HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800011 Correspondence 2019-09-18Tim Padalino
From:
Long, Valerie <vlong@williamsmullen.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:43 PM
To:
Tim Padalino
Subject:
FW: Full cutoff fixtures? (Regents School)
Attachments:
Notre Dame Prep Football Comparison #1 Photo with Energy Da.pdf; Notre Dame Prep
Football Comparison #1 Photo with Energy Da.pdf, TLC-LED-1500 Luminaire Photo
(Gray) Global (ID 68348).pdf; Evolution of Light Control-Musco - Other with Candela (ID
6.pdf; Virginia Project Installation List (ID 63549).pdf; Blanchette Park Before & After
Photo w(21 Energy Data #1 (I.pdf
Tim: See below and attached materials from the sales rep at Musco Lighting, who confirms that their
fixtures will meet the full cutoff requirement. The "ball tracking" feature is new to me, but he proposes a
good way to handle it — have it on a separate circuit, and then we can arrange for the IDA to review and
approve the lighting plan once it is developed — so that could be a condition of approval of the special
exception — that at the sight plan stage (or whatever point the lighting plan is developed and the school
wants to install the lights) that we demonstrate that the fixtures comply with the ordinance and that the
IDA has approved the lighting plan.
Do you think that will work on your end?
Please let me know if you have any more questions on this issue, and thank you again.
Valerie
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
434-951-5709
From: Steve Wiley <steve.wiley@musco.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Long, Valerie <vlong@wiIlia msmullen.com>
Subject: Re: Full cutoff fixtures?
Good morning Valerie,
I actually have been working with Rebecca Ragsdale from Albemarle County on understanding the differences with
LED versus HID lighting. Our LED fixtures will absolutely meet the full cutoff definition you have listed below.
The question is how to address/handle what we call "ball tracking" fixtures. These fixtures are mounted lower on the
poles, usually around 15' AGL, and push a small amount of light up and out over the field. All these fixtures do is light
the bottom of the ball in flight so the players can track it. Without these fixtures the ball will disappear in the air as the
cutoff is extremely strict.
If necessary, we could always put the ball tracking fixtures on a separate circuit so they can be turned on/off
separately until it is determined that they do not cause any issues with sky glow and/or spill/glare. When these fixtures
are turned off, we again will meet the full cutoff definition listed below.
Also, the IDA (International Dark Skies Association) has a program out there called Community Friendly Sports
Lighting. This program is designed to keep the night skies dark and limit backlight, uplight, and glare. The IDA
reviews any lighting design produced by the manufacturer and will issue a certification document if the design passes
their criteria. In addition, they will do on site verification if the owner wishes once the installation is complete.
went ahead and attached few documents for you that give you a better understanding on how things work. Please
keep in mind that the pictures from Notre Dame Prep and Blanchette Park do have the ball tracking fixtures turned on
in the attached pictures.
Take care and I hope you are a great weekend!
Steve Wiley
Senior Sales Representative
Musco Lighting
Phone: 800-754-6025 x6352
Mobile: 804-836-6785
@MuscoLighting
U.S. Soccer Foundation Kicks -Off New D.C. United Mini -Pitch at Petworth Recreation
Center. Check Out More Here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Long, Valerie" <vloncj(a-williamsmullen.com> on Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:37 PM -0500 wrote:
Hello Steve,
I hope you do not mind me reaching out to you out of the blue with this question.
I received your contact information from architects at Bartzen & Ball in Richmond, VA. I am a land use
attorney in Charlottesville, working with a private school that is proposing to redevelop vacant land in
Albemarle County, VA for a pre-K through 121h school that would include an athletic field and lights if we
can get the locality to approve the lights at a height of 70 feet (and approve a special use permit for the
private school). One of the other requirements is that light fixtures be full cutoff if they are over 3000
lumens. A copy of the relevant sections of the County's lighting ordinance is attached.
I'm way out of my league on this stuff. 1 know that your company's lights were approved for a youth
baseball field here (Peachtree baseball) and for an Albemarle County High School football stadium
(Monticello High School). With those two applications, the applicants applied for and were granted a
waiver from the requirement for full cutoff fixtures. The County staff said in both instances that although
the fixtures were not full cutoff, that they were "acceptable and would reduce spillover and limit light
emitted above the horizontal plane." So based on that, we submitted a similar request to the County for
the private school, and said that the school would likely use the same fixtures, based on how well received
they were at the other two sites, and since they were already approved by the County. Plus we saw your
marketing materials, which are very impressive and persuasive.
The County staff is now asking me whether the Musco fixtures are full cutoff or not — apparently there is
now a question about it. I asked the architects if there is a cut sheet available, and they provided me with
more of your sales materials — again, very impressive, and I'll likely share those with the staff as well, but
I'm hoping you can help answer the precise question of whether they are full cutoff fixtures as required by
the County ordinance? I have copied relevant definitions from the County ordinance below:
Full cutoff luminaire. "Full cutoff luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that
all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below
the horizontal plane.
Lumen. "Lumen" means a standard unit of measurement of luminous flux.
Luminaire. "Luminaire" means a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the
components designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to
the power supply. A luminaire is also commonly referred to as a fixture.
The definition of full cutoff luminaire requires the light to be projected below the horizontal plane. it
seems to me that if the staff determined that your fixtures would "limit light emitted above the horizontal
plane," then it meets that definition.
Any thoughts you can provide? Or do you have anything that states or shows your fixtures as complying?
Thank you for your assistance, I appreciate it.
Valerie Long
Valerie Wagner Long I Attorney I Williams Mullen
321 East Main St. Suite 400 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200
1-434.951,5709 1 C '134-247-07/92 1 F 434.81.7,0977 1 vlong(dwilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com
NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to atd,orney-cllcni, privilege acid ixfk
product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee, the recipient should irnwedhaiely rioffy the ser'der atld
destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof,
Luminaire and Driver - TLC-LED-11 SO
0
ffl
Luminaire Data
Weight (luminaire)
UL listing number
UL listed for USA / Canada
CE Declaration
Ingress protection, Luminaire
Material and finish
Wind speed rating (aiming only)
UL, IEC ambient temperature rating,
Luminaire
80 Ib (36 kg)
E338094
UL1598 CSA-C22.2 No.250.0
LVD, EMC, RoHS
I P65
Aluminum, powder -coat
painted
150 mi/h (67 m/s)
500C (122°F)
Photometric Characteristics
Projected lumen maintenance per IESTM-21-11
r,
L90 (13.5k) >81,000 h
L80 (13.5k) >81,000 h
L70 (13.5k) >81,000 h
CIE correlated color temperature 5700 K
Color rendering index (CRI) 75 typ, 70 min
Lumens' 121,000
Footnotes:
1) Incorporates appropriate dirt depreciation factor for life of luminaire.
j All components from foundation to poletop are designed
to work together in Light -Structure System' to ensure
reliable, trouble -free operation.
U.S. and foreign patent(s) issued and pending v2016, 2019 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC • TLC-LED-1150 5700K 75 CRI • M-2140-en04-8
I
Luminaire and Driver - TLC-LED-1150
Driver Data
Electrical Data
Rated wattage'
Per driver
Per luminaire
Number of luminaires per driver
Starting (inrush) current
Fuse rating
UL, IEC ambient temperature rating,
electrical components enclosure
Ingress protection, electrical
components enclosure
Efficiency
Dimming mode
Range, energy consumption
Range, light output
115OW
1150 W
1
<40 A, 256 µs
15A
50°C (122°F)
IP54
95%
optional
20 — 100%
25 — 100%
Typical Wiring
Surge'
protection
-------------
Contr%rL
Disconnect if preFuse DriverL2* Fuse
* If L2 (corn) is neutral then not switched or fused.
t Not present if indoor installation.
Max operating current per 7.11 A 6.83 A 6A6 A 6.18 A. 5.92 A ' 5.13 A 4.10 A 3.74 A 3.56 A 3.43 A 2.96 A
lumnaire2
Footnotes:
1) Rated wattage is the power consumption, including driver efficiency losses, at stabilized operation in 25°C ambient temperature environment.
2) Operating current includes allowance for 0.90 minimum power factor, operating temperature, and LED light source manufacturing tolerances.
Notes
1. Use thermal magnetic HID -rated or D-curve circuit breakers.
2. See Musco Control System Summary for circuit information.
26.00 in
(660 mm)
Vill
27.50 in
(699 mm)
11.00 in
,33 mm)
17,00in
(432 mm)
0000 U.S. and foreign patent(s) issued and pending • 02016, 2019 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC • TLC-LED-1150 5700K 75 CRI • M-2140-en04-8
Musco
2
im Padalino
From: Francis MacCall
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:14 PM
To: Tim Padalino; Kevin McCollum; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: RE: Review of Proposed Conditions: SP201800011 Regents School
I concur with Kevin's suggestion and would add, Is there a time limit for when they or we want the use to commence
(2yrs, 5yrs or other)? If so, then there is standard language we have used with some recent SPs regarding the
commencement of the use. As to condition #5 will the required revision meet the allowed revisions in #1? If not the one
or both of the conditions may need some rewording to accommodate it for a general accord revision.
Francis
From: Kevin McCollum <kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:04 PM
To: Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale
<ragsdale@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Review of Proposed Conditions: SP201800011 Regents School
I would suggest that condition number 2 be amended as follows:
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:45 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (or whatever hours they
propose), Monday through Friday, with occasional evening and weekend activities.
This condition coincides with our typical restrictions on hours of operation and after school activities.
Everything else looks good.
Kevin
From: Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Kevin McCollum <kmccollum@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale
<ragsdale@albemarle.org>
Subject: Review of Proposed Conditions: SP201800011 Regents School
Hello CDD-Zoning compatriots,
I will be taking SP201800011 Regents School of Charlottesville — Reservoir Road to the PC later this month. I
acknowledge that the timing on this request is sub -optimal ... but nevertheless, I am requesting Zoning review and
comment on the following proposed / recommended conditions of approval.
I will have an opportunity to refine these recommended conditions prior to formally presenting to the PC on 8/20; but
this (below) is how they will be initially provided in the staff report (which is being printed as I type).
If you need to view the Concept Plan or other attachments, those are all easily available on the I drive at:
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Planning Division\Tim Padalino\Current Dev Review\ACTIVE\SP201800011
Regents School\PC Public Hearing 2019-08-20\Attachments
And THANK (as always) for any/all assistance you might be able to provide - - - Tim x 3088
RECOMMENDED ACTION — SP201800011:
Based on the findings described in this report and factors identified as favorable, staff recommends approval
of the special use permit amendment SP201800011 with the following conditions (below) — provided that
the applicants make technical revisions to certain application materials (as identified by staff in Attach. 8) and
resubmit those revised materials no later than Monday, September 2 in order to be incorporated into the
meeting materials packet for the September 18 Board of Supervisors public hearing.
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP201800011:
Development of the subject property shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled
"Special Use Permit Concept Plan and Engineering Study for Regents School of Charlottesville"
prepared by Justin Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering, dated July 16, 2018 and revised July 1,
2019, which includes sheets C1 — C6 (the "Concept Plan"), attached hereto, as determined by
the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. containment of the "School Facility Site," School Recreation Site," and other major school
improvements to the 13.12-acre area designated "School Campus Site" on Sheet C3;
b. location and configuration of 5.99-acre area designated "Undeveloped Residue" on Sheet C3;
c. adherence to the land use chart on Sheet C4 specifying "Prohibited Uses" and "Permitted
Uses" for each different "Land Use" area;
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The school start time for the private school shall be 7:45 A.M. or earlier on Monday through Friday. A
school start time later than 7:45 A.M. is not permitted unless this special use permit is amended.
3. The number of enrolled students may not exceed 280 students.
4. The applicants must plan, fund, and implement the transportation improvements to Reservoir Road
shown on the special use permit application materials titled "Reservoir Road Survey for Regents School,"
prepared by Justin M. Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering, dated 4/29/2019, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. The proposed improvements are subject to review and approval by the County
Engineer, VDOT, and other applicable Site Review Committee members, and are subject to required
County approvals of Road Plans, a Water Protection Ordinance Plan, and all other applicable permitting
requirements.
5. The Concept Plan must be revised to make reasonable accommodation for the proposed greenway
identified on the Parks and Green Systems Plan (S+W 25) and referenced in the Trails Recommendations
(S+W 54), both of which are contained in the "Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan,"
by providing a commitment to reserve lands along or near the southern boundary of the subject property
(TMP #75-66 and 76-17) and along or near the tributary of Moore's Creek for future dedication to the County
for use as a greenway trail.
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner I Community Development Department
County of Albemarle, Virginia
ittps://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd
(434)-296-5832 x. 3088
The Regents School of Charlottesville SP201800011:
Requested Meeting with County Staff and Applicants
Friday, August 16, 2019
Meeting Agenda:
1. SP Review Process
a. Legal Ad Fee Payment
b. Notification Letter
2. Staff Report: Staff Analysis and Recommendations
a. Staff recommendations re: student enrollment
b. SE Requests — Outdoor Athletic Lighting
i. Staff comments and concerns re: visibility and Entrance Corridor
ii. Site Section(s)
iii. Balloon test
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 16, 2019
RE: SP201800011 The Regents School of Charlottesville Revised Notice/Change of Date
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner of the above -referenced petition described as follows:
Project: SP201800011 The Regents School of Charlottesville
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 07600000001700 and 07500000006600
LOCATION: Reservoir Road, approximately 900 feet west of the intersection with Fontaine Ave. Ext. and
across the street from Foxhaven Farm Road PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit application to construct, build,
and operate a private school for an initial maximum student enrollment of 280 students, and for a potential
future maximum student enrollment of 468 students. The proposed campus would include multiple academic
buildings, gymnasium, theater, administrative office building, and outdoor athletic field. No residential units
proposed. PETITION: Section 13.2.2(5) Private School ZONING: R1 Residential (1 unit/acre) with private
schools allowed by special use permit OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Managed Steep Slopes; Preserved Steep
Slopes; Airport Impact Overlay; Entrance Corridor COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Neighborhood Density Residential —.residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as places of worship,
schools, public and institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood serving retail and commercial in
Neighborhood 6 in Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods
This petition will be reviewed and public comment received at the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Should you wish to attend this meeting, you may
call this office during the week of the meeting to ask the tentative time the item is scheduled on the agenda.
After the Commission has taken action on the proposal, a second public hearing will be scheduled for the
Board of Supervisors. The Board's meeting begins no sooner than 1:00p.m. Public hearing items are typically
scheduled to begin at 6:00p.m. A letter of notification of this hearing will not be sent to adjoining owners;
however, you may check this website: http://albemarle.org/upload/images/webapos/zoning/ for SIGNS # 50 &
59 to see its status at any time. Alternatively, you may sign up for A -mail by going to www.albemarle.org. (Go
to the "Department" tab at the top and select County Executive. At the County Executive's page, you will see
"Albemarle County A -mail" by going to the menu on the far right of the page. It is the last item. Select this item
and sign up from there.) If you do not have internet access, please feel free to contact me by phone at
434 296-5832 x 3088
Should you have any questions regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at the above noted
telephone number or via e-mail at tpadalino@albemarle.org. Should you simply wish to review file material
4
pertaining to the project, this information is available for review in the Community Development Department
during normal business hours (8 a.m.-5p.m., Mon -Fri). To assure the information is ready for your viewing and
to allow staff to be available to help with any questions, we encourage you to schedule a viewing time. Please
contact me during business hours to schedule an appointment. While an appointment is not required, we do
give priority to those with appointments. Those without appointments may find the materials are in use by
others and/or staff is not available to help.
Sincerel ,
__t/ V �--
Tim Padalino, ICP
Senior Planner
Planning Division
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS
KASTENDIKE, GEORGE H V & LINDY G KASTENDIKE
STEVENSON, CAROL W TRUSTEE OF CAROL W STEVENSON TRUST
TAYLOR, FRANK EUGENE TRUST AGREEMENT
ROBERT E WILCOX CHARLOTTE S WILCOX
HAPGOOD, CHRISTOPHER C & PASCALE A HAPGOOD
KULKARNI, PRAKASH G & MAHMOODA S
THOMAS, TRESDON OR SUSAN K SOBKOWIAK
CONWAY, BRIAN P OR GWYN Y
KUSYK, ROBERT A & D CASEY KERRIGAN TRUST; ROBERT A KUSYK ETAL TRS
GEORGE, MARY AUSTIN HODGES
DEAN, MARK H
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HOST PROPERTIES INC
EDNAM VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOC INC C/O DEANE & FULTON
THE MINES OF MORIA LLC
1010 EDNAM LLC
PIEDMONT LIABILITY TRUST, THE C/O REBECCA WEST
LENDPRO LLC C/O PIEDMONT LIABILITY TRUST
W&V LLC C/O PIEDMONT LIABILITY TRUST
EDNAM VILLAGE OWNERS ASN INC C/O DEAN & FULTON
HART REPORTING INC
SHOWALTER, TIMOTHY N OR SHAYNA L
WHITWORTH, RUSSELL E & EINSLEY M JANOWSKI
SATIRA, JAMES D OR CAROLINE N
MACKETHAN, JOHN M OR EVELYN L
MURPHY, MARGARET ROBERTS
STITH, JEFFREY K OR JUDY N MEADOWS
BARNES, ANN SARGEANT TR OF THE ANN SARGEANT BARNES TRUST
ONE EDNAM VILLAGE LLC
STILLWELL, JOHN A OR GRACE M
SHERRERD, KATRINA F TRUST
YOUNG, MELISSA ANN
EVANS, RITA M ESTATE; JUDITH M SIMPSON & WALTER H ROCK JR EXECUTORS
ROSSER ASSOCIATES
CURRELL CORPORATION
WHITE GABLES CHARLOTTESVILLE LC C/O ROBINSON DEV GROUP INC
IVY ROAD PROPERTIES LLC SEMINOLE PLACE
KENRIDGE LLC
THE PINES GROUP LLC
SHRUM, RICHARD L OR SUSAN S
HARLOW, DAVID M OR NAN A & KERRY LYNN HARLOW
HEDGEROW HOLDINGS VI LLC
KISNER, CLINTON E
RECTORS & VISITORS OF THE UVA C/O 0 MANAGEMENT
FONTAINE LAND TRUST; WILLIAM W STEV
TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH THOMAS
1 CANTERBURY LLC
GARDNER, LAURENCE H II TRUST ETAL & MARILYN G GARDNER TRUST ETAL
DAHL, THOMAS P OR KIRSTIN F
HAWLEY, ALLEN B OR MARY C
MATTHEWS, STEPHEN E & ELIZABETH FEIL MATTHEWS
WOOD, A DEL GRECO OR ELIZABETH A B
WOOD, WRILEY C A & LEONORA D
AYERS, HENRY F III & ANDREA B, TRUSTEES; AYERS JOINT TRUST
ELDER, EUGENE E OR DEBORAH M
GREENE, JANE C
MOOREFIELD FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
DONALSON, CHRISTOPHER OR JENNIFER
POTTER, JAMES A & ELIZABETH J INGE
CROSBY, ALEXANDER
HALING, JOEL A OR PATRICIA M
GROVES, DUSTIN & AISLINN GROVES
ROGERS, EDWIN 0 OR ASHLEY T
MARRI, MOHAN R OR RAMALAKSHMI MARRI
LANKENAU, HARRY R OR SUSAN C
TUCKER, HERBERT F OR ANN E
DENNIS PATRICK DORAN, JENNIFER 0 DORAN & FLORENCE D DORAN
FREY, DAVID OR CYNTHIA ANN
YEMEN, TERRANCE A OR GERALDINE M
FREY, MATTHEW J OR MARIAN J
WHALEY, ROBERT 0 JR OR SUSAN M SEIDLER
VERKERKE, J HOULT & ANN THERESE VERKERKE
DALLAS, DAVID L JR OR SUSAN W
STEWART, NEIL M
HOWARD, JOHN W & ELIZABETH M HOWARD JOINT TRUST AGREEMENT C/O JOHN & ELIZABETH HOWARD, TRUS
FOWLER, MICHAEL REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST
SCHMIDT, BARRY R OR PAULA W
RE RAMSEY PROPERTIES #2 LLC
VILLA, JOSEPH OR MARIEL GARCIA
RE RAMSEY PROPERTIES #2 LLC
SCHWAB, FREDERIC R OR ELIZABETH J
PLATER, MICHAEL A OR ALLISTER P
EAGAN, PATRICK
AUSTIN, LOIS B TRUSTEE OF THE LOIS
SPROUSE, GROVER WOODROW & JOHN A SP
f
HERRING, JAMES I OR VIRGINIA C
WARD, RICHARD N & CAROL A
NICHOLAOU, MICHAEL OE TERRI B
WALMSLEY, CHRISTOPHER G OR KATHERINE M
MEYER, ROBIN LEE
HURTT, WILLIAM J OR REBECCA H SACRE OR WILLIAM J HURTT JR
DINH, TON
JOHNSON, CECIL H
J W SIEG & COMPANY INC
VIRGINIA EAGLE PROPERTIES LLC
THE PINES GROUP LLC
MEDLIN, BURLEY M SR OR MARY K
HERRING, MASON B ESTATE C/O SHAWNA GRANTHAM
HUDSON, DOUGLAS D & STERLING M HUDSON TRS OF DOUGLAS D HUDSON REV
REDFIELDS LAND TRUST C/O BENJAMIN M MILLER
HERRING, MASON ESTATE
cc: University of Virginia Foundation
PO Box 400218
Charlottesville VA 22904
Regents School of Charlottesville
3045 Ivy Rd
Charlottesville VA 22903
City Manager
PO Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RECEIVED
AU6 7 9 t019
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Tim Padalino
From: Tim Padalino
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 2:23 PM
To: David Benish; Megan Nedostup; Margaret Maliszewski; Kevin McDermott
Subject: Regents School reactions
THANKS very much to each of you for your attendance and participation at the meeting this morning. And thanks also
for all of the preceding coordination on this project.
Before wrapping up for the week, I want to send the following summary of issues related to Regents School, based on
our meeting this morning with the applicants:
SP request for conditional increase in student enrollment (beyond 280; up to maximum of 468):
o Proposed condition is too vague as written
o Staff are willing to consider the merits of revised condition of approval related to (conditional) future
expansion
o Kevin and Justin seemed to identify some initial ideas about how that might be improved
o Potential changes in recommendations should include some comprehensive consideration of potential
transportation impacts
■ Additional staff evaluation should not simply be focused on the performance of the interchange
... i.e. would a 468-student private school in that location necessitate any other improvements?
New signage? Traffic control personnel during drop-off / pick-up times? Etc.)
SE requests for outdoor athletic lighting:
o Staff will further evaluate the requests inclusive of recently -submitted specifications and in light of
recent knowledge acquisition re: LED sports lighting
Tactical / procedural questions:
o Do we want to receive additional materials form the applicant? If so, what is the deadline? Possible
examples:
■ Revised Concept Plan inclusive of technical changes identified in Attach. 9, as was previously
requested
■ Revised proposed condition of approval for maximum student enrollment of 468
o If time and workload allows, are we open to a staff report addendum being prepared and provided to
the PC, based on any further evaluation/analysis/recommendations? Possible examples:
■ Change in recommended conditions of approval for SP application
■ Change in recommendation and/or recommended conditions of approval for SE requests
Next steps:
o Continue internal evaluation of SE requests for outdoor athletic lighting
o Continue internal evaluation of proposed future student enrollment at 468 (max)
■ Coordinate with Justin re: potential condition of approval for 468 students (max)
o Evaluate internal capacity to prepare staff report addendum (alternate option: provide PC with verbal
update only)
■ Coordinate potential revisions to any recommended conditions of approval with Zoning and
with Legal
I have time on Monday morning and Tuesday morning to work on this application. I'll plan to reconnect with you on one
of those days.
Thanks once more / enjoy the weekend ---
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner I Community Development Department
County of Albemarle, Virginia
https://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd
(434)-296-5832 x. 3088
Tim Padalino
From:
Kevin McDermott
Sent:
Friday, August 23, 2019 1:23 PM
To:
Justin Shimp; Kelsey Schlein
Cc:
Tim Padalino; David Benish
Subject:
Regents School Trsffic condition
Here are some suggestions for the thresholds that we would want to see in the condition to allow Regents to go beyond
the 280 students. These thresholds will be based on the Future no -build scenario from the original TIA (October 2018)
unless significant improvements (ex. Signalization, diverging diamond) are made to the intersection in which case a new
traffic analysis will be performed.
Intersections to be assessed:
Reservoir Road/Fontaine Ave Intersection
US 29 SB/Fontaine Ave Interchange
US 29 NB/Fontaine Ave Interchange
Time Periods:
30 minutes before school start time
15 minutes before and 30 minutes after school end time
Thresholds:
For time periods or locations not assessed in the original TIA: no movements maty not show a delay greater than 35
seconds.
For time periods and locations assessed in the original TIA:
• movements operating at less than 15 second delay may not increase by 30 seconds or more
• movements operating at between 15 and 35 second delay may not increase by 20 seconds or more
• movements operating at greater than 35 second delay may not increase by 15 seconds or more
Please review and let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Kevin
Kevin M. McDermott
Principal Planner — Transportation
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 Ext. 3414
kmcdermottCaalbemarle.org
Tim Padalino
From: Long, Valerie <vlong@williamsmullen.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:01 PM
To: Tim Padalino
Cc: Justin Shimp; Kelsey Schlein
Subject: RE: Regents School question / SE requests
Tim,
I was able to reach the Musco lighting rep today and have the following information to share:
He confirmed again that the ball -tracking fixtures will not be needed if the field is for soccer, field hockey, or
lacrosse. And as for the fixtures, he said it would be either the Total Light Control 1200 or 1500, which he
explained to me are the exact same fixtures, just with different wattages. One is 1200 watts, the other is 1500
watts. He said that at the point where they are designing the lighting plan for the fields, they will evaluate the
project and determine the most efficient and cost effective way to light the field while reducing and avoiding
spillover and glare. The pole heights and fixture wattages are determined by where the poles can be located
as well as where the property lines are. If the property lines are nearby, they will likely use the lower wattage
fixtures for the fixtures in those areas to reduce the amount of offsite spill and glare. But in other locations
they might use 1500 watt fixtures to reduce the number of fixtures needed to light the field, since less fixtures
usually result in less upfront cost. He explained to me that the fixtures used are determined on a case -by -case
basis, such that each site is unique.
Based on this information, I still think these types of details are best left to be determined at the site plan
stage, as they were with the conditions for the UVA Tennis SUP. That way the lighting plan on the site plan
can be carefully designed at the site plan stage based on the precise location and size of the field, final grades,
property lines, distance to the EC, etc. I continue to think that it would be most appropriate for the Special
Exception to be based on the following:
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.
As with request (1) above, the School is agreeable to a condition of approval of the Special Exception that
requires the school to submit and obtain ultimate approval of a lighting plan prior to site plan approval for any
site plan that includes the light fixtures, that shows the precise locations and pole heights of the luminaires, and
that otherwise demonstrates compliance with all other applicable provisions of Code Section 18-4.17.
Our hope and intent is that these provisions would provide comfort that the County will still have oversight of
the precise details of the lighting plan once it is developed, such that the Special Exception request can be
recommended for approval. I worked to intentionally match the text in prior approvals for consistency and
convenience for all.
Thank you again,
Valerie
Valerie long
Williams Mullen
434-951-5709
From: Long, Valerie
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp <justin@shimp-enginee ring.com>; Kelsey Schlein <kelsey@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: Regents School question / SE requests
No ball tracking needed because the field will not be used for baseball or tennis.
I do not know the answer to the fixture model but will try and find out. Do you know what the difference is between the
1500 and the 1200? 1 will try to reach the Musco rep in the meantime.
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
434-951-5709
From: Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 10:52:53 AM
To: Long, Valerie <vlon williamsmullen.com>
Cc: Justin Shimp <iustin shimp-engineering.com>; Kelsey Schlein <kelsev@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Regents School question / SE requests
Hello Valerie,
I hope you enjoyed the weekend (and the cooler weather!).
I'm writing with a few questions about the Special Exception requests for outdoor athletic lighting at The Regents
School. I'm doing a final compilation of the information that was provided via email on Sunday 8/11, and I realize I need
clarification on the exact lighting being proposed. Can you please clarify the following:
■ What type of luminaires are proposed? You provided info on both the TLC-LED-1150 and also the TLC-LED-
1500. (My understanding is that the 1150 model will no longer be available, and is being replaced with the
1200 model).
■ Does the proposed outdoor athletic lighting include ball tracking fixtures?
Thanks in advance for providing these clarifications and details.
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner I Community Development Department
County of Albemarle, Virginia
https://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd
(434)-296-5832 x. 3088