The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP201300019 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2013-12-06AL$ L�RGiNL�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 December 6, 2013 Paul Erb 279 Tandem Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Fax (434) 972 -4176 RE: SP 201300019, Tandem Friends Field House (and Enrollement /Staff Capacity Increase) Dear Mr. Erb: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal to expand the Field House building and increase total enrollment and staffing permitted on the site. We have some questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these items. Our comments are provided below: Planning Planning staff has summarized the major issues from the all of the reviewing agencies in this section. Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. This is an existing use (private school) on a site designated for institutional uses in the County's Comprehensive Plan. This use is consistent with the Plan. The Application Plan submitted for review ( "Tandem Friends Field House..." by McKee /Carson, revision date 06/17/97) does not reflect the current on -site conditions (for example, the plan shows a soccer field where a large parking lot currently exists). It is important that the application plan be reflective of both the existing and proposed conditions because the application plan is typically approved as part of any SP approval. It essentially sets the parameters for what can be developed /exist on the site. In addition, it is difficult to differientiate between what are existing conditions and what are propsed changes. Please address this with your revision. Please provide a narrative of the enrollment and on -site staffing history for the school. The narrative provided with the initial application submittal indicated this request for an Page 1 ofX Revised 4 -25 -11 eke increase to the enrollment /staffing limit is "to allow the possibility... to return to the historical capacity [of] 245 students, 5S staff." The site capacity limit has been 260 since 2008. We would like to know how often the actual enrollment /staffing has exceeded the current 260 cap and by how much. This may help us evaluate the impacts of the requested 40 person increase in capacity by understanding the past level of activity that has been occurring on the site. In addition, please advise us of the most desired cap for student enrollment (245 ?) and for staff (55 ?). At this point in time, Engineering, Planning and VDOT staff do not believe a traffic study is needed. Please note the Zoning Division's comment (2.) regarding the status of the parking and related landscaping ( "It does not appear that neither the parking nor the landscaping within the parking area was established per that plan" [approved site plan]). These are technically site plan violations which will need to be addressed either with the approval of the SP (as conditions of approval) and /or with subsequent amendment to the site plan for the site. Landscaping consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements should be shown or noted on the application plan. Please note the Zoning Division's comment (3.) regarding the need to verify parking on the application plan. Please note the comments from Fire - Rescue, particularly regarding access roads. These should be shown on the application plan. Please note the comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). Their comments note certain existing conditions that shoud be shown or corrected on the application plan. Neighborhood Model If a project is located within a Development Area, the proposal is typically reviewed for its consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehnsive Plan. This is an existing campus and the only "new" development is the replacement of the existing gym /field house with a larger field house building in the same general location; therefore, a full review against the neighborhood model is not needed for this proposal. More detailed comments may be provided after an updated application plan is provided. Below, please comments from the other reviewing agencies. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Francis MacCall. Please consider the following comments: 1. The concept plan should reflect the current conditions onsite. One of the more specific things to show accurately is the parking that was established with SDP 1998 -119. A revised concept plan will help with future determinations regarding proposed changes Revised 4 -25 -11 eke 2. If the plan from SDP 1998 -119 is used as a baseline for the concept plan then it needs to be revised to show current parking layout. It does not appear that neither the parking nor the landscaping within the parking area was established per that plan. 3. The parking calculation that was used for the last Special Use Permit and Site Plan appears to work for the proposal. Please lay the following out on the plan adjusting the numbers appropriately for the requested increase in the number of students and teachers from 260 to 300. Calculation from SDP 1998 -119 Grade 5 (24 students) 1 space per 12 students = 2 spaces Grade 6 -9 (110 students) 1 space per 11 students = 10 spaces Grade 10 -12 (90 students) 1 space per 3 students = 32 spaces 44 spaces The site plan stated that 108 spaces were provided. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Michele Roberge: 1. It appears the existing condition is not reflected on the plan. Please provide an updated existing condition plan. 2. The plan includes proposed items which are difficult to differentiate from existing items. I recommend providing another sheet with proposed items and final site layout. Entrance Corridor N/A VDOT Comments from VDOT are attached. Upon consultation with Planning and Engineering Staff, VDOT staff is not requesting a traffic study at this time. ASCA /RWSA Attached Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Notification and Advertisement Fees The Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $149.20 - Cost for newspaper advertisement $200.00 - Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $349.20 - Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $149.20 - Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $1,498.40 - Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the some time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is dbenish @albemarle.org. Sincerely, David Benish Chief of Planning enc: VDOT comments ACSA comments Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Revised 4 -25 -11 eke