplc is Incl. Redevelopment i lie subject properties are currewly undo\'eloped, Respecting l erx"aili -aft'remains concerned about file extensive proposed cut and fill operations ghat would, and Careful Grading reate an unnaturally large plateau of relatively flat ground (or a "pad") in order to and Re -grading of "'Mumodate almost all of the School Campus program at a similar finished floor elcvaUo, Terrain -,tiff eucourages the applicants to explore opportunities to utilize grading. terracing. or :r r Aar practices throughout the site (and not just at the edge of the proposed "pad..) in order better situate this Campus into this Site 'Without creating such au extensive pad surrounded w yetaining walls and constructed steep slopes. +ocl'evc r, staff also acknowledges that the proposed conceptual grading and site layout told contain all development an(] land disturbing activity within the "School CanlPus," and OUld leave approximately 6 acres of "Undeveloped Residue" in a Preservation .Area." Staff ,rther acknowledges the proposed five (5) foot minimum setback from the Preser-vatiot %rya in order to minimize grading near Preserved Steep Slopes and other sensitive features. '�`lt.�•1171e� ishGrt-tir711i� reel. Clear Boundaries the subject properties are not adiacent to a Rural Area boundarv. with the Rural Area zrirc=r7!t> i nr�1 crr,r,ri�°crl�l�'. Zoning; The following written review comments were provided by Kevin McCollum, CDD-Zoning, on 1/)4i2019 regarding the above noted application. These comments are also attached its a metro. 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 (elated 4 29"2019) until at least the year 2028. b. Staff recommends that a written parking agreement be solidified with Trinity Presbyterian Church for and potential overflow parking. The 84 parking spaces appear to be sufficient for 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 spices. c. if the current application is approved please be aware that an amendment to theapproved special use permit will be required if the use intensities or the projections of number of students, eniplovees. or amount of parking needed for the use changes. The applicant proposes the following condition: "Except as otherwise provided herein, initial student enrollment shall be limited to 280 students, and the start time of the school shall be 7:45 am, until the completion of improvements to the Route 29/Fontaine Avenue intersection. Notwithstanding the foregoing, student enrollment may exceed 280 students, and/or the school start time may be shifted to a time later than 7.45 am if the Applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of VDOT and the Director of Community Development (or his/her designee) that the functional operations of the Route 29/Fontaine Avenue intersection will continue to be adequate to accommodate the additional trips associated with the proposed increase in school enrollment and/or later school start time. In no event may the student enrollment exceed 468 students without an amendment" And requests Staff consider the following: As has been discussed with County Staff, and as shown on the Supplemental Traffic Study memo by EPR dated June 14, 2019, if the school enrollment is limited to 280 student initially, and the start of the school is 7:45 am, the 2028 build conditions (with the school at 280 students with a 7:45 start time) are an improvement over the 2028 no build conditions (no Regents School at the Reservoir Road site) in terms of the following: • Overall level of service (LOS) of the Route 29 / Fontaine Avenue intersection (LOS B compared to LOS D) • Overall intersection delay (12 seconds compared to 30.1 seconds) • Route 29 southbound ramp delay (27.7 seconds compared to 45.4 seconds) • Route 29 southbound ramp que length (350 feet compared to 500 feet). Except as otherwise provided herein, initial student enrollment shall be limited to 280 students, and the start time of the school shall be 7:45 am, until the completion of improvements to the Route 29/Fontaine Avenue intersection. Notwithstanding the foregoing, student enrollment may exceed 280 students, and/or the school start time may be shifted to a time later than 7:45 am if the Applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of VDOT and the Director of Community Development (or his/her designee) that the functional operations of the Route 29/Fontaine Avenue intersection will continue to be adequate to accommodate the additional trips associated with the proposed increase in school enrollment and/or later school start time. In no event may the student enrollment exceed 468 students without an amendment. 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 otic-lialf (1/2) foot candle onto public roads and adjacent properties and theapplicant can Justify the need to build the poles to 70 feet and have them not be full cut-off. Regents School is willing for the approval of the Special Exception to be conditioned upon the school submitting a lighting plan at the site plan review stage that demonstrates that all footcandle levels around the site and along property boundaries would be in compliance with the spillover standards required by County Code 18-4.17.4.b. 1, which allows for footcandle levels of up to 0.5 at a property boundary. This would also protect the adjacent Entrance Corridor of Interstate 64, which will be located over 100 feet away. Conditions a. Staff is recommending that there is a condition that limits the maximum enrollment to the 2028 pro�jecti6ris (2 10 students). For the use to expand beyond that., there needs to be a formal parking algrecuient between Regents School and Trinity Presbyterian Church which would require an amendlllent to "In approved, Please note the applicant proposes an initial enrollment of up to 280 students. No updated review corninents have been received from Engineering Division staff Updated Engineerin g 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, CFMI. Please also note the previous Friginecring comments, which were originally provided on 8/31i2018, 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 S\kAl facility located adjacent the gymnasium shall be piped to join the dischargeof the SWM facilit-, 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"o). 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 310. 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 channe ls that are partially filled (or some other solution must be presented for review). This can be addressed during VSMY'perinittinlo. 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. 1 3.C1. 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. 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 SP20180001 I is ongoing in the Traffic Engineering section, and review comments will be prof iced after a review of the technical components of the traffic study is I 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 SP20180001 1. ,Rivanna Water and SeVvyer Authority ! Dyon Vega, RWSA Civil Engineer, provided the following review comments on 5/231'2019: RWSA has reviewed the Special use Permit application and Concept Plan for Regents School as prepared by Shinip Engineering. P.C. and dated 0429/2019 and recommends approval of the special use permit. With this approval. RWSA offers the following ogeneral comments for the applicant: General: 1. 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. The applicant looks forward to a working relationship with RWSA during the site plan phase to ensure impacts to the existing raw water main are minimized and to explore where it may be necessary to replace a portion of the raw water main with ductile iron. 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 2023-2014, The applicant looks forward to a working relationship with RWSA in negotiating the approximate location and terms of an easement on TMP 76-17 for the construction of the raw water main. It will be critical for the applicant to have these conversations with RWSA during the site planning phase so RWSA's proposed easement and Regent's proposed school campus may function harmoniously on the property. 3. RWSA is no longer considering this site as it possible location for future raw water pump station Comment received. Sheet J: 1. Please show label on RN�'SA facilities inclildim-, All RWSA facilities including material, size, and owner will be included on the site plan. 2. Please label RWSA's exrstin,_, C<l i ilif 11t` to jttChide & Od ind the co I All RWSA easements to include deed book and page numbers will be included on the site plan. oheet 6: 1. Please show label on RWSA facilities including material, size.. and owner. ?. Please label RWSA's existing easements to include deed book and page numbers, and thecorrect width. �. Fxeess slot>es and V!,0110getl is dl "U.k,'t' fill over Ru``JA faczlity, please revise, The applicant looks forward to a working relationship with RWSA during the site plan phase to ensure impacts to the existing raw water main are minimized and to explore where it may be necessary to replace a portion of the raw water main with ductile iron. ° No trees are allowed in RWSA current or future casement, please relocate trees in easement. Comment received. The trees shown in the easement on the conceptual plan have been removed. 5. Proposed sewer line is placed within easement and within 10' of RWSA line, please use a min of 10' from pipe for placin,gy sewer facilities per VA Witi'rworl{c Noted. The sewer location has been revised on the concept plan to be 10' from the RWSA line. The site plan will comply with applicable VA Waterworks regulations. RECEIVED JUL 0 1 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT