The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-08-13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIN A L AUGUST 13, 2008, 6:00 P.M. COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING LANE AUDITORIUM 1 . Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Recognitions: a. Proclamation recognizing August 26,2008 as Women's Equality Day (deferred from August 6,2008). 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 7. Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. To receive public comments on a proposal recommended by the Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation staffs to plan for the installation of lighting at the Darden Towe Park tennis courts. Darden Towe Park is located off Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) at Elk Drive. 9. PROJECT: SP-2007-053. St. Anne's-Belfield New Academic Buildina Proiect. PROPOSED: to increase the number of students from 300 to 550 by adding new buildings and demolishing some existing buildings. No residential units are proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-1 Residential (1 uniUacre). SECTION: 13.2.2.5, which allows private schools by Special Use Permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Institutional - schools, universities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities and utilities in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X. LOCATION: 720 Faulconer Drive (Rt.855), Charlottesville, VA 22903, approximately 1620 feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 offramp from the 250 Bypass. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 60, Parcels 57, 57A, 57B, 57C. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 11. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 7.1 Approval of Minutes: January 23, 2008 7.2 Authorize County Executive to execute an amendment to the 2007 Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department Service Agreement for building improvements. 7.3 Resolution of the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, authorizing the issuance of up to $195,000,000 in revenue bonds for Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation. (Remove from agenda) 7.4 Resolution of Support for Airport Extension Project. WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY WHEREAS, many decades of effort by workers for women's rights were required to obtain passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving women the right to vote in 1920; and WHEREAS, in 1848,160 years ago in Seneca Falls, the need was recognized and proclaimed, but after great effort there is still no reliable protection in the U.S. Constitution for women against sex discrimination in general; and WHEREAS, in the past years, laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly discriminated against girls and women in general, or against particular classes of women, such as in matters of reproductive rights, sexual assault, marital property, and sexual harassment, and although some laws and policies have been somewhat eased, such improvements can be, have been, and are being reversed; and WHEREAS, some institutional policies, whether overtly discriminatory or "facially neutral," in public, voluntary, and private institutions, still have inequitable effects on women; policies such as those dealing with job promotions, occupational choice, recreational opportunities, and access to medical care (including reproductive and abortion services), and stereotypes still exist which limit women's roles and activities; and WHEREAS, young girls and adult women still must contend with unwanted touching, sexual and verbal assault, and rape, and being viewed by men as objects to use, thus illustrating that many stereotypes are still operating which reinforce unjust assumptions; and WHEREAS, most of the care of the young and the elderly is still given primarily by women, many of whom through economic necessity must also work in the job market and/or at home; and WHEREAS, in many other ways the tasks of providing equal opportunities to women and men, and the tasks of removing burdens which fall unjustly on women as compared with men remain uncompleted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim August 26, 2008, as WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community, which acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and men, with liberty and justice for all; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board urges all citizens on August 26 and thereafter (1) to treat all distinctions and classifications according to sex as initially suspect and to be questioned until they are justified by an equitable and compelling interest of the community, the institution, or the individuals affected; and (2) to require that the burden of justification for any distinction according to sex be borne by those who wish to discriminate against women as compared with men; and (3) to examine all "facially neutral" criteria such as physical stature requirements, occupational qualifications, child care assistance opportunities, home maintenance responsibilities, elder care benefits, and disability benefits to determine whether they have disparate impact on women; and (4) to promote affirmative action in the public, voluntary, and private sectors in order to overcome the effects of past discrimination and stereotyping which have limited the life chances of women and girls as compared with men and boys; and (5) to eliminate all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women and ensure equality of rights, privileges, and responsibilities under equitable principles and practices for all women and men. Signed and sealed this 13th day of August 2008. Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~ ~ C) ~ rfJ. ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ cd ~ 0 ~ ~ U "'0 ~ (j) 0 ~ ~ C) 0 rfJ. ~ S 0 ~ ~ .~ bO ~ .~ .~ bJ) '""d ~ .~ cd > ~ ~ cd u ~ ~ C) ~ ~ .~ (j) ~ ~ Z ~ ~ <C "'0 o t8 ~ ~ o ~ bJ) -........ "'0 C) u ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ bJ) c---. ~ rfJ. .~ ~ > u ~~ o 0 ~ ~ C) ~ (]) E ~ ~ -........ ~ 0"'0 ~ ~ V} ~ dJ 00 .- 11;;1 ~ lo~ ~ ~ =: ~ .... toil ~ ~ ~_ :.. ,o,;t t~.' ~ ~ ; "'0 1:<" ~ =:; :;l r; 'f! ...:l /~-- ~~._" I' "t:l...... ';i \. ,I OJ" (id oj) " r ~ ~a ~~ = \ I ,.Q O,~.. ~I J ;;.t ~,-! Q ___ I, ~ O't:l'W i --~ t.<; ..~. ;:: ~.V~ \.:;li-lol!:''l#; \" Q ,I " /' '-.~-._.'--// C'.... ~ ~ . i ~ w ~ w ::E s: (/)v:;, !:: ~ go ~, . I ~ 1-- "" l.0 ~ ic(1'J ) _ c. ... ~\f ! ~ w . Ji U CD i ~ W 1U · .! a:o.lo Memorandum TO: DATE: Members, Board of supervls~oi. ' , Ella W. Jordan, CMC, C~ Ov August 6, 2008 FROM: SUBJECT: Reading List for August 13, 2008 January 23, 2008 Mr. Boyd NOTE: Please remember to pull your minutes at the meeting, if they are not read. Thanks. /ewj COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5841 FAX (434) 296-5800 August 15,2008 Mr. John C. Vermillion, Jr., President Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. 3827 Stony Point Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: Amended Service Agreement County of Albemarle and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. Dear John: Enclosed please find one fully executed copy of the amended service agreement by and between the County of Albemarle and the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter. Sincerely, lJMr Brya . Elliott Assistant County Executive BOE/dm 08.011 Enclosure (1) pc: Mr. Jack Mellot, Assistant Chief, Stony Point Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. Mr. Larry W. Davis, County Attorney Mr. 1. Dan Eggleston, Chief, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Mr. Richard Wiggins, Director, Department of Finance AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 15th day of August, 2008, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Company"). WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire suppression services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Fire Company and the County entered into an Agreement dated May 7, 2007, whereby the County agreed to contribute Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to provide for renovations and improvements to the building and property located at 3827 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, Virginia (County Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D) that are necessary to provide fire suppression services; and WHEREAS, after the receipt of the bids for this project, the cost of the renovations and improvements, inclusive of A&E fees for construction phase services, has been adjusted to One Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Dollars ($152,000.00); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the agreed repayment terms the Fire Company repaid Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Dollars ($17,980.00) in July 2007 but desires to amend the repayment terms to address the reduced loan amount and cash flow issues of the Fire Company in subsequent years. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire Company agree, as follows: 1. The Fire Company agrees that it will pay to the County Twelve Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four Dollars ($12,184.00) on or before November 15th each November of2008 through 2017 and Twelve Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($12,180.00) on or before November 15,2018. Thus at the end of twelve (12) years, including the 2007 repayment already received, a total of $152,000.00 shall be repaid. 2. This Amended Service Agreement amends only Paragraph 2 of the Service Agreement dated May 7, 2007, attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated by reference. All other terms and conditions of the Service Agreement remain in full force and effect and are reincorporated herein by reference. 1 . Witness the following signatures and seals: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA :~~~~ER FillE COMPANY, we . ./ /- ./ :;;e r:;,.c;J.g;5J.r.7Gw~ ::;70///(/ c- v~~ n--r,rc.c.&O'(/ 7 . spt/rC- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: IS A; 6~ Date ~ft~r Date The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this IS+/' day of Ou..?f.U;+ , 2008 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. . AQ~OAUd;3. ~ N P bl' \\1\11"'''''//11 otary u IC ,,\\\0. M Ul. 1111, " ~ . , I, ,,~ .......... .../" ........ My Commission Expires:Q-//'Vl P ../ .30 d()G q f~~""" ......~;\ ~ I / :=~:" OIARY ". ~ My Registration No.: ;?S-fJ- C;? 4- ~ *~ ~ --,0 j'" ~ ; ". PUB'- /~ g ~ a .. 0,":-- .0 (5 ~ ~ ~.../,r~G #'l...,':,<6:..~',~.f ~ ..' ,......... '" ......../11 ~.~A..L..;.;,:. ~ "", /1// "C: .1" \\\\ 1111'"" 111'11 \\ COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: .....L. The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this ~daYOf4~ ,2008by-:sQh(\ L- \Jefm:.II~()r\J Tr. . ~' }d - 0Ntt~ () ary Pu~c . My Commission Expires: 5 -3 ) - :?-ocR My Registration No.: :3o&;<?;3 Approved as to Form: ~,~ ~ty orney 2 JUDY H. MARTIN NOTARY PUBLIC Commonwealth of Vi~nia Reg. # 30e--Zg My Commission Expires May 31. 2009 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to the 2007 Stony Point VFD Service Agreement AGENDA DATE: August13,2008 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize County Executive to execute an amendment to the 2007 Stony Point VFD Service Agreement for building improvements CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Letteri LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: On April 5, 2006, the Board approved a plan to appropriate funding from the FY06/07 CIP fund balance for a $215,750 no-interest loan to the Stony Point VFD for various building renovation projects needed to maintain or ensure services. The loan was in addition to a County grant to Stony Point VFD for $239,736 to repair/replace the fire department's roof, parking lot, and HVAC system. Staff recommended that the loan be paid back over 12 years through an annual payment of $17,980 per year. On June 7, 2006, the Board adopted a resolution appropriating the funds and on May 2, 2007 authorized the County Executive to enter into a Service Agreement with Stony Point VFD which defined the terms and conditions of the loan. STRATEGIC PLAN: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents. DISCUSSION: The Office of Facilities Development has coordinated the preparation of plans and specifications as well as bidding phase services for this work. Based upon the bids received and Stony Point's desire to eliminate the storage building from the scope of the project, the actual loan amount can be reduced from $215,750 to $152,000. Stony Point VFD has also requested that the County modify its invoicing practice for loan repayment. Under the mutually agreed upon terms of the 2007 Agreement, the County withholds $17,980 from its annual appropriation to Stony Point's operating budget through July 2018. In July 2007, this amount was withheld pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Stony Point has requested that the County submit an invoice for its annual loan repayment amount; revised now to be $12,184 per year in lieu of deducting the annual loan repayment amount from its operating funds. Staff prepared the attached amendment to the 2007 Service Agreement modifying the outstanding loan amount and repayment methodology and has shared this with Stony Point VFD's Chief and administration staff. The amendment redefines the basic terms of the loan: $152,000 no-interest loan, paid back by November 2018 through an annual invoiced amount of $12,184 per year. This Amendment was reviewed and signed by Stony Point VFD's chief. BUDGET IMPACT: The reduction of this project will result in $63,750 in funding for other capital projects and/or to increase the capital reserve. Future anticipated revenue to the Capital Improvement Fund from the loan repayment will be reduced $5,796 per year through FY 2019. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign this amendment on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS: A - Amended Service Aqreement Resolution In Support of the 800' Extension of Runway 21 At the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport commenced commercial air service in August 1955 to serve the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport contributes over $170 million of direct economic impact to the Albemarle-Charlottesville region; and WHEREAS, the only runway serving the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport was last extended in 1966 to the current size of 6,001' x 150', and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has identified the extension of Runway 21 as critical to the continuing success of air service at the Airport; and WHEREAS, this extension will occur on Airport property and will be funded by the Federal Aviation Administration, Virginia Department of Aviation, and Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport funds; and WHEREAS, it is expected and required that the construction of this extension will occur in a manner that provides the highest level of environmental protection reasonable for this type of construction activity; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby support the extension of Runway 21 by 800' in order to support the economic benefits provided by Airport operations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors extends its appreciation to the Federal Aviation Administration and Virginia Department of Aviation for the funds that will be provided to the Runway Extension Project at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as rec0111..... .be... 10. W, at.. a re9.u. lar me.etin9 held on Auqust 13,2008. . wJ. . . 'nR ............ C(/ V .~ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd Y Mr. Dorrier y Ms. Mallek y Mr. Rooker y Mr. Slutzky y Ms. Thomas y Resolution of the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors In Support of the 800' Extension of Runway 21 At the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport commenced commercial air service in August 1955 to serve the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville; WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport contributes over $170 million of direct economic impact to the Albemarle-Charlottesville region; WHEREAS, the only runway serving the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport was last extended in 1966 to the current size of 6,001' x 150', and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has identified the extension of Runway 21 as critical to the continuing success of air service at the Airport; WHEREAS, this extension will occur on Airport property and will be funded by the Federal Aviation Administration, Virginia Department of Aviation, and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport funds; WHEREAS, it is expected and required that the construction of this extension will occur in a manner that provides the highest level of environmental protection reasonable for this type of construction activity; NO~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT the Board of Supervisors does hereby support the extension of Runway 21 by 800' in order to support the economic benefits provided by Airport operations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors extends appreciation to the Federal Aviation Administration and Virginia Department of Aviation for the funds that will be provided to the Runway Extension Project at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. I, . Clerk for the County of Albemarle do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at the regular meeting held on the _ day of August, 2008. Darden Towe Tennis Court Lighting "To light or not to light: that is the question?" I TJ 1 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis / - Existing County Tennis Courts I I . Currently we have 36 courts in the County available to the public: .28 of those on school grounds .22 are lighted - High Schools .8 are at park facilities (including 4 at Towe) . City has 19 additional courts - 8 lighted 2 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis 1 ( I k Survey says: . 26% of our households need tennis courts . How well existing facilities meet need: 340/0 completely 390/0 partially meet 27% does not meet 3 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis L.....- Staff recommends to Light: I . Darden Towe Park is a regional park . Lighted facilities are typically the norm . Darden Towe Park is in the Pantops Development Area . Lighting will extend use throughout the year . Charlottesville Tennis Patrons has offered to lead fund raising . No negative impact to neighbors is anticipated 4 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis 2 ( I No Negative Impact: "V ou cannot be serious?" 5 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis ~ No Negative Impact: I . The tennis courts can be lighted in compliance with the County's Lighting Ordinance .20' - 25' Poles . Full Cut Off Fixtures . Reducing glare and light spillage and eliminating sky glow 6 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis 3 4 5 - No Negative Impact: Traffic ( I I . Maximum Peak Usage of 16 persons at non peak traffic times 11 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis No Negative Impact: Noise . Park Closure Time is recommended to be 10pm . Tennis is an inherently quiet sport and "most" players are well behaved 12 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis 6 Darden Towe Park - A park like Towe Park does have an impact: ( I I . Saturday Mornings: March - November (softball and soccer) 9am - Noon 502 cars, turnover every hour Noon - 3pm 250 cars 3pm till Dark 100 cars 14 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis 7 ~ A park like Towe Park does have an impact: C I I . Sundays: Average 250 until4pm, then 75-100 until dark . Weekdays Average 100-125 5pm - 6pm, then 75-80 near dark 15 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis ~ Board of Supervisors Minutes - February 5, 1986 ( I I . Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think anyone can guarantee citizens that there will never be lights. 16 8/11/2008 Let's Play Tennis 8 k \ Public BeanoS! 00 8/13/08 Hello, my name is Christine Shaw and I live in Forest Lakes at 1489 Birchcrest Lane. I have been a tennis enthusiast all my life. I am also currently a Board Member of the Charlottesville Tennis Patrons Association, a local non profit organization committed to providing tennis programs for youth and adults in our community. I have enjoyed playing tennis all my life, starting at age 7, when I played for my local Parks and Rec. team and continuing on to the present, as I actively play tennis in leagues and tournaments. I've moved many times over the course of my life, but the one constant element throughout has always been tennis. Wherever I've lived, I found it easy to assimilate into the community by meeting others who play tennis, as well as by getting involved as a volunteer at community-based tennis programs and functions. Playing tennis has been a great way for me to be physically active as well as engaged and connected in my community. Tennis is a sport that allows anyone, both young and old and everyone in between, to enjoy a great aerobic workout while also affording them the opportunity to forge lasting friendships. As our society grapples with health problems associated with high obesity rates in children and adults, I strongly recommend that our local government consider creating an environment that fosters active lifestyles for its county residents. One way of doing this is by providing lighted tennis courts, which enables people to enjoy tennis after work and in the coolness of the evening, thus fully utilizing the assets the county already has. A huge proportion of our county residents do not belong to private tennis clubs such as Boars Head, Farmington and Glenmore, but they nonetheless have a strong desire to play tennis. Our county tennis courts should be available to them, even in the evening hours. Many county residents work long hours or even non traditional work shifts. I therefore ask that the County approve lights to be installed at Darden Towe tennis courts. New technological advances in lighting now make lighted tennis courts more "neighborhood friendly" while at the same time meeting the lighting standards from the United States Tennis Association. Lighting systems can be centrally controlled, which allows a cost effective means to monitor when lights come on and off in the evenings. These systems provide maximum playing time while also ensuring no adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Forest Lakes is a residential community in the northern part of Albemarle County. They have a total of 12 lighted tennis courts, 6 in Forest Lakes North and six in Forest Lakes South. Here are some pictures of tennis courts in the evening. RECt:lijt:L; . Zb" 3 O<b Date. _-_..._..._,.."..~.. ~"--- -' - . <\~e(\da Itmf; :L'_~-~i1' .~v'd .f,~ :vm ~ Lights at both North and South are on a photocell and timer. This means that the lights cannot come on until it is dark (the photocell senses this). If it is dark and someone wants to play, they turn the timer on. The lights will stay on for the amount of time the timer has been set. These tennis courts are surrounded by nearby single family homes. I'd like to point out that there is little if any "light drift" from the lights on the court to the surrounding neighborhood. The lighting is concentrated on the tennis courts, which is the whole intent. There are no complains from the nearby residents about the lights on the tennis courts. Instead, our association is often complemented by its residents for providing an environment that is conducive to leading an active lifestyle. If it can be done effectively and successfully at Forest Lakes, it can be done elsewhere. Please consider installing lights at the Darden Towe Tennis Courts. Lighting at this facility would provide a means for county residents to lead an active lifestyle, with no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and would enable the county to fully utilize its already existing investment at Darden Towe. Thank. you. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing - Darden Towe Tennis Lighting AGENDA DATE: August13,2008 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider County approval to allow future lighting of Towe Park tennis courts. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONT ACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Mullaney ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: At its April 2, 2008 meeting, the Board was advised of a citizen request to allow the tennis courts at Darden Towe Park to be lighted. The Darden Towe Park Agreement between the City and the County (Attachment A) requires the mutual agreement of both jurisdictions to light any competitive sport or other recreation facility at this park. This matter was referred to the Darden Towe Park Committee ("Committee") for a recommendation and a Committee meeting was held on May 29, 2008. The Committee recommended that the Board and Council each set this item for public hearing in order to receive input from the public prior to taking action. At its July 2, 2008 meeting, the Board set its public hearing for August 13, 2008. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens. Goal 2: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County's Growing Needs. DISCUSSION: There are four tennis courts at Darden Towe Park which are presently not lighted. Staff recommends that the County Board of Supervisors agree to allow these courts to be lighted for the following reasons: . Darden Towe Park is a regional park with a very large service radius. . Lighted facilities are typically the norm for regional parks. . Darden Towe Park is in the Pantops Development Area. . Providing lighting for the courts will extend their use throughout the year. . The Charlottesville Tennis Patrons Association has offered to lead a fund raising effort to install lighting for the courts. . No negative impact to park neighbors is anticipated. Staff's opinion that the tennis court lighting will have no negative impact on park neighbors is based on the following: . It is possible to light these courts in accordance with the County's lighting ordinance. . Maximum peak usage of 16 persons at non-peak traffic times will not create a vehicular traffic issue for the park. . Tennis is an inherently quiet sport and will not create a noise issue. . Park closure time is recommended to be 10:00pm. Staff recognizes that lighting of the facilities at Darden Towe Park has been a concern of park neighbors since the City and County entered in an agreement to establish the park in 1986. (Attachment B) When the park was being planned in the mid 1980's, it represented the first park of its kind in Albemarle County with multiple facilities for field sports such as soccer, lacrosse, and softball. Nearby residents were very concerned about the potential negative impacts of this new park and in response to these concerns the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strongly opposed lighting of the athletic facilities. As requested by the Board, the minutes of the February 5, 1986 Board of Supervisors meeting (Attachment C), which included a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for what is now Darden Towe Park, are attached. If after the public hearing the Board agrees to allow the tennis courts to be lighted, staff has prepared a resolution for the Board's consideration to allow the lighting (Attachment D) contingent on similar agreement by the City and the approval of an acceptable funding and lighting plan. BUDGET IMPACT: The total cost estimate for lighting the tennis courts is approximately $125,000 while the annual operating cost is estimated to be $900. Capital and operating costs are divided between the City and County based on the relative population of the two localities. There is no budget impact at this time. Future project implementation will depend on the development of an acceptable funding and lighting plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution expressing its intent to allow the tennis courts at Darden Towe Park to be lighted. ATTACHMENTS: A - 2007 Darden Towe Park Aoreement B - 1986 Darden Towe Park Aoreement C - 1986-02-05 Minutes D - Resolution to allow liohtinq of Darden Towe Tennis Courts Attachment A " DARDEN TOWE PARK AGREEMENT This Agreement, dated this to 'hv day of ::Ju.ne...,. , 2007, is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (hereinafter called "County"), acting through its Board of Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (hereinafter called "City"), acting through its City Council: SECTION I. PURPOSE. Darden Towe Park is jointly owned by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The purpose of this agreement is to provide a fair and equitable allocation of responsibility between the two localities for the development, operation, and maintenance of the park from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012. SECTION II. ALLOCATION OF COSTS. Operating and capital costs for the park will be divided between the City and County based on the relative populations of the two localities according to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Annual Population Report. The 2006 Weldon Cooper final population estimate published in 2007 will be used for the base term of this agreement from July 1,2007 through June 30, 2012. All expenditures subsequent to the 2007 - 2008 fiscal year, whether capital or operating cost, are contingent upon the appropriation of funds by the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in the year of expenditure, and the failure to appropriate by either governing body shall not be deemed a breach of this agreement. Nothing in this agreement would prohibit either the City or County from making improvements to the property at its sole expense pending the approval of those improvements by both the City and County.' SECTION III. ADMINISTRATION. MAINTENACE AND OPERATIONS The park shall be administered as a County park under the Albemarle County Code. The County shall provide fiscal and legal services for the operation of the park for an administrative fee of two percent (2%) of the park's total operating budget. The County shall be responsible for the general administration, maintenance, supervision and security of the park. Persons employed for such purposes will be County employees. The County will bill quarterly for the City's share of expenses. The City will be responsible for the operation, supervision and scheduling of City softball programs at the park.. County residents will be treated as City residents in terms of fees and access to those programs. No fees will be charged to the City for the use of the park for those programs. The City will also be responsible for the scheduling and collection of fees for softball tournament games at the park. The City will forward fees collected for tournament play at the park to the County to be included as park revenues. The operation, supervision and scheduling of all other facilities in the park shall be the responsibility of the County. SECTION IV. REVENUE GENERATION. Park revenues shall be deducted from operating expenses prior to calculating the City and County share for each quarterly billing period. 1 r' SECTION V. PARK SUPERVISION. The Director of Parks and Recreation from the City and the Director of Parks and Recreation from the County together with appropriate staff members from those Departments will work in close consultation in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the park. Together they will develop five year projected operating and capital budgets which will be updated annually. City and County staff will meet when requested by either Director to resolve issues or to rule on special problems or requests . that cannot be routinely handled by staff. In the event the City and County Parks and Recreation Directors cannot agree or resolve an issue, the City Manager (or designee), and the County Executive (or designee) will meet together with the Directors to resolve the issue. SECTION VI. DARDEN TOWE PARK COMMITTEE. The Darden Towe Park Committee consists of two members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and two members of the Charlottesville City Council appointed by their respective governing bodies. The Committee will perform the following functions: 1. Approve new capital development plans for inclusion in the Park's annual and five year budgets. 2. Resolve any differences on policy issues between the governing bodies as they may pertain to the park; 3. Provide direction to City and County Parks and Recreation Directors as requested; 4. Meet as directed by Board or Council to resolve issues, make recommendations, etc.; 5. Make recommendations to the governing bodies for alterations to the City/County agreement. SECTION VII. PARK OWNERSHIP. The park is owned jointly by the City and the County. Each locality shall hold an undivided interest in the property and all improvements. In the event that the park or any part thereof is c:onveyed by the two localities to any other entity, whether public or private, any proceeds received for such conveyance shall be divided between the localities on the basis of the cumulative capital investments of each locality in the entirety of the park property. Neither the City nor the County shall make such a conveyance of its interest without consent of the other party. SECTION VIII. LIGHTING In the original agreement entered into in 1986, the City and County agreed that night lighting would not be included in any of the three development stages for any competitive sport facility. In recognition of the history and intent of not having lighted facilities in the park, no lighting of competitive sport or other recreation facilities will occur without the mutual agreement of the City and the County. 2 , , SECTION IX. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by both jurisdictions, following the adoption of resolutions approved by majority votes of the City Council and Board of Supervisors. SECTION X. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT. This agreement can be amended with the mutual consent of the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. If this agreement is not amended prior to June 30, 2012, it shall be extended for an additional 5 years from July 1, 2012 until.June 30, 2017 using Weldon Cooper final population data for 2011 to determine funding shares for that extension period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City Council has authorized the Mayor to sign this agreement by a resolution adopted June 4, 2007, and the Board of Supervisors has authorized its Chairman to sign it by resolution adopted June 6,2007. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Attest: ~~ Cle f Council By j)~Wn~ Mayor CQUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Attest: By ~C .g~ Chairman, Board of Supe isors 3 ,A.."'<..I (/ / ,( C. ,/....< . ..... ."..,.... ; ,I {i I; i' "}' \'\1'1 J j ! I .I. \ i I i ~ il.~ J: ,'" ...~ \ / .I " ,'I { I' I . . . ., , "...I ATTACHMENT B AGREEMENT FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE CITY-COUNTY PARK This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (hereina~ter called "County"), acting through its Board o~ Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (hereinafter called .City"), acting through its City Council: SECTION I. PURPOSE. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have executed a contract dated October 17, 1985 ~or an option to purchase jointly certain real property in the County ~rom the estate o~ Mary Mahanes. The purpose o~ this agreement is to authorize the exercise 0% that option and to provide a fair and equitable allocation o~ responsibility between the two localities for the development, operation and maintenancel_o~ the property as a park and recreation area, as described in the Joint City-County Park Report and Recommendation dated February 10, 1986 attached to and incorporated by reference in this agreement Cherein&%ter called "Joint Report"). In addition, the City and County through this agreement agree in principle to purchase oz the adjacent property belonging to Snow's Garden Center, Inc. SECTION II. PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT. The development of the property as a park and recreation area shall be in three phases. The three phases include parking lots, '. ponds, picnic areas and shelters, trails, children's playground, softball 1ields, 10ur mu~tipurpose fields, canoe deck, volleyball courts, restroom/concession bUilding, eight tennis courts, maintenance building, multipurpose hard surface courts and the necessary utilities (see details of phasing in the Joint Report). The initial development <Phase I) will begin by the late spring of 1986, and be completed for use by the spring of 1988. The tvo later phases of development (Phase II and Phase III) vill OCcur approximately each three years t~ereafter. Phase I of the development shall include 3 softball fields. SECTION III. APPROPRIATIONS. The total budget for this project, including the cost o~ land acquiSition, planning, engineering and three phases of development, is estimated at $2,885,580. Development o~ Phases I, II and III vill be financed according to the .Project Phase- schedule on page 4 of the Joint Report. Upon the execution of this agreement, the City and the County vill each appropriate its respective share of the estimated costs of land acquisition and engineering and planning. All expenditures subsequent to the current fiscal year, vhether capital outlay or operating cost, are contingent upon appropriation of funds by each governing body in the year of expenditure, and failure to appropriate shall not be deemed a breach of this agreement. SECTION IV. ALLOCATION OF COSTS. All land ~cquisition, planning and engineering, site improvement, equipment and contingency costs for Phase I of the -2- development shall be divided equally between th~ City and the County. The operating costs during the ~iscal years 1988 and 1989 shell also be divided equally between the two localities. Beginning in fiscal year 1990, operating costs will be allocated accor~ing to the percentage of actual park usage by reBidents of" the tvo localities, averaged over the most recent two years. The usage will be monitored by an attendant at an entry station who will also collect an entry fee ~rom residents of jurisdictions other than the County and the City. It was the position of the County that the costs of capital development in Phase II and Phase III should also be divided equally between the City and the County, as in Phase I. It was the position of the City that all future capital costs should be divided on the basis of the relative populations of the two localities. As a compromise, it is agreed that the capital costs ~or Phase II and Phase III of development vill be divided according to the average of the above two positions. An example of this calculation is included on page four of the attached Joint Report. The population figures to be used for determining capital expenditures within any ~iscal year shall be the same population figures used in determining the distribution of funds for that ~iscal year in the Charlottesville Albemarle Revenue Sharing Agreement. SECTION V. PARK OWNERSHIP. The park shall be owned jointly by the City and the County. Each locality shall hold an undivided interest in the property and all improvements. Acquisitions of any contiguous properties -3- that are to be used for park purposes shall be incorporated into the original park in undivided interest. In the event that the park or any part thereof is conveyed by the two localities to any other entity, whether public or private, a~~'~roceeds T~cejv~d ~or such cion~ey~n~e 'shall'be d{viddd betveeri the localities on the basis of the cumulative capital investments of each locality in the entirety of the park property. Neither the City nor the County shall make such a conveyance of its interest without consent of the other party. SECTION VI. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE. A Supervisory Committee is hereby established, consisting oz the County Executive (or designee), City Manager (or deSignee), Director of Parks and Recreation from the City, and the Director of Parks and Recreation zrom the County. perform the following functions: (1) Review the annual operating budget request for the The Committee viII park prior to submittal to the governing bodies. (2) Meet annually to plan capita~ improvements to the park. (3) Hold special meetings when requested by either Director to resolve issues or to rule on special problems or requests that cannot be handled by staff. (4) Establish operating and administrative policies for the operation of the joint park. (5) Resolve any operating dizziculties or disputes. ~- sr:;CTLQN V]]. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. The County shall pe responsible for the general maintenanCE, supervision and security 01 the park. Persons employed .for such . . pur po E: P :' ". i 11 bEe 0 u n t y e If. p 1 0)' E' E' S . The City will bE' responsible i or t hf" opE'l"a ti Clf, and superv i si on 01 t.he soi tball programs. ThE? use and operation of any ot.her facilities in the park shall be the responsibility of the County. While the operations and responsibilities are to be divid~d, the costs are to be shared and allocated as described in Section IV of this agreement. A "Recommended Maintenance Operation Budget" is set forth on pages 10-12 of the attached Joint Report. SECTION VIII. NIGHT LIGHTING AND SOFTBALL. Night lighting is not proposed in any of the three development stages for any competitive sport facility. Lighting for security and safety will be provided as deemed necessary by the Supervisory Committee. The City agrees that McIntire Park will still be used for the softball program, but at a reduced level as determined appropriate by the City. Any expansion or operation of park facilities or land beyond the three phases of development controlled by this agreement shall be undertaken only by the mutual consent of the governing bodies. In signing this agreement the City expresses no intent to participate in the future development of any other softball or recreational facilities which may become necessary because of any growth in the.population of the County. -5- SECTION IX. REVENUE GENtRATJON. A detailed review oi th& potential revenues from the park i6 sho..'n on. pa~E'~.} 3- 240i thE, J.oi..rl~ ..~E'p~~.t. . .... .' ", ....... . , ". .~", . .. . ,. ;," [r:(~~.Ql"; >: '. H/,t: j N [c. or THE P ^ Rh. Upon approval of this agreement by the City and County, the joint committee will begin consideration of methods of receiving input for the matter of selecting a name for the park. The joint committee will submit to the Board and Council the best alternatives for consideration. SECTION XI. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND EXERCISE OF OPTION. This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by both jurisdictions, following the adoption of resolutions approved by majority votes of the City Council and Board of Supervisors. Upon such approval, the City Manager and County Executive shall give notice to the optionors of the property that the option is being exercised. SECTION XII. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT. This agreement can be amended with the mutual consent of the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. SECTION XIII. BREACH OF AGREEMENT. If either party deems the other to have breached any provision, it shall so notify the other in writing, and the party deemed to have breached the agreement shall have 60 days to remedy -6- the bre>ach. In th~ ~v~nt remedial action has npt been taken th~ City or County. I'JG.t:'I~ EpE'cii"ic ,PC'T.:(ormance oi thE' agl-e>l?ment in the circuit.col.lrt oi" within the 60 day peri6d, 'the aggrievl?d p~rty ~h~ll bl? entitled tG it by resolution adopted February l.L, 1985. and the Boerd 01 S~pl?rv{sorE haE authorized'its Chairman to Sign 1. (I f:~. ['Y. t L i!'.. ~ (J: t [ r:.: L '\. J:,)' a :r /0' S Co 1 uti 0 n ado p t e d Fe b r u a:r y -1..; j 9 [:: C,. -, '.. . .' " 1,: \O'1TI;[:.,::; \i\),LI\[CIF thE [.11:)' Council hes autrjoriz~d the> Moyor CITY P CHARLOTTESVILLE Attest: ~~ Clerk oz Council By' Mayor A~t: ~~ !/ /: /(~ C;~ /~~~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Clerk oz the Board By,,--,;1~ e cJ-L Chairman, Board oz Superv1sors -7- . ATTACHMENT C 275 February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) The public hearing was opened. With no one present representing the applicant, the petition was deferred until later in the meeting. r , ' \ . Agenda Item No.9. SP-85-86. Vincent L. Jones. To allow home for the developmentally disabled on 2.310 acre parcel zoned RA. Entrance to property located about 1,500 feet east of Rt. 29 via Rt. 712 and Rt. 760. Tax Map 87, Parcel 35Cl. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 1986.) Mr. Fisher read the following letter dated February 5, 1986, from Mr. Vincent L. Jones: "The purpose of this letter is to notify the Board of Supervisors that I have withdrawn my special use permit at this time to house 20 developmentally disabled persons. I was informed by Mr. Horne of the Planning Department that by right under a single family dwelling I could house five developmentally disabled persons, and that is my plan." \ Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to allow withdrawal of SP-85-86 by the applicant without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. 1 Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-85-6. Urban District Park. To amend the Comprehensive Plan to show approximately 100 acres of land located west of Route 20 North and north of Elk Drive with extensive Rivanna River frontage, from low density residential to public use-recreational. This amendment is to reflect park usage for this area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the staff report: "Request to amend County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Map 9: Land Use Plan, with respect to a park consisting of approximately 100 acres. This proposed park is located west of Route 20 North, north of Route 1421 (Elk Drive) and bordered on the west by the Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan currently recommends low density residential development (1 to 4 dwelling units an acre) for this area. A change in land use from residential to public use- recreational is being requested. Tax Map 62, parcel 23; Tax Map 78, parcell, Rivanna Magisterial District. HISTORY May 1985 The Athletic Needs Study was completed in May 1985. This study was prepared jointly by the City and County Park Department staffs to explore the potential for the development of a City/County softball complex. The study was initiated by the Charlottesville City Council during their review of redevelopment plans for McIntire Park which questioned the long-term viability of lighted softball fields at McIntire Park. The Athletic Needs Study recommended the construction of a four-field, lighted softball complex and related facilities at a site on Elk Drive (Mahanes property). r, I June 1985 The Albemarle county Board of supervisors, after reviewing the above Athletic Needs Study, directed the County Planning staff to re-evaluate the nineteen sites examined in the study and their relationship to factors such as Comprehensive Plan recommendations, growth area impacts, transportation needs and other recreational needs, etc. Staff was directed to reduce the list to approximately five sites considered most suitable for a variety of recreational uses. AugUst 1985 The Department's review of Athletic Needs Study was presented to the Albemarle county Board of Supervisors on August 14, 1985. At that time, the Board of Supervisors accepted the report's recommendation that due to the very desirable qualities of the Elk Drive (Mahanes) property, that an option to purchase the property be entered into. [. December 1985 The City and the County selected a landscape archi- tectural firm to explore the feasibility of creating a joint County-City park on approximately 100 acres of land known as the Elk Drive or Mahanes property. The consultants were requested to assess the sites' physi- cal capacity to address a variety of recreational programs. Their study included examination of pro- grams and activities identified by the City and County, analysis of the site, development of alter- native plans for a park and preparation of preliminary 276 February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) estimates of plans for the park. The consultant's study concluded that the site could make a major contribution towards meeting active and passive recreation needs of the area and recommended that the Board of Supervisors and City Council purchase this property. January 15, 1986 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan's recommendation concerning the use of the "Mahanes" 100 acre site. The request is for a change in land use from low density residential to public use-recreational. The Board of Supervisors directed staff to schedule Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment as quickly as possible since the City-County option to purchase the Mahanes site expires on February 17, 1986. 1- '-' DESCRIPTION OF SITE '-' The site for which an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is being requested contains a total of 110.57 acres and consists of two tax parcels. The property is located west of Route 20 North and north of Elk Drive with extensive Rivanna River frontage. It is located in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan and within the Rivanna Magisterial District. Elk Drive and Route 20 from 250 East currently provide access to the site. Route 20 between Route 33 in Barboursville and Route 250 East carries 2,115 vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation considers this road to be tolerable. Elk Drive (State Route 1421) carries 495 vehicle trips per day. Given the number of vehicle trips and the narrow width of this road the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation considers this road to be non-tolerable. There has also been recently some discussion of a Rio Road - Route 20 North connector road. This roadway, if ever constructed, could pass through the southern end of the proposed park, either paralleling or following the alignment of Elk Drive to intersect with Route 20 North (The map in the consultant's report is not necessarily a correct indication of the future road alignment). This area is presently a utility corridor and is not critical in staff's opinion to development of a park in this area. o SUMMARY OF. PREVIOUS SITE ANALYSES As noted under the history section of this staff report there have been a variety of recreational site analyses. Originally the studies were largely focused on analyzing needs for additional softball fields. However, the 'Athletic Needs Study Review' undertaken by the county Department of Planning and Community Development required staff to review over twenty potential locations in Albemarle County for multi-purpose recreational development. Since the original study, 'Athletic Needs Study', had identified a need for a 100 acre site to accommodate both softball fields and other facilities, only approximately 100 acre sites were also evaluated by county staff. The staff then, after detailed analysis of all twenty sites, recom- mended four locations (in priority order): (1) Elk Drive (Mahanes), (2) Biscuit Run, (3) Hollymead, (4) Milton Airstrip. The 'Athletic Needs Study Review' concluded that: Due to the very desirable qualities of the Elk Drive (Mahanes) property, and the scarcity of undeveloped land within the urban area suitable for park development, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors obtain an option to purchase the property. It is recommended that this proposed park contain areas for field sports and other facilities. Specifics of site develOp- ment should be contingent upon a comprehensive analysis of recreation needs. J The next step, once the Mahanes site was recommended by staff as a potentially promising site for an urban district park, was to request a consultant study. The purpose of the consultant's study was to provide the two juriSdictions with information to assist them in finalizing a decision to proceed with purchase of the property. The analysis was to address issues such as overall flexibility of the site for use by a variety of active and passive recreational uses. As part of this analysis the consultants also developed three different programs or scenarios of different development strategies for the site. One program represented maximum site development with emphasis on field-oriented and active recreational use. Another program reflected a balance of passive and active recreational uses. A third scenario emphasized passive recreation. These programs weredevel- oped to show the variety of ways this area could be developed as an o 277 February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) rl urban district park and did not necessarily reflect any recommended or adopted park plan. The present action being requested is for an amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan in order to reflect a park land use for this area, not a particular park plan. The consultant's study did, for general informational purposes, establish very preliminary cost estimates. These estimates are (on file) for general information and do not reflect any adopted plan. It is important to note, however, that one advantage of the Mahanes site is that recreational development of the site could be phased in over several fiscal years. The consultant's report forwarded the following conclusions regarding the site's feasibility as a park: r Assets The site has the capability to meet much of the existing active recreational demand of the area. It could meet the City's need to relieve the pressure on softball facilities at McIntire and Rives Park. The site has natural resources (particularly the river frontage) of great value for passive recreation. This site is close to the City and centrally located within the County. The location integrates well with both the County's and the City's park systems. The site is served by water, sewer and power. The generally open land and deep soil make the site suitable for grading. Liabilities Access to the site from Route 250 (including Free Bridge), Elk Drive and Route 20 will add traffic to an already congested area, until improvements are made to those facilities. r, 1_ It will be difficult to accommodate the Albemarle County Fair and other temporary events on this site along with the intended recrea- tional facilities. Night lighting of this facility would have an impact on several surrounding properties in the City and County. The site has limited capacity to meet the long-term future demand for softball league and tournament play. COMPLIANCE WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1982-2002 The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan generally supports park and recreational improvements in Chapter 14: Community Facilitiesl Utilities Plan. The Plan states that generally community facilities serve one primary goal - that of providing for physical, cultural and safety needs of the community. Parks are one of these necessary community facilities. Because facilities are generally expensive to provide, it is especially important to recognize demand early, so that costs may be planned well in advance. The Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan also presents some programming guidelines. Of relevance to this present Comprehensive Plan amend- ment is the following recommendations: r l ' Establishment of cooperative agreements between the City and County for scheduling of athletic leagues with common member- ship. Mutual support of regional athletic leagues offers the best opportunity for City-county cooperation in the area of Parks and Recreation. r This request for an amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan also satisfies the following Chapter 9: Goals and Objectives: Goal 1. Conserve the county's Natural Resources. Objective 9: Continue to identify and encourage preservation of unique areas of geology, vegetation and wildlife in the County. Goal 12. Provide a system of pUblic facilities and services to meet the needs of the existing and future County residents. Objective 6: Encourage the expansion of park and recreational capital and program- ming improvements according to the recommendations adopted in the Parks and Recreation Element of the comprehensive Plan. 278 February 5, 1986 (Regular'Night Meeting) (Page 6) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 be amended as follows: Amend Map 6: Community Facilities, to show the new park location (page 93). Amend the text of page 96 to describe the new park and its future utilization plans. - ! Amend the text of page 247 to describe the new park in Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan. Amend Map 9: Urban Land Use Plan to show a change from the recom- mended land use from low density residential development (1 - 4 dwelling units per acre) to public use-recreational. The recommendation is based on the staff's finding that this park and location are generally in compliance with the Albemarle County comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. -.:0 Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of CPA-85-6 for a proposed urban district park. At the meeting, the commission expressed a number of concerns although the concerns are in no way to be construed as opposition to the park. The concerns are as follows: "1. The Commission felt that every effort should be made to restrict access to the park from the southern end of Elk Drive in order to avoid a dangerous situation at the intersection of Elk Drive and 250 East near Free Bridge. 2. The Commission emphatically preferred that the park site be developed as a multi-use park and not be dominated by any particular type of facility or activity. 3. The Commission also expressed a strong desire to be involved in the early master planning process for the park in order to be able to comment on the general design and mix of facilities to be located at the park. In addition to the above concerns, Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern as to the need for the completion of all needed school facilities in the county prior to allocation of money for development of the park. The above concerns should not be construed by the Board of Supervisors as opposition to the park, but show the desire of the Commission to be involved in the decision-making process as to the master plan for the park prior to being presented with a finished master planning document." o At 8:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Tucker said, in October, the City and County governments jointly recommended that an option be obtained on the Mahanes tract and to move forward with a feasibility study on the project. Consultants were hired and a feasibility report prepared which included three proposed conceptual plans for the project. A committee of the staff worked with the consultants to arrive at the best way to utilize the property for a family-oriented park and not focus primary on a sports facility. The three conceptual plans available are Program I for an intensively developed park, Program II for a balanced approach with active and passive recreation, and Program III for the least intensively developed and designed plan. Access proposed for all three programs is off Elk Drive. Concern has been expressed about the portion of Elk Drive that connects directly to Rt. 250 East. The issue of whether or not the State road (route) should be closed will be dealt with at the time of the master plan. Program I is for an intensively developed park to include six lighted ballfields, twelve tennis courts, seven multi-purpose fields, picnic shelters and areas, and two ponds for passive-type use. ,-, I 1 I ' LJ Program II is a balanced approach with active and passive recreation. This plan proposes five unlighted softball fields, eight tennis courts, four mUlti-purpose fields and more passive-type area. Parking is less intensive than in Program I. Program III is the least intensively developed and designed plan. The proposal is for a passively oriented park with two proposed softball fields, four mUlti-purpose fields, four tennis courts and the remaining land as meadow and grass area for passive-type recreation. !] The consultants recommended that Program II is the best approach to meet the needs of both the City and County. It was noted that lighting would have a major impact on the property and therefore no lighting is being recommended. The consultants felt the park needs would take up approximately one-third of the site and the installation of permanent buildings for the Albemarle County Fair would impact the area considerably. The Joint City/County Committee has been meeting weekly to negotiate jOint purchase of the property and maintenance of the property if the option is exercised. Yesterday, a draft agreement was submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The total cost of Program II is estimated at $2.8 million to be shared equally between the City and County. The price includes the 279 February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) r: i . purchase price of the property and is to be phased over a nine year period in three basic phases. Phase I will encompass all of the grading needed for the site, parking facilities and roads. A dam to create one of the lakes is proposed. Also proposed for Phase I are four picnic shelters and sporadically located picnic areas, concession stands, restrooms, foot trails, a maintenance building and three softball fields. A fourth softball field is proposed in Phase II. In addition, four mUlti-purpose fields are proposed in Phase I. Mr. Tucker also noted that a utility line would have to be relocated because of the location of one of the softball fields. If an agreement is reached for purchase of the property, it would be approx- imately five years before work would begin on Phase II. Phase II is proposed to include the remaining park roads, additional parking spaces needed for the fourth softball field, additio- nal picnic shelters and picnic areas, a canoe dock on the river, volleyball courts, additional foot trails, additional children playgrounds and four tennis courts. Phase III, approximately three years beyond Phase II in the eighth or ninth year of the program, would conclude develop ment of the park. l~ Mr. Fisher said he and Mrs. Cooke have served on the joint committee since November attempting to arrive at an agreement that would best serve the needs of both jurisdictions. The goal has not been to make this facility exclusively a softball complex, but a facility for families and people with various recreational interests. Mr. Fisher commented that one of the proposed softball fields in Program II has been eliminated. The field would be under high voltage wires and it would cost a great deal of money to remove the wires and develop the field. For security purposes at both parks, a proposed foot bridge to cross the river to Pen Park has been eliminated. An agreement has not been arrived at on the number of softball fields in each phase. The County's position is there should be three fields in Phase I and one field in the Phase II. The City has not agreed to that proposal. Mr. Bowie said he has had two meetings with the residents of the Key West area. concern expressed is future location of the Albemarle County Fair. A second concern is that there be no night lighting. The third concern is softball. As indicated in report, this site will not meet the future softball needs, but he wants to emphasize park will not become the future softball center of the area. The public hearing was opened. One expressed the that this l Mr. Roger Flynt, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Tennis Patrons, addressed the Board. Approximately one-third of the audience is a member of the organization. Tennis is a sport of little investment, little supervision and low costs. People of all ages are involved all year round. The tennis players strongly support this complex as it is a way to get the kids off the streets, make real estate more attractive and bring businesses to the community. In addition, it is great that the County and City are getting together. This community is in a tennis boom. Five hundred new kids are involved in tennis each year and the area is out of courts. The needs are current. The proposed plan does not include courts for four to five years which will greatly hamper the tennis program for youth activities. The Tennis Patrons would like for the tennis courts to be included in Phase I. Cost versus usage would be minimum. There are people within this organization willing to prepare tennis court site plans, architectural plans, specifications and cost proposals at no cost to the County. I I I , , I Mr. Roland Moore, a resident on the east side of the proposed site, next addressed the I Board. He owns approximately 75 acres. He would like to know where the bowling alley is proposed. If a complex is to serve all types of sports, a bowling alley should not be elimi- nated. This park is estimated to add 500 vehicles trips per day on Free Bridge and Rt. 250. I He invites Board members to come between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. to see the present traffic conges- I tion. If 100 houses were built on this property at $100,000 each, it would be an additional $10,000,000 in property that could be taxed. If a park is built on this property, all that revenue will be lost. In addition, he believes that the character of the neighborhood will be changed and there will be additional requests for things that appear to be comparable to a park. Mr. Jack vermillion, owner of Franklin, historical property that overlooks the proposed site, addressed the Board. He first read a letter (on file) from himself and his wife express ing their feelings on the proposed site, dated November 11, 1985. In light of the consultant' report and conversations in meetings with Mr. Bowie, he presented a letter dated February 5 further clarifying their feelings: "This letter is intended to further clarify our position as adjOining property owners to the proposed park. r ! After having studied the report and three proposals prepared for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville by the consulting firm of Rieley and Associates, we support Proposal #2 which suggests a moderate use park with no lighted facilities. r We would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Rieley for his policy of visiting and consulting with the adjoining residents and taking into consideration their concerns while preparing the proposals. If further design work is to be done by consultants, we would suggest that his firm be retained. We would also like to thank Mr. Guy Agnor, Mr. Bob TUCker and Ms. Katherine Imhoff for their cooperation in keeping us informed to this point. Due to the thorough and cooperative manner of all of these professionals, we now lOOK forward to having a beautiful and useful day-time park for the residents of the area." Mr. Vermillion said he appreciates the County's cooperation and its ability to listen to the residents concerns. He hopes that this relationship will continue. Z80 February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Ms. Marie F. Reel, President of Key West-Cedar Hills Association, addressed the Board. Ms. Reel said 104 letters representing 179 signatures (on file) addressed to Board dated January 22, were presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 1. The Association's position has changed slightly, but the community is in support of the proposed park. Ms. Reel then read the following statement from the Association, dated January 31, 1986: "We further urge that if the Mahanes site is acquired, that it be used for mUlti-purpose, daytime activities with a permanent injunction against night lighting for any sport or other activities." Ms. Reel said everyone has made promises, inClUding Mayor Buck, that there will be no lights, but the wording "at the present time" keeps slipping in. Can a permanent commitment be placed either on page 96 of the Comprehensive Plan or in the deed that any request for lighting would require a public hearing. Mr. Fisher said an attempt is being made to include in the agreement language that there shall be no lighting except for that required for safety and security. r Mrs. Barbara Lape, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Tennis Association Junior Tournament, addressed the Board. This event brings about 100 children and parents to Charlottesville for a week. The biggest problem is lack of space. She requested as many tennis courts as possi- ble be included in the initial stage of construction for the new park. ---, i ...... Mr. Ken Lape, a resident of Southern Albemarle, addressed the Board. The residents of Southern Albemarle do not have a problem with tennis courts being full, as there are no courts nor is there a public swimming area. He is against this park if it in anyway deters the Board's dedication to executing a public swimming area and recreation facilities in southern Albemarle. He does not think the youngsters in Esmont, Scottsville and Covesville will use this park. Mr. Fisher said the problem in southern Albemarle is finding a site. The staff is still working on a site location with a timetable for the end of June. Mr. Pete Craddock, representing the Stone Robinson PTO, addressed the Board. The PTO recognizes the need for this sports complex. However, the PTO would like to emphasize that the upgrading of the schools, especially Stone Robinson, should be placed ahead of the actual construction and grading of this project. The school needs are more pressing and pertinent than the need for a sports complex. Mr. Fisher asked that the public refrain from calling this a sports complex as it is a park. Mr. Glenn Branham, owner of property on Elk Drive, addressed the Board. He feels that the City is attempting to make this park a sports complex. conSidering how poorly run the City softball program is, the city is trying to push something onto the County. In addition, the City receives little revenue from the program. If the project is approved, he would ask that the entrance not be on any part of Elk Drive, but on Rt. 20. The park will have a major impact on traffic on Route 250 East at Pantops Mountain. He would also like to invite the Board to travel to Pantops on a Saturday morning or a Friday afternoon and look at the situation. o Mr. Leo Clawson next addressed the Board. He is retired and moved to Charlottesville four years ago. He also is a former town commissioner from Bonneville County, Idaho. One of the greatest experiences in his eight years as town commissioner was supporting a joint City/County park which is very similar to this design. The parking and multi-use of the proposal fits in with everything he would solely desire in a park. He is here to offer his full support. He showed the Board a trophy he received from the Eastern Idaho Bar Association for the citizen who did the most in the community in that year and for his support of the City/County park. Ms. Pauline Carter, a resident of Ashcroft, addressed the Board. Her main concern is that it looks like the east side of the county is getting a park, whereas the west side is getting a new school. She would rather receive the school. The schools that the east side children attend are not up to par with the rest of the County. She also would prefer that $1.4 million go into a school as opposed to a park. The future holds her sons attending Stone Robinson, which is overcrowded; Burley Middle School, which is not air-conditioned and needs renovating; and Albemarle High School, which is overcrowded and needs work. The kids on the west side will have the newest elementary school and already has the newest middle school and high school. It is distressing to get a new park. When it comes to priorities for her chil- dren, the schools are more important than a park. Her second concern is with the traffic on Free Bridge and she is not thrilled with the prospect of what this park is going to do to the traffic. Mr. John Dorrier, owner of property adjoining the proposed park, said he would like to thank everyone for their attitude regarding the park. He commended Mr. Bowie for bringing information to the residents.. It appears that everyone shares the concern about having a park with no lights. He thinks the park is needed for the community and is something that can be used by older residents. He feels that any dealings with the City should be "in stone" if possible. Ten years ago the City wanted to put a dump across the road from his home and the County would not allow it. J Mr. Layton McCann next addressed the Board. He has no problem with capital outlay for a recreational facility for the citizens and is willing to pay his taxes to support same, but he would like to know where the County is headed with the recreational program. Mr. Moore, a former speaker, alluded to bowling alleys. Passive recreation and picnic shelters are things that all people can enjoy. He has reservations with specifics such as softball fields with the City of Charlottesville. If this agreement is entered, the County Department of Parks and Recreation should have an equal say in the operation. He does not have a problem with the purchase of the property, but does have a problem with development when there are other needs such as roads that are not safe to travel and inadequate schools. The County government over the past ten years has basically followed in the footsteps of Charlottesville. The County has copied programs and departments, but he hopes that the County does not follow in the City's fiscal footsteps. He urged the Board not to create programs it cannot afford. !l l..J With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 281 l' Mr. Fisher asked what issues regarding the proposad park are scheduled for February 12. Mr. Agnor said other issues entail the consummation of the agreement with the City including details such as costs, revenues and overall plans for the operation of the facility if the property is purchased. The purchase option expires on February 17. Mr. Fisher requested the staff to provide on February 12, an outline indicating whether projects proposed by the School Facilities committee can be undertaken and if funding for the Southern Regional Park can be retained in the Capital Improvements Program. He would also like to know how those projects fit into the three proposed phases of the park. Mr. Fisher said Board members are also concerned about school projects knowing that improvements are necessary. r I \ Mr. Way asked the timing of Phase I of the proposed park. Mr. Fisher said the park is proposed to open in the Spring of 1988. The design phase should begin in the Spring of 1986, possible construction to begin in the Fall and major grading in the next 12 to 15 months. Mr. Bowie said it is easy to work with constituents such as these and he appreciates the two-way exchange. He has stated continually that the schools must be funded before develop- ment of this park. It appears to him that all of the concerns expressed by citizens have been addressed. With regard to comments made about traffic, if houses were built on this property instead of the park, they would still generate considerable traffic. Also housing would cause a major impact on Stone Robinson School. There is no acceptable agreement at the present time. He will not turn this into a complex for anyone sport. He hopes that questions concerning revenue, user fees, etc., will be ironed out soon. When it is time to begin Phase II, another look must be taken at all of the county's needs. Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with voting for a Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight when there is no agreement or capital improvements program budgeting. Mr. Fisher suggested that action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment be deferred until February 12. At that time, the Board will review the agreement, the plans, funding and then make a decision. Mr. Bowie said he does not see how it can be done any other way, and then offered motion to defer action on CPA-85-6 until February 12. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. r Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think anyone can guarantee the citizens that there will never be lights. He recommended to members of the the negotiating committee that the agree- ment include a provision which would allow for a public hearing if lights are ever considered. It also needs to be written out that neither side can undertake improvements without the consent of the other. He personally does not want lighting or four softball fields, but he also feels that the park is necessary for a County that is growing as quickly as Albemarle and he supports the concept. Mr. Fisher asked the Board for direction on the how many softball fields it feels should be in Phase I. The Joint Committee's position is for three fields in Phase I and a fourth field in Phase II. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to swap two softball fields for eight tennis courts. More people can use tennis courts in a 24-hour period than can use softball fields. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see at a maximum two softball fields in Phase I and one softball field in Phase II. Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (At 9:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M.) Agenda Item No.8. ZMA-85-32. James D. and Alice H. Shisler. (Deferred from earlier in the meeting.) r ! The public hearing was opened. Mr. James Shisler, the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Shisler said the property is currently used as apartments and a dance school facility. The nature of the neighborhood has changed so much that it is becoming more difficult to rent the property to good tenants. The proffers include relocation of mailboxes and correction of sight distance problems. The Post Office agreed to allow the mailboxes to be installed near to Greenfield Court and construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk changes have begun for the relocation. Mr. Fisher asked if the entrance from Rio Road will be closed permanently. Mr. Shisler said yes. Mr. Fisher asked what uses are contemplated for the property. Mr. Shisler said things like an insurance agency, auditor, or small retail facility. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. r , i '- Mrs. Cooke said this application is in her district and she is familiar with the property.! She has no problem with this request. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-32 : subject the to proffer in a letter dated January 7, 1986 addressed to the County Planning 1,1 Department, signed by Alice H. Shisler and James D. Shisler as follows: 'I II il i I I I II II "In accordance with the suggestions given to me in our telephone call yesterday with Mr. Keeler, this letter will serve to inform you that we will be happy to conform to the following suggestions of the County Planning Department: 1. Close permanently the entrance from the property onto Rio Road. 2. To move mail boxes from Rio Road that we control." Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion. the following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Attachment D RESOLUTION TO ALLOW LIGHTING OF DARDEN TOWE PARK TENNIS COURTS WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has received a citizen request to allow the tennis courts at Darden Towe Park to be lighted; and , WHEREAS, Darden Towe Park is owned by both the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the Darden Towe Park Agreement requires the mutual agreement of the County and City before lighting of any competitive sport or recreation facility in the Park may occur; and WHEREAS, County and City staff have recommended to the Darden Towe Park Committee that lighting of the tennis courts be allowed; and WHEREAS, the Darden Towe Park Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors and City Council each set this item for public hearing in order to receive input from the public prior to taking action; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this matter on August 13, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds that lighting of the tennis courts at Darden Towe Park will benefit the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its intent to allow the tennis courts at Darden Towe Park to be lighted, contingent upon approval by the City of Charlottesville and the approval of an acceptable lighting and funding plan. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas .. . St. Anne's-Belfield School SP 2007-053 EYrPose of This SP: To allow expansion of the school from 330 to 550 students, with demolition of some existing buildings, construction of new buildings, and development of additional fields. Location ~f" "~-"-,- 1'/ : / ....:.</:': "-r< SP2007~~ y(C;/"'- St. Anne.s Belfl&ld\School-/'\ ..' '1'" / . / / ~ " ~. . ///// \:' ' I - --- 1 + L Proposed Site Plan ~~~r\~~:' PROPOSED 5ITI PLAN \, 1o:llot:""='!A1 SLt Ann", a.llllld School owerfMlddle School ~l'r.,lffI 00\ ~..."",- 2 Traffic Impact Mitigation Chronology 1. At work session, PC recommends a pro-rata share of intersection improvement costs 2. TIA identifies 5 intersections where improvements are warranted 3. Applicant proposes pro-rata share for improvements at 2 intersections 4. VDOT recommends pro-rata share for improvements at 5 intersections OR entire cost of construction of improvements triggered by St. Anne's expansion Staff recommends construction of improvements at 2 intersections most directly impacted by St. Anne's Planning Commission recommends constructing improvement at 1 intersection 7. Applicant proposes safety improvements instead of capacity improvements (8/12/2008) 8. VDOT recommends pro-rata share of improvements needed at 5 intersections 5. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis I <-'i"} Identified five intersections where some type of turn lane or taper will be warranted by the additional traffic from St. Anne's- Belfield's expansion. 3 Most Recent Traffic Impact Proposal Recommendation from VDOl: . St. Anne's should make a pro-rata share contribution based on the level of impacts to the intersections identified in the TIA. . VDOT has calculated this contribution as: $49,246. . This contribution should be applied to improvements to the road network in this area. Factors Favorable: 1. Providing a private school in the County enables parents to choose the type of education facility they prefer for their children. 2. Expanding the number of grade levels at the Belfield campus will mean more siblings will be able to attend school on the same campus, thereby making transportation easier for families. 3. Because this campus is located at the edge of the Development Areas and is surrounded by low-density residential areas, vacant property, and the Rural Areas, the potential noise impact from a large number of children on the adjacent properties will be minimal. 4 Factors Unfavorable: 1. Traffic in the general vicinity of the campus is congested. While a condition of this Special Use Permit would provide funding to mitigate some of this congestion, other funds will be necessary to fully address congestion in the area. RECOMMENDA liON The Planning Commission recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled "St. Anne's-Belfield Proposed Lower/Middle School Preliminary Site Plan," dated June 6, 2008, except that changes may be made provided the Zoning Administrator finds that all other special use conditions are met. 2. The maximum enrollment shall be 550 students. 5 e 3. Arrival and dismissal times for Lower and Middle school students shall be staggered at a minimum 20-minute interval so that all students do not arrive at/depart from the campus at the same time. 4. In addition to meeting all r-cqllirements of the Architeott:lral Review BeeFS (ARB), all new bl:Jildings shall be designed and constnl0ted to meet the miniml:Jm standards for a "Silver" rating (37 43 points) uAder the LEED for Seheols RatiAg System, First Edition, Updated Nevember 2007. Prier to the issuanoo of a building pClmit, the OwAer shall submit a certifiootien fmm a LEED certified ar-ehitcot to the Dir-cotor of COmml:JAity De'/elopmeAt that the plan meets the above referenced LEEO slcllldcuds. Berun::: the Ownel requests 8 certificate of eccl:lpancy for any building for ",""ioh a licensed architect reAdered such a certificate, the Owner shall submit to the County's Dir-eotor of Community Development a 'Nritten statement from the architect that the buildiAg '1.'85 built to the plOAS on ,,'''''ioh the oeFtifioate ....'85 based. In the C'JCAt of a ooAftict bctvJeeA the ARB requirements aAd the LEED for Grnools CuideliAes, the ARB rcql:liremeAts shall take precedence. The Owner shall design and construct all improvements at the Belfield campus to meet the minimum standards for LEED certification under the LEED for Schools Rating System and shall seek to obtain such certification at the minimum level or better within two (2) years from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy. 6 ~ II@/ i ~Jr..@/ i ~#..~ -H .J,~~#Jr.. "'@1\;)01>>.,....+++1>...1>/ 6 ~ > G > G [1>w [+ [...w> [ c; W>.:I [j N++ .J,@= i e0rr'::?% { 5. Stormwater management shall be provided in the form of biofilters for any new impervious surfaces. In addition to the requirements of the County's Water Protection Ordinance, the majority of roof runoff shall be captured in a rainwater collection and reuse system. 6. Erosion control shall be provided within the property by the use of sediment trapping measures and diversions. Off- site easements or work, or variations from the standards, shall not be used. Alternative Condition Reflecting VDOT's Current Recommendation 7. In order to address off-site transportation impacts caused by this project, the Owner shall contribute cash in the amount of forty-nine thousand two hundred forty six dollars ($49,246.00) to the County for the purpose of funding road safety improvements, traffic signalization improvements, or other transportation improvements located within the boundaries of Neighborhoods 6 or 7 as delineated in the County Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan adopted June 5, 1996. The cash contribution shall be made prior to issuance by the County of the first building permit for the project. 7 de 8. A row of 2 %" caliper shade trees spaced 40 feet on center shall be provided along the east side of the relocated portion of SR 855. 9. A minimum of 20-foot deep landscape buffers shall be provided, free of utilities, to screen the proposed playing fields and the parking lot located southeast of the existing football field from the US 29/250 Bypass. 10. Landscaping may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual impact of the playing fields and parking on the Entrance Corridor. 8 ... At the Worksession on April 29, 2008 Staff Requested Guidance on: 1. Demolition/preservation of the Head Master's Dwelling 2. Possible offsite road improvements to offset the increased impacts on the transportation system. Question on the Historic Structure: 1. Should the school conduct an evaluation before the Commission and Board act on the special use permit to determine which option is preferable? The Commission directed staff to evaluate the architectural historian's report, which had just been submitted, and bring a recommendation back to this public hearing. 9 -~.@~@~ /~-.-J--:J- J i@ i ..~ ii.-'-" ~ # II ~~ The Head Master's Dwelling The architectural historian's report indicates that: · The house is not architecturally or historically distinguished · The house is not eligible for listing in the National Register Although it is disappointing that the applicant is not able to find a way to re-use the resource, under these circumstances, staff does not oppose demolition of the house. Planning Commission's Direction to Staff on the Traffic Impact Analysis [Question at Worksesssion:] If the finalized TIA shows that expansion of the school will increase traffic at intersections in the area, should the school be requested to make improvements to one or more of those intersections, as recommended by the County Engineer and VeOT? The Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to determine a proportional share of the cost of improvements due to the expansion. 10 08-] M+ 0 G;)G;)d xx 06-] 3i....08-] 9'" 06-] 06-] T 06-] ill... 01 01 T 01 ~... 01 06-] T 01 n", 0 PPll;)% 0 tI8J,J,8'1;r1ll ) 01 J<J 06-] Staff recommended that the Applicant construct: 1) a southbound right turn lane off of the US 29 ramp onto Faulconer Drive and 2) construct a westbound right turn taper on Old Ivy Road at the intersection of Faulconer Drive. The Planning Commission chose the first of these two improvements. St. Anne's August 12 Proposal This proposal was forwarded to you yesterday and copies have been distributed this evening: · Transmittal E-mail message · Memo from Timmons · Letter from English Construction · Three Exhibits ./..t$~.$-~i.$~~~.../.-~T.G~.t$-%.~./.-1.t~.$-~i8T~~~0.~.~~oo.TTf~~.~T~.~~t...~[ 11 o tV] M+ 0 c.;) c.;)d xx o@-j 3l~0tV] 9'" o@-j o@-j T o@-j ill... 01 01 T 01 ~... 01 o@-j T 01 n~ 0 pp~:)% 0 CI3:.L.L3:~.l11 ) 01 os> o@-j Faulconer Drive Improvements #1 A. ~, :;) !! o ~I a:: ~! CJ i; I II) I Z I o ! :E ! :E I - ! ~,.:~~,! Faulconer Drive Improvements #2 :~!I.I.i.. II:! ., In I "I I, I .:, :..~-~ A. ~, :;) ~I o !i ffi !1 " II) ~I " Z Ii ~~\ ~! :E 11 ... ~i 12 Faulconer Drive Improvements #3 a. !! :J ,~I !i o H a::'fi " !i eni! Z !i 0;11 E 0..1 E< jl i= ':- ~! 13 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax(434)972-4035 MEMORANDUM FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Members of the Board of Supervisors, Greg Kamptner, Wayne Cilimberg, Ella Jordan Judy Wiegand SP 2007-053, St. Anne's-Belfield: Additional Material August 13,2008 TO: The following items have been provided since the staff report was completed: Traffic Impact Analysis Material I. E-mail message from Joel DeNunzio, VDOT, with pro rata share worksheet 2. Aguust 12,2008 Proposal from St. Anne's-Beltield Headmaster's House Material I. Letter from members of Preservation Piedmont 2. Copy of E-mail message from Kristin Kirchen, DHR RECEIVED AT BOS MEEmG Oate: ~ " 3 . 0 ~ Agenda kern ,:~ Clerk's InItJaIS~ ~ 11 ... Page 1 of 1 Judith Wiegand From: Michael E. Waylett [mwaylett@stab.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11 :53 AM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: Ann Mallek; dlourie@stab.org; gloeckner@embarqmail.com; rcarter@zmcilaw.com; scott.dunn@timmons.com; Jennifer DeVaughn; ahamblen@englishconst.com; rlee@englishconst.com Subject: New Traffic Proposal Attachments: STAB Intersection Modification Memo 081108.pdf; STAB Faulconer at US 29 Ramp Exhibit1.pdf; ST AS Faulconer at US 29 Ramp Exhibit2.pdf; STAB Faulconer at US 29 Ramp Exhibit3.pdf; Letter on Intersection.pdf Good morning, Judy, In attempt to address concerns relating to the exit 29 ramp and intersection, we asked the Timmons Group (traffic engineers) and English Construction, to recommend improvements that could be made to this area. Attached, please find the following: 1. Memorandum from Timmons Group dated August 11, 2008 2. (3) exhibits from the Timmons Group 3. Letter from English Construction dated August 12,2008 Please note that St. Anne's-Belfield School will pay for the improvements to this area, as noted in the letter from English Construction ($44,250.). During a conversation yesterday, Ann Mallek requested a copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Please forward to all of the Supervisors the attachments noted above, as well as the TIA. Also, please plan to load these attachments on your computer for display at tomorrow night's meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Please confirm receipt of this e-mail message. Thank you for your continued assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like any additional information. Mike Michael E. Waylett Associate Head of School St. Anne's-Belfield School #434-296-5106 8/13/2008 .... . .. . o. TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. To: From: Date: Re: CC: Michael Waylett (STAB) W. Scott Dunn, AICP August 11, 2008 Intersection Modifications at Faulconer Drive and US 29 Off-Ramp Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering); Allen Hamblen (English Construction) The key traffic issues concerning the proposed extension of the westbound right-turn lane storage on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 at the intersection of Faulconer Drive are: . The existing 100 foot right turn lane on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to northbound Faulconer Drive is basically unimpeded. Traffic on Faulconer Drive is stoP. controlled and must yield the right-of-way to the ramp traffic. Route 601 is one-way traveling westbound only. . There are no queuing issues for vehicles turning right onto northbound Faulconer . Drive to enter the school and the existing storage is sufficient for the projected 2012 school traffic. . Extending the existing turn lane further up the ramp from US Route 29 may give drivers the false sense that the ramp has two full lanes. Drivers in the rightmost of the two lanes may not know they are in a right turn lane and may not realize they will have to turn right onto northbound Faulconer Drive. These drivers could try to make a last minute lane change to continue through the intersection onto Route 601 heading towards Ivy Road (US Route 250). . Lower School and Middle School arrival and dismissal times will be staggered by at least 20 minutes. Existing traffic for the Lower School is higher than the projected traffic for the Middle School. . The projected AM peak hour (8:00 - 9:00 AM) volume on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 is 649 vehicles per hour (vph) in 2010. STAB will add 13 trips to the ramp during the AM peak hour; a 2.0% increase. The projected PM peak hour (3:30 - 4:30 AM) volume on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 is 571 vph in 2010. STAB will add 8 trips to the ramp during the PM peak hour; a 1.4% increase. . The extension of the westbound right-turn lane storage on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 was not an improvement identified by the traffic impact study. ., , Ol .... N ('Y) N <( > - "0 c: 0 E ex:> .r:: \0 u 0 .-< oc .-< N ('Y) ~ 0 v ('Y) 0 ex:> Q) ..., x :J <{ u. U) ..., Q) Q) lJ"l '- \0 ..., 0 U) .-< .c .-< V N .... ~ V U) 0 ex:> r-. .-< ...J UJ .-< f- >- E 0> 0 0 0 u c VI .c c: v 0 '" E f- E '" ~ " 3: v 3: ::> 3: ~ or. ro ~ ~ c ro ~ 'lJ -c '" 'lJ oc ~ c 'lJ E Cl. 0 'lJ > 'lJ Cl ., ~ Vl .. STAB - Intersection Modifications at Faulconer Drive and US 29 Off-Ramp August 11, 2008 Page 2 of 2 ...e. . 4!;". TIMMONS GROUP Based on the field review conducted on August 8th and knowledge of the traffic concerns at the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29; the key traffic issues are: . Limited sight distance on northbound Faulconer Drive approaching the intersection of the off-ramp southbound US Route 29. . Queuing from the traffic signal the intersection of Route 601 and Ivy Road (US Route 250) impacts the ramp traffic during peak hours. In order to improve the safety and operation of the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29, the following improvements are recommended: . Installing rumble strips on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to reduce vehicle speeds approaching the intersection of Faulconer Drive. Reducing speeds on the ramp will allow drivers more time to react to any queues that may be present due to the traffic signal at Ivy Road (US Route 250). Reduced speeds on the ramp will also reduce the speed differential between vehicles continuing through on Route 601 and those turning left onto southbound Faulconer Drive. . Realigning the northbound approach of Faulconer Drive at the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to shift traffic onto the existing paved shoulder. This will allow a better radius to help facilitate the left turns from the ramp onto southbound Faulconer Drive and it will allow the stop bar on northbound Faulconer Drive to be shifted to the north; putting it closer to the intersection and improving sight distance. Additionally, the storage capacity of the left turn lane from southbound Faulconer Drive onto Old Ivy Road will be increased, helping with the queuing issues. . Replacing the existing standard sized "STOP" sign on northbound Faulconer Drive with an oversized "STOP" sign for better visibility. The location of the sign will be shifted to the north to the new stop bar location. The new location of the "STOP" sign will be in the open area where the existing "NO RIGHT TURN" sign is located. . Selective tree trimming along the east side of Faulconer Drive between Old Ivy Road and the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to provide better visibility of the existing "STOP AHEAD" sign and the relocated oversized "STOP" sign. .............-. ..... ......-......... _.~y_.._~----~._~_._..~--_.....__.._..... .....~ ................._'_.__...... ... . .9';"",. 1.90.9 . 615 Church Streot. Lynchburg, Virginia 24504 P. 0, Box P-7000, Lynchburg. Virgin iLl 24505 1 €'1. (434) 845-0301 Fax: (434) 845-0306 August 12,2008 St. Anne's-Belfield School 2132 Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Attn: Mr. Michael Waylett Re: Intersection Modifications at Faulconer Drive & US 29 Off-Ramp Dear Mr.Waylett: English Construction has received the report by the Timmons Group dated August 11, 2008 with regard to the intersection modifications at Faulconer Drive and US 29 off-ramp. English is prepared to make the modifications based on the report for the lump sum of $44,250.00. This work has been priced to be done while the St. Anne's-Belfield construction project is in progress. The price does not include any VDOT fees or engineering cost that may be required. The scope of work includes all traffic control, safety, rumble strips, realigning the northbound approach of Faulconer Drive at the off ramp from southbound US route 29, relocation of the stop bar, replacing the "STOP" sign with an oversized "STOP" sign on northbound Faulconer Drive, selective tree trimming on the east side of Faulconer Drive between Old Ivy Road and the off ramp from southbound US Route 29 and all striping as shown in the report. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ~~ Robert W. Lee III Project Manager R WLIIVtlp cc: Cliff Harrison Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering) W. Scott Dunn (Timmons Group) Jennifer DeVaughn (Timmons) ""'*' -,. -- "'1I_ ............- ...- :".......... ..~7~ ~-':".~~=.':.:::..:::'";:';:"-':''';: =:.~ ~ - ~ - -.- ,-. . -;~7,;~-;; J.I;;H';3 , 8; , ~ 18;",< S.lN3W3^O~dWI ^'tJMa'tJO~ 3M~a ~3NO:)ln'tJ::l "" '" dnO\l!) SNOHHI~ ".-, - '-.. -- -._ P...... OOQ._....,_ _....._ -1_"--' ._............._ _......'""""" ._._ __.. ..-..__,...-...._.._..._...._.root.~$~....-......_.......Ol__.. -_.....1 SlN3W3^OW ~NINllnl 03S0dOlld - ~NIM\fllO lI81HX3 ... S.LN3W3^O~dWI A'v'MaV'O~ 3AI~a ~3NO:>lnV':l i ~ 9.... I ~ ~ ~ dnOll!) SNOHHI~ tf.:'../;oi ''''.,~. ......-C..'>. ....'&!~",. ri'; Z~r:'-; .",::ri):"rJ:"';._:' _.~>Jl~', ~~r' ".,,,.,~ ,. ;'~.},:'*'~, :l~' ,t';'li,.... ,'..t~~~~~~t~~.~:r;k/~.~i; : t;, .\I.,~.:~,.~,...>tt'....., ., ., . -"_ {. .\~'h." ;'/~:N)} . p ";I";'~ .. <lI"IO.:l ~,. __ _...... to...... _ 1_ ..._~....... -t_ "- ._.-r...... "l __ _.~ ..._ .__ _A.. ..-..__...~~-_.............._'"'..._.."OI")~..A,-............,....., "" _............j S.lN3W3^OW ~NIN~n.l ~NUSIX3 - ~NIM\f1l0 .lI8IHX3 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ S.lN3W3^O~dWI ^V'MaV'O~ 3M~a ~3NOJlnV'::l I.., '" dnO\l!) SNOHHI~ I , 7~~~ \ 11 August 2008 Dear Sally Thomas etc.- As a member of Preservation Piedmont, [ would like to encourage you and your colleagues to support the culturally and environmentally sensitive preservation of the historic headmaster's house at the St. Anne's Beltield School. The house is an important landmark on the entrance corridor between Albemarle County and Charlottesville. The house is central to the current landscape setting of the School, indeed the exclusive character of St. Anne's is intricately tied to the large Virginia landscaped estate it occupies. The intentional design of the driveways, gateways, and plantings all culminate in that house. The prominence of the house historically captured the loco parentis nature of the boarding school, much akin to the faculty Pavilions amidst the student rooms on the Lawn at the University of Virginia. Rather than demolishing the building, it seems tar more interesting and beneticial to incorporate the house in the School's expansion plans. If space is a problem the main house could be preserved while the later wings are removed. Culturally, this would enhance and engage the rich and layered history of the site, providing an exemplary teaching tool for the students, parents, and teachers. This historic building adds to the vitality, history, and longevity of the school, and embodies the tradition touted by the School. It is easy to tear it down, but it would be extraordinary to save it. Environmentally, it makes little sense to support the demolition of a building that can still provide years of useful accommodation. There is little evidence that the desib'l1erS have fully explored the issue of continued use. They seem to be drawing on a wasteful design sensibility that assumes that the best desib'l1 is a desib'11 unfettered by any effort to creatively reconcile new building with existing conditions. The Board of Supervisors may hesitate to advocate preservation, but we believe your advocacy in this particular instance is appropriate. The School is seeking a special use permit, and encouraging cultural and environmental sensitivity is well within your purview. Moreover, it seems quite reasonable to insist on preservation as part of an abJfeement that has the School taking advantage of public financing through the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County. Last year members of your Board expressed regret that Authority tinances were supp0l1ing the senseless demolition of Eugene Bradbury's historic Compton house by the JetTerson Scholars Foundation. Board members refrained from getting involved because the property was located in the City of Charlottesville. We now have a similar case located in the County, which presents an important opportunity to avoid the fate ofthe Compton House. We feel you can appropriately exercise the oversight that should accompany the grant of public bonds. Otherwise, let St. Anne's do this demolition with its own private tinancing. Sincerely, Dan Bluestone Eryn Brennan Justin Sarafin Lydia Brandt Page 1 of 1 Judith Wiegand From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Friday, July 25,200811 :45 AM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: FW: St. Anne's - Belfield Headmasters House From: Kirchen, Kristin (DHR) [mailto:Kristin.Kirchen@dhr.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:39 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Cc: Andrus, Ann (DHR) Subject: RE: St. Anne's - Belfield Headmasters House Good morning Margaret, This morning the department's National Register Evaluation Team considered the PIF prepared by Maral Kalbian for the Renwick-Craven House (also known as the St. Anne's - Belfield Headmasters House). Because no information or photographs of the interior were provided, we can only comment on the potential eligibility of the property; interior information is necessary for us to make a formal recommendation. Based on the information provided, we considered the eligibility of the property under Criterion C in the area of architecture. The resource is an understated example of a vernacular Colonial Revival dwelling. As you probably know, Albemarle and Charlottesville have many fine examples of the Colonial Revival style and we did not think that this was a significant example within that context. The information provided did not identify significant historical associations with the property or important individuals associated with it. Therefore, although the resource is well-maintained and may have sentimental and intrinsic value as part of the St. Anne's - Belfield campus, it was the Team's recommendation that the Renwick-Craven house is not potentially eligible for listing on the National Register or the Virginia Landmarks Register. If you have any questions about this recommendation or if we can provide any other technical assistance with regards to this project, please do not hesitate to call. Regards, Kristin Kirchen Architectural Historian Capital Region Preservation Office Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221 Phone: (804) 367-2323 x.111 Fax: (804) 367-2391 www.dhr.virginia.gov 7n"nOOR COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 July 21, 2008 Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc. c/o Kurt Gloeckner 508 Dale Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, Va 22903 RE: SP2007-00053 St. Anne's-Belfield TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 60, Parcels 57, 57A, 57B, 57C Dear Mr. Gloeckner: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 8, 2008, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 5:2. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled "St. Anne's-Belfield Proposed Lower/Middle School Preliminary Site Plan," dated June 6,2008, except that changes may be made provided the Zoning Administrator finds that all other special use conditions are met. 2. The maximum enrollment shall be 550 students. 3. Arrival and dismissal times for Lower and Middle school students shall be staggered at a minimum 20-minute interval so that all students do not arrive aUdepart from the campus at the same time. 4. The Owner shall design and construct all improvements at the Belfield campus to meet the minimum standards for LEED certification under the LEED for Schools Rating System and shall obtain such at the minimum level or better within two (2) years from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy, 5. Stormwater management shall be provided in the form of biofilters for any new impervious surfaces. In addition to the requirements of the County's Water Protection Ordinance, the majority of roof runoff shall be captured in a rainwater collection and reuse system. 6. Erosion control shall be provided within the property by the use of sediment trapping measures and diversions. Except for the required transportation improvements listed in Condition 7, off-site easements or work, or variations from the standards, shall not be used. 7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall complete construction of an extended southbound right turn lane from the US 29 ramp onto Faulconer Drive. 8. A row of 2 W' caliper shade trees spaced 40 feet on center shall be provided along the east side of the relocated portion of SR 855. 9. A minimum of 20-foot deep landscape buffers shall be provided, free of utilities, to screen the parking lot located southeast of the existing football field from the US 29/250 Bypass. 10. Landscaping may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual impact of the playing fields and parking on the Entrance Corridor. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 13, 2008. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's- Staff: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP Belfield New Academic Building Project Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: July 8, 2008 Not Scheduled Owners: St. Anne's-Belfield Applicant: St. Anne's-Belfield, represented by Kurt Gloeckner, Gloeckner Engineering/ Surveying, Inc. Acreage: 28.05 acres Special Use Permit: to increase the number of students from 300 to 550, by adding new buildings and demolishing others. Section 13.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance applies to this proposal. TMP: TM 60, Parcels 57, 57A, 57B, and Existing Zoning and By-right use: R1 57C. Residential, which allows private schools by Location: 720 Faulconer Drive (Rt. 855), special use permit. Charlottesville, VA 22903, approximately 1620 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (US Route feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive 29/250 Bypass (Monacan Trail! Richmond and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 offramp from the 250 Road) Bypass. Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: Yes Proposal: Approval to construct new Comprehensive Plan Designation: academic buildings on the existing lower Institutional- schools, universities and campus for students in Pre-School through 8th colleges and ancillary facilities and public grade to result in a total enrollment of 550 facilities and utilities, in Neighborhood 7. students. Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 7 Character of Property: The St. Anne's- Use of Surrounding Properties: To the Belfield Lower School campus includes one northeast, the subject property is adjacent to building complex, several playing fields property owned by the University of Virginia (including tennis courts), and surface parking Foundation (currently vacant). To the areas. There is some open space on the site northwest and southwest, the property is and several areas of steep slopes. some of bounded by large residential parcels and the which may have been created when the Rural Areas. To the southeast, the subject ground was leveled for construction of the property adjoins the 250 Bypass. existing playing fields and parking lots. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: I. Providing a private school in the County I. Traffic in the general vicinity of the campus is enables parents to choose the type of education congested and this expansion will increase facility they prefer for their children. traffic in the area. While completion of the 2. Expanding the number of grade levels at the two road improvements recommended as a Belfield campus will mean more siblings will condition of this Special Use Permit will be able to attend school on the same campus, mitigate some of this congestion at two of the thereby reducing the additional trips parents most affected intersections, congestion will now need to take siblings to two campuses. remain at other intersections in the area. 3. Because this campus is located at the edge ofthe Development Areas and is surrounded by low- density residential areas, vacant property, and the Rural Areas, the potential noise impact to adjacent properties from a large number of children will be less. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 2 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUDITH C. WIEGAND, AICP JULY 8, 2008 Not scheduled SP 2007-053 Sf. Anne's-Belfield New Academic Buildine: Proiect PETITION PROJECT: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield New Academic Building Project PROPOSED: to increase the number of students from 300 to 550 by adding new buildings and demolishing some existing buildings. No residential units are proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-I Residential (I unit/acre). SECTION: 13.2.2.5, which allows private schools by Special Use Pennit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Institutional- schools, universities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities and utilities in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X No LOCA nON: 720 Faulconer Drive (Rt.855), Charlottesville, V A 22903, approximately 1620 feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 offramp from the 250 Bypass. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 60, Parcels 57, 57A, 57B, 57C. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA The St. Anne's-Belfield Lower School campus currently includes one building complex, several playing tie Ids (including tennis courts), and surface parking areas. There is some open space on the site and several areas of steep slopes, some of which may have been created when the ground was leveled for construction of the existing playing fields and parking lots. The area around the campus is bounded by the 250 Bypass, property owned by the University of Virginia Foundation (as yet undeveloped), and several large residential lots with structures on them. The property is also adjacent to the County's Rural Areas. (See Attachment A. Location Map) SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is seeking approval to construct new academic buildings on the existing lower campus in Albemarle County. Currently, 300 students in Pre-School through 41h grade attend classes on this site between 8: 15 a.m. and 3: 15 p.m. An after care program continues until 5:30 p.m. The new academic buildings will accommodate students in Pre-School through 81h grade, resulting in a total enrollment of 550 students. To mitigate increased traffic both on and off campus, staggered arrival and dismissal times will be used for Lower and Middle School students. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST St. Anne's-Beltield would like to shift the Middle School from its campus in the City of Charlottesville to the campus in the County. This will allow more families with children from Pre-school age through 81h grade to be on the same campus. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY St. Anne's-Beltield is currently operating under SP 1994-017, which was approved on August 10, 1994. The one condition on SP 1994-017 is "Enrollment at this campus shall not exceed 330 students." All four of the parcels that are part of this application are owned by St. Anne's-Beltield and have been zoned R I-Residential since the County adopted the current zoning ordinance in 1980. Private schools are pennitted in R 1- Residential districts by special use permit approved by the Board of Supervisors. Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8,2008 3 These four parcels have been the subject of 11 site plans and subdivisions from 1995 through 2003, relating to a new gym, tennis courts and baseball fields, athletic field revitalization, addition of a storage building, field lighting, parking lots, football/lacrosse fields, play field bio-retention, and addition of classrooms. BACKGROUND On April 29, 2008, the Planning Commission held a worksession on the request for a Special Use Permit to provide input to the applicant and staff on two major issues: 1) the historic structure (the Head Master's Dwelling) and 2) possible offsite road improvements to offset impacts on the transportation system The Commission provided the following comments and suggestions (taken from the Action Letter): . Should the school conduct an evaluation of the historic structure before the Commission and Board act on the special use permit to determine which option is preferable? Before this worksession, but after staff prepared its report, the applicant submitted a report on the Head Master's dwelling which addressed the staff's first question. The Commission agreed at its worksession to review the staff's findings regarding this report as part of the public hearing on this special use permit. Further staff comments on this issue are given in the Staff Comment section below. . If the finalized TIA shows the expansion of the school will increase traffic at intersections in the area, should the school be requested to make improvements to one or more of those intersections, as recommended by the County Engineer an~ VDOT? Regarding traffic impacts, since the school will add traffic to the existing congestion at several area intersections, the Commission questioned what the school's proportional share should be towards improvements that address that impact. The Commission asked the applicant to provide further information in its traffic study so this could be determined. The Commission asked staff to work with VDOT and the applicant to determine the school's impact on the intersections and to determine what the applicant's pro-rata contribution should be to address the impact of this project on the road network. Further staff comments on this issue are given in the Statf Comment section below. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Institutional, which includes schools, universities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities and utilities. The requested Special Use Permit is consistent with this designation. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends to: Maintain or establish a buffer [along] the Route 250 bypass to protect the visual quality and character of the area as seen from the roadway. (page 76) This butfer is also shown on the Open Space Plan map. The Neighborhood Model: This special use permit request is for an expansion in the number of students permitted to attend a private school and includes an application plan showing significant changes in the campus. Because of the nature of this request, staff believes that four of the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model are relevant to this proposal. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. Access to the site is via Faulconer Drive. Because of the existing access conditions at the school and the nature of the surrounding area, there are no other Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 4 existing or planned interconnections to adjacent parcels. However, even under these conditions, St. Anne's needs an adequate connection to the local transportation network in order for parents to drop off and pick up their children, as well as to accommodate traffic to/from special events held at the school. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DOT) as part of this SP. Staff has reviewed both the draft of the TIA and additional information provided by the applicant at the County's and VDOT's request. A discussion of the traffic impacts of this expansion is included under Staff Comments below. If the two road improvements listed in the conditions for this Special Use Permit are provided, this principle will be met. Parks and Open Space. The plan shows a number of fields and open space on the campus. This principle is met. Redevelopment. This plan shows that the applicant is using an existing site more intensively. Several of the existing buildings on the campus are to be demolished and new ones constructed. The applicant has obtained an evaluation of the potentially historic building (see discussion under Staff Comments below). This principle is met. Site Planning that Respects Terrain. The applicant has provided a conceptual grading plan, which the County Engineer considers adequate. The application plan shows extensive grading, including possible disturbance of critical slopes. These slopes, however, are manmade and not shown on the Open Space Plan. The applicant will need to provide a plan showing the critical slopes on the site and apply for a critical slopes waiver at the time of site plan approval. The concept plan shows terraced slopes adjacent to one of the playing fields instead of a significant retaining wall that was shown on an earlier plan. The applicant removed the wall at County staffs request. This principle is met. ST AFF COMMENT Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: 31.2.4.1: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to is!me all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses a.It provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The St. Anne's-Belfield campus is surrounded by vacant property, residential neighborhoods developed at a relatively low density, the 250 Bypass, and the Rural Areas. At its current size, the school is compatible with these surrounding uses and has demonstrated its compatibility. Staff believes that, if traffic issues are addressed and sufficient buffering remains around the property, an expanded campus will continue to be an asset to the community and not a detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The school is compatible with the R-I Residential zoning district now and an expanded campus is not expected to change the character of that district at this location. If the expansion requested was for a school within an established residential development, a change in character might occur. Because of the existing and unique location of St. Anne's, though, no change in character should result from this expansion. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 5 The intent of the R I-Residential District is to recognize the existence of previously established low density residential districts, to provide incentives for clustering of development along with various types of amenities, and to provide for low density residential development in the urban area. Private schools are allowed in Residential districts by special use permit approved by the Board of Supervisors. Granting this request for St. Anne's-Belfield will permit an expansion in the number of students and, thereby, further development of the site as a school. Providing schools in residential areas can be a service to the area and an amenity for the surrounding neighborhoods. The school also adjoins the 250 Bypass, one of the County's Entrance Corridors. So, the proposed development must meet the requirements of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of that district is to protect the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources. The County's design planner has indicated several items that may be recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) (further discussion below). The applicant will have to obtain ARB approval prior to site plan approval. The County's Design Planner has reviewed the architectural historian's report on the Headmaster's House provided by the applicant on April 29, 2008. This report addressed the question of whether the Headmaster's house was historic. The Design Planner states: The applicant has submitted a historical and architectural assessment for the Headmaster's house. The report indicates that the house is not architecturally or historically distinguished. The historian's recommendation is that the house is not eligible for listing in the National Register. Although it is disappointing that the applicant is not able to find a way to re-use the resource, particularly given the size of the site and the educational opportunities and environmental benefits the existing building offers, the historic preservation planner's recommendations on this proposal are satisfied with this submittal. Under these circumstances, staff does not oppose demolition of the structure. wit" t"e uses permitted by rig"t in ti,e di.'itrict, The primary use in an R-I district is single-family homes. Schools are permitted in residential neighborhoods, although, as discussed above, the school has its own campus, rather than being part of a surrounding neighborhood. Schools contribute to the moral fabric of the community and are expected in residential districts. with additional regulation.'i provided in Section 5.0 oftllis ordinance, There are no supplemental regulations in Section 5.0 that address private schools. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) identified six intersections in the general vicinity of St. Anne's where some type oftum lane or taper will be warranted once the traffic due to the additional students at St. Anne's is added to the background traffic. County and VDOT staff have met with the applicant and the consultant for the TIA. The applicant has provided additional infonnation about the routes both existing and future students are likely to take to reach the campus. Along with this information, the applicant offered to provide a proportional share of the cost of improvements at the two intersections most affected by traffic to/from St. Anne's. However, according to the Virginia Dept. of Transportation, the combined traffic (existing or background traffic and traffic due to the expansion) triggers the need for Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 6 improvements at these two locations. Therefore, staff recommends that St. Anne's be required to provide: 1) a southbound right turn lane off of the US 29 ramp onto Faulconer Drive, and 2) a westbound right turn taper on Old Ivy Road at the intersection of Faulconer Drive. These two intersections are the closest of those affected to the school. (VDOT comments are included as Attachment E) The consultant for St. Anne's-Belfield has provided information on the private pump station and potential water and sewer needs. During a telephone call on June 27, Gary Whelan of the Service Authority indicated that sewer capacity will be fine. The only remaining information the Service Authority needs is the plumbing fixture count so that the meter(s) can be sized correctly; unless the meter is the correct size, it doesn't work. Information on the fixtures will be provided at the site plan approval stage. Two e-mail messages from Mr. Whelan are included as Attachment E. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. Providing a private school in the County enables parents to choose the type of education facility they prefer for their children. 2. Expanding the number of grade levels at the Belfield campus will mean more siblings will be able to attend school on the same campus, thereby making transportation easier for families. 3. Because this campus is located at the edge of the Development Areas and is surrounded by low- density residential areas, vacant property, and the Rural Areas, the potential noise impact from a large number of children on the adjacent properties will be minimal. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. Traffic in the general vicinity of the campus is congested. While completion of the two road improvements recommended as a condition of this Special Use Permit will mitigate some of this congestion at two of the most affected intersections, congestion will remain at other intersections in the area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2007-053, St. Anne's-Belfield, with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial accord with the concept plan entitled "St. Anne's-Belfield Proposed Lower/Middle School Preliminary Site Plan," dated June 6, 2008, except that changes may be made provided the Zoning Administrator finds that all other special use conditions are met. 2. The maximum enrollment shall be 550 students. 3. Arrival and dismissal times for Lower and Middle school students shall be staggered at a minimum 20-minute interval so that all students do not arrive at/depart from the campus at the same time. 4. In addition to meeting all requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), all new buildings shall be designed and constructed to meet the minimum standards for a "Silver" rating (37-43 points) under the LEED for Schools Rating System, First Edition, Updated November 2007. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall submit a certification from a LEED certified architect to the Director of Community Development that the plan meets the above-referenced LEED standards. Before the Owner requests a certificate of occupancy for any building for which a licensed architect rendered such a certificate, the Owner shall submit to the County's Director of Community Development a written statement from the architect that the building was built to the plans on which the certificate was based. In the event of a conflict between the ARB requirements and the LEED for Schools Guidelines, the ARB requirements shall take precedence. 5. Stormwater management shall be provided in the form ofbiofilters for any new impervious surfaces. In addition to the requirements of the County's Water Protection Ordinance, the majority of roof runoff shall be captured in a rainwater collection and reuse system. Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 7 6. Erosion control shall be provided within the property by the use of sediment trapping measures and diversions. Except for the required transportation improvements listed in Condition 7, off-site easements or work, or variations from the standards, shall not be used. 7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall complete construction of a southbound right turn lane off of the US 29 ramp onto Faulconer Drive and also complete construction of a westbound right turn taper on Old Ivy Road at the intersection of Faulconer Drive. 8. A row of2 Yl" caliper shade trees spaced 40 feet on center shall be provided along the east side of the relocated portion ofSR 855. 9. A minimum of20-foot deep landscape buffers shall be provided, free of utilities, to screen the proposed playing fields and the parking lot located southeast of the existing football field from the US 29/250 Bypass. 10. Landscaping may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual impact of the playing fields and parking on the Entrance Corridor. A TT ACHMENTS Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Concept Plan, dated June 6, 2008, prepared by Gloecker Engineering/Surveying, Inc., and entitled "St. Anne's-Belfield Proposed Lower / Middle School Preliminary Site Plan. Attachment C - Planning Commission Worksession Action Letter, dated May 8, 2008 Attachment D - Virginia Dept. of Transportation comments, dated Attachment E - Albemarle County Service Authority comments, dated May 5, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 8 J .5 1 I f f Ii I I ! II ~ ! I .~ ~ ~N .J!.:<! 3"<<> .~:i O~N ~.~ p~ /1z ~ ;;i ~ J s s I I 1'!ffJJ!!jf D II_I I I DI I < - = ~ 8 .::: ~ ~ - - < MEMORANDUM I ATTACHMENT C I TO: Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc. c/o Kurt Gloeckner 508 Dale Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, Va 22903 FROM: DATE: Judith Wiegand, AICP May 8, 2008 RE: SP2007 -00053 St. Anne's-Belfield TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 60, Parcels 57, 57A, 57B, 57C Dear Mr. Gloeckner: On April 29, 2008, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above-noted item in a work session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. JW/sm SP-2007-00053 St. Anne's Belfield-New Academic Blda PROPOSED: to increase the number of students from 300 to 550 by adding new buildings and demolishing some existing buildings. No residential units are proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre). SECTION: 13.2.2,5, which allows private schools by Special Use Permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Institutional - schools, universities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities and utilities in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X LOCATION: 720 Faulconer Drive (Rt.855), Charlottesville, VA 22903, approximately 1620 feet from the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the Ivy Road/Rt 250 off ramp from the 250 Bypass. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 60 Parcels 57, 57A, 57B, 57C. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on SP-2007-00053, St. Anne's-Belfield - New Academic Building for staff to receive guidance on the historic structure (the Head Master's Dwelling), on possible offsite road improvements to offset impacts on the transportation system, and any other expectations before the public hearing was set. Staff presented a power-point presentation and reviewed the proposal. The applicants presented a power-point presentation and explained the proposal, particularly the traffic study components and presented the architectural historian's report to staff. Public comment was taken. The Commission reviewed, discussed and provided comments and suggestions, as follows: . Should the school conduct an evaluation before the Commission and Board act on the special use permit to determine which option is preferable? Since preparation of the staff report for this work session the applicant has submitted a report on the Head Master's dwelling which addresses the staffs first question. The Commission agreed to review the staffs findings regarding this report as part of the public hearing on this special use permit. . If the finalized TIA shows the expansion of the school will increase traffic at intersections in the area, should the school be requested to make improvements to one or more of those intersections, as recommended by the County Engineer and VDOT? Regarding traffic impacts, since the school will add to the existing problem at several area intersections, the Commission questioned what the school's proportional share should be towards improvements that address that impact. The Commission asked the applicant to provide the missing information in its traffic study so this could be determined. The Commission asked staff to work with VDOT and the applicant to determine the school's impact on the intersections and to determine what the applicant's pro-rata contribution should be to address the impact of this project on the road network. Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 6 I A 11 ACHMEN1 0 From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.Denunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:39 PM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: Glenn Brooks; Juandiego Wade Subject: FW: STAB - Cost Sharing Estimates for Improvements Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: STAB Road Improvement Contribution 061008.pdf Judy, I have reviewed the attached document and do not agree with the methodology used in determining the pro-rata share contribution for the identified road improvements. The study identified six locations where some type of turn lane or taper when the combined traffic was analyzed will be warranted. Five of these locations warrant some type of improvement from background conditions. Even in the five locations that warrant improvements from background, this SP is contributing towards the need for these improvements. One location warrants improvements from the site and one location warrants a right turn and taper from the site and only a taper from the background. So the site traffic only triggers the need for additional improvements in two locations however the site contributes towards all the intersections that the study identifies as needing improvements. I recommend that the contribution should include a pro-rata share for all the needed improvements, or the applicant should be responsible for the entire cost of constructing the improvements that are triggered by the site traffic. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434-293-0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8,2008 ,. From: Sent: To: Subject: Judy, Gary Whelan [gwhelan@serviceauthority.orgl Monday, May 05, 2008 10:40 AM Judith Wiegand SP200700053 St. Anne's I ATTACHMENT E I The ACSA has no comment on the SP at this time. The ACSA will have to review and approve any relocation or grading in the vicinity of the water mains before final site plan approval is granted. We will also need to see a total plumbing fixture count to adequately size the meter(s). Thanks, Gary G. M. Whelan, LS Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charloffesvffle, VA 22911 (434) 977-4511 Fax: (434) 979-0698 From: Gary Whelan [gwhelan@serviceauthority.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:30 AM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: SP 2007-00053 St. Annes Belfield-New Academic Bldg. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Judy, The ACSA would like to see a total plumbing fixture count to correctly size the meter(s). Have the applicant provide expected peak water demand and projected flows for sewer. This will give a heads-up as to the capacity of the private pump station, -Gary G. M. Whelan, LS Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charloffesville, VA 22911 (434) 977-4511 Fax: (434) 979-0698 Planning Commission Public Hearing: SP 2007-053 St. Anne's-Belfield Staff Report, July 8, 2008 11. St. Anne's-Belfield School 2132 Ivy Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Telephone (434) 296-5106. Fax (434) 979-1486 www.stab.org .;.f.S 'Bf'<. .:;::. d:..~ 1:- ""I~ rT'I f;1, S :SCliOo'';' July 29, 2008 Dear Board of Supervisors, We hope this letter finds you well and enjoying these summer months with family and friends. We write today regarding our upcoming appearance before the Board of Supervisors on August 13, 2008. As we shared with you when we met in the fall, St. Anne's-Belfield School is applying for a special-use permit for our Lower Campus, increasing the capacity from 330 students to 550. We have been working with the Planning Commission and its staff for the past few months, and at the July 8, 2008, meeting, we received their approval for our proposal. With it came ten conditions, and it is in regards to two of these that we write today. We came to agreement on nine of the ten conditions, one of which included our commitment to achieve LEED certification for this project within two years of occupying the building. To our knowledge, this is an unprecedented commitment on the part of an applicant to the County, and we feel it is important that the Board recognize that we are making a large concession that could cost the school significant time and money over the life of this project. However, it has always been our goal to achieve some level of LEED status and we are eager to take on this challenge. We are less agreeable to one of the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. The Commissioners required that the school design, construct and pay for an extension to the current right turn lane on the exit ramp from 250E/29S to Faulconer Drive. In fact, it was this condition that compelled two of the Commissioners to vote against our application, which they otherwise would have supported (the reason for their dissent is noted in the July 8th minutes). As you will see from those minutes, there is significain: disagreeniem belween theschooi's traffic stuoy of that ~ntire'Clrea, conducted by the Timmons Group and submitted to the Commission, and that of the Planning Commission Staff and their own traffic engineers. In short, our studies show that the school's impact on this already challenging traffic situation, even with the proposed increase to the special-use permit, is minimal, with an estimated increase of 15 vehicles twice per weekday. These facts stand in contrast to one Commissioner's assertion that St. Anne's-Belfield is almost solely responsible for the backup on this exit ramp, even though the backups continue daily this summer when school is not in session. With justifiable concern about the traffic in that entire area and desire to make improvements (both of which we share), we nevertheless feel the Commission is unfairly saddling the schoolwith 100% of the cost and implementation of this proposed improvement. Letter to Board of Supervisors Page 2 July 29, 2008 Moreover, our studies and careful observation of this exit ramp show that this requirement is unnecessary, unfeasible to implement, and likely unsafe if it were. As stated above, a right-turn lane already exists and adding to it, considering the length and curvature of the current exit ramp, appears unfeasible. It will create the illusion of a two-lane exit ramp, causing cars not bound for St. Anne's- Belfield to change lanes in order to continue on to Route 601. That, we feel, will be more unsafe that what currently exists. Furthermore, we feel that extending this turn lane is unnecessary, as cars bound for our Lower Campus rarely, if ever, queue up in that turn lane. Cars bound for campus are able to merge onto Faulconer Drive without a complete stop and therefore extending the turn lane will, in cS'S€nce, accompHsh :itt!e:. It also remains a question whether this condition can even be met, and that is precisely why two Commissioners voted against the motion. They felt the burden being placed on the school was much too large, considering the relative impact of our traffic and the feasibility of completing the project. It also remains unclear as to what entity owns the land the Commission proposes we make into a turn lane. If it is indeed the University of Virginia Foundation, as suspected, and they choose not to give up that land, we will be unable to meet this condition. We are also faced with the prospect of permitting through VDOT, a process that could take years and delay our project beyond our current timeline. We propose to the Board of Supervisors that the school indeed pay its fair share of the costs of improving traffic in this area, based upon the school's measured impact. This goes along with the school's plan to stagger the opening and dismissal times of the lower and middle divisions, so as to minimize the impact of traffic in the mornings and afternoons. In addition, the school is happy and eager to deposit funds into an escrow account that will be used for traffic improvements in the future, once VDOT and the County determine the safest and most feasible improvements. Frankly, these have not yet been determined by either party, a fact confirmed by the Planning Commission Staff's own traffic engineer and included in the July 8th meeting minutes. Thus we feel the school should not move ahead with any traffic improvements until that time. Meanwhile, our project should not have to wait. We feel that paying our fair share, as determined by the Board, is a more equitable and more conducive to our need to complete this project in a timely manner. We also propose that we meet you and the other Supervisors at the 250E/29S exit ramp to Route 601 prior to the August 13th meeting, so that you can see firsthand what we have observed: that the condition imposed by the Planning Commission is both unfeasible and unsafe. The Head of School's office will be in touch to schedule a mutually convenient time to visit the site. Letter Board of Supervisors Page 3 July 29, 2008 We deeply appreciate your consideration of this project and our concerns. We are grateful for the support you expressed when we met in the fall and are hopeful we can all come up with an agreement that will address the traffic concerns and allow the school to undertake this ambitious and necessary project in a timely fashion. As always, please do not hesitate to contact either of us with questions. Sincerely, ~ David S. Lourie Head of School John Grisham Chair, Campaign for Our Next Century AUGUST 13, 2008 CLOSED MEETING MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO A CLOSED MEEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA: . UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO DISCUSS WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF SPECIFIC MATTERS REQUIRING LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO A WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE APPEAL. LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mcintire Road, Suite 325 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 PHONE: (434) 972-4067 FAX: (434) 972-4068 ANDREW H. HERRICK ANNIE KIM SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS GREG KAMPTNER DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY August 15,2008 Allan B. Kindrick 4815 Jacobs Run Earlysville, VA 22936 Re: SDP 2008-00087 Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Major Amendment Dear Mr. Kindrick: The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has received your August 6, 2008 letter appealing various matters related to the above-referenced site plan. The first two grounds stated in your appeal pertain to preliminary determinations made under the County's Water Protection Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code) that the Airport's proposed runway extension fell within the meaning of "road, street or driveway" as used in Albemarle County Code S 17-320(D). However, the stormwater management plan for the proposed runway extension project has not been approved or otherwise acted upon, no written determination has been issued to the Airport or to any person and no action has been taken by the Program Authority. An appeal is permitted under Albemarle County Code 9 17-311 by any person who is aggrieved by "any action of the program authority. . . in the interpretation of the provisions of this article. . ." Because the Program Authority has not yet taken any appealable action within the meaning of Albemarle County Code 9 17-311, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has dismissed your appeal regarding these grounds as premature. The Board took this action at its August 13,2008 meeting. Please see the attached resolution adopted by the Board. The Program Authority has further examined the runway issues since its preliminary determinations. As a result, the Program Authority recommended to the Board of Supervisors that Albemarle County Code S 17-319 be amended to specifically address runways by exempting certain public airport improvements, including runways and their extensions, from the County's stream buffer regulations, The Board has set September 3, 2008 as the date for a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Albemarle County Code S 17-319. (See the attached resolution) The proposed amendment would exempt the construction, installation and maintenance of runways, taxiways, and other similar or appurtenant improvements at public airports, including the expansion or extension of those improvements, from the duty to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained. Allan B. Kindrick August 15,2008 Page 2 The third ground stated in your appeal pertains to the preliminary site plan approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2008. Adjacent property owners do not have a right to challenge the approval of a site plan. Virginia Code S 15.2-2260(E) only provides for an appeal to the circuit court by a developer whose site plan is disapproved by the locality. Consistent with this State Code provision, Albemarle County Code S 18-32.4.2.7 only provides that a developer can appeal the disapproval of a site plan to the board of supervisors and to circuit court. Accordingly, under state law and the County Code, the Board of Supervisors has no authority to hear this part of your appeal. Based on the above, this letter is to advise you that the Board of Supervisors has concluded its review of your appeal. Very truly yours, AiP~ County Attorney Attachment cc: ~lla W. Jordan, Clerk .. bee: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Mark B. Graham RESOLUTION DISMISSING APPEAL RELATED TO EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 21 AT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AS PREMATURE AND SETTING FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN AMENDMENT TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 9 17-319 WHEREAS, the County's Program Authority made a preliminary decision that a proposed 800 foot extension of Runway 21 at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport could encroach into a stream buffer on the Airport's property because the runway was a "driveway" within the meaning of Albemarle County Code 8 17-320(0) which would allow it to be developed within a stream buffer, provided that specified performance standards are satisfied; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, the Board received information from the Airport's Executive Director, who identified the extension of Runway 21 as critical to the continuing success of air service at the Airport and explained that the construction of the runway extension will occur in a manner that provides the highest level of environmental protection reasonable for this type of construction activity; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, Allan B. Kindrick submitted a letter purportedly appealing the Program Authority's interpretation of Albemarle County Code 8 17 -320(D) to the Board of Supervisors, as authorized under Albemarle County Code S 17-311; and WHEREAS, the Program Authority has neither approved the stormwater management plan, nor taken any other action, on the proposed runway extension project and, therefore, no action has been taken that would establish a right to appeal as provided under Albemarle County Code S 17-311; and WHEREAS, the Program Authority has further examined this issue and, because of the important public purposes for the runway extension project, the federal and state environmental review to which this project is subject, and the need for the project to be exempt from any requirements to retain, establish, or manage a stream buffer, as permitted for certain types of development under Albemarle County Code 8 17-319, recommends that the treatment of public airport facilities be specifically addressed by an amendment to the Water Protection Ordinance to include such facilities under the provisions of Albemarle County Code S 17-319. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby dismiss the August 6,2008 appeal by Allan B. Kindrick as premature; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby sets for public hearing on September 3, 2008 an amendment to Albemarle County Code 8 17-319 to add the construction, installation and maintenance of runways, taxiways, and other similar or appurtenant improvements at public airports, including their expansion or extension, as a type of development that is exempt from the duty to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained, and to make other related amendments to Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code as determined to be necessary and appropriate. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albema.r..le County, ..Virgin.J.a,y a v. 0 teof six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on August 13, 2008. ,'-...., --~ L;.S. /1 ~( 02..... Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Boyd Mr, Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Y Y Y Y Y Y August 12,2008 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Proposed Plan of Financing for Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), have requested that the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") issue up to $195,000,000 of its revenue bonds ("Bonds") in one or more series from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing costs associated with the following (collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of an approximately 456,358 square foot, five-story replacement acute care hospital facility (the "Replacement Hospital") to consist of approximately 176 beds to be located at the Peter Jefferson Place business office park near the intersection of Willis Drive and Peter Jefferson Parkway in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) working capital and routine capital expenditures at the Replacement Hospital, (3) routine capital expenditures at Martha Jefferson Health Services' existing three-story healthcare and medical office facility located at 595 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Peter Jefferson Place business office park, and (4) costs of issuance, reserve funds and capitalized interest related to the projects or the issuance of the bonds. As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed Plan of Financing and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Chairman, Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Economic Development Authority of Albermarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution adopted by a majority of the Drectors of the Authority at a regular meeting duly called and held on August 12, 2008 in accordance with law, and that such resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority this 12th day of August, 2008. Secretary, Economic Development Authority of Albermarle County, Virginia [SEAL] -5- McGuireWoods LLP draft as of 8/6/2008 CERTIFICATE The undersigned Chairman of the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows: 1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on August 12,2008, at 4:00 o'clock p.m. in the Fourth Floor Conference Room, at 401 McIntire Road, in Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority before such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard. 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the County of Albemarle ("Notice"), with the second publication appearing not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached as Exhibit A. 3. A summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution ("Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on this date. Active_6388160_3_MJH 2008 - TEFRA Package3 Draft of McGuire Woods LLP as of 8/6/2008 WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 12th day of August, 2008. [SEAL] Secretary, Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Exhibits: A - Copy of Certified Notice from Newspaper B - Summary of Statements C - Public Hearing Resolution ,2- Draft of McGuire Woods LLP as of 8/6/2008 EXHIBIT B Summary of Statements Representatives of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation appeared before the Authority to explain the proposed plan of financing. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed bond issue. Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING Date: August 12,2008 To the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia Applicant: Facility: Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation A replacement acute care hospital facility in Albemarle County 1. Maximum amount of financing sought. $195,000,000 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the locality. N/A 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates. N/A 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates. N/A 5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates. N/A 6. (a) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality. $3,185,586 (b) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality. $32,374,104 (c) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality. $19,197,639 (d) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality. $46,501,572 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis. 1,288 8. Average annual salary per employee. $60,128 . Chairman, Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 13th day of August, 2008, the following members were recorded as present: PRESENT: ~ On motion by , seconded by the attached Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia by a roll call vote, the votes being recorded as follows: MEMBER VOTE Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $195,000,000 ("Bonds") to be issued in one or more series from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing costs associated with (1) the acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of an approximately 456,358 square foot, five-story replacement acute care hospital facility (the "Replacement Hospital") to consist of approximately 176 beds to be located at the Peter Jefferson Place business office park near the intersection of Willis Drive and Peter Jefferson Parkway in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) working capital and routine capital expenditures at the Replacement Hospital, (3) routine capital expenditures at Martha Jefferson Health Services' existing three-story healthcare and medical office facility located at 595 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Peter Jefferson Place business office park, and (4) costs of issuance, reserve funds and capitalized interest related to the projects or the issuance ofthe bonds (collectively, the "Project"). WHEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on August 12, 2008, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section 15.2- 4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code also provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds. WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); the Project is to be located in the County; and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County. WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds. WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves (i) the Project and (ii) the issuance of the Bonds pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of Martha Jefferson Health Services, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services with the Project. Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 2. The approval of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds do not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or Martha Jefferson Health Services. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia this 13th day of August, 2008. [SEAL] Clerk, Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia -2- RESOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $195,000,000 REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL AND MJH FOUNDATION WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds to protect and promote the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia by assisting in the acquisition, construction, equipping, expansion, enlargement and improvement of medical facilities in order to provide modern and efficient medical services to the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia. WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds in one or more series at one time or from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing costs associated with (1) the acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of an approximately 456,358 square foot, five-story replacement acute care hospital facility (the "Replacement Hospital") to consist of approximately 176 beds to be located at the Peter Jefferson Place business office park near the intersection of Willis Drive and Peter Jefferson Parkway in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) working capital and routine capital expenditures at the Replacement Hospital, (3) routine capital expenditures at Martha Jefferson Health Services' existing three-story healthcare and medical office facility located at 595 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Peter Jefferson Place business office park, and (4) costs of issuance, reserve funds and capitalized interest related to the projects or the issuance of the bonds (collectively, the "Project"). WHEREAS, such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of Albemarle County, Virginia ang the Commonwealth of Virginia. WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the Authority, and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Act. WHEREAS, Martha Jefferson Health Services has represented that the Project will require an issue of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $195,000,000. WHEREAS, no member of the Board of Directors of the Authority is an officer or employee of Albemarle County, Virginia; each member has, before entering upon his duties during his or her present term of office, taken and subscribed to the oath prescribed by Section 49-1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; and at the time of their appointments and at all times thereafter, including the date hereof, all of the members of the Board of Directors of the Authority have satisfied the residency requirements of the Act. Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 WHEREAS, no member of the Board of Directors of the Authority has any personal interest or business interest in Martha Jefferson Health Services, the bonds, or any of the transactions contemplated therein or has otherwise engaged in conduct prohibited under the Conflict of Interests Act, Chapter 40.1, Title 2.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended in connection with this resolution or any other official action of the Authority in connection therewi tho NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the bonds will be in the public interest and will promote the health and welfare of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Albemarle, and their citizens. 2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in the Project by undertaking the issuance of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $195,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and Martha Jefferson Health Services. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the Project, the Authority agrees that Martha Jefferson Health Services may proceed with its plans, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment pursuant to the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection with the Project; provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be deemed to authorize Martha Jefferson Health Services to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that Martha Jefferson Health Services may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable federal laws. 4. At the request of Martha Jefferson Health Services, the Authority approves McGuire Woods LLP as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds. 5. All costs and expenses in connection with the Project, including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority counsel, shall be paid by Martha Jefferson Health Services or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by Martha Jefferson Health Services and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 6. Martha Jefferson Health Services shall pay to the Authority its administrative fee based upon the Authority's policies and procedures, subject to the approval of Bond Counsel. 7. By presenting this resolution to the Authority, Martha Jefferson Health Services agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Authority, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against all liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, penalties, losses, costs and expenses in any way connected with the Project or the issuance of the bonds, so long as such -2- Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, penalties, losses, costs and expenses do not result from the Authority's gross negligence or its willful, wrongful acts. 8. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds and to evidence its "official intent" to reimburse from the proceeds of the bonds any expenditures paid by Martha Jefferson Health Services to finance the planning, construction and renovation of the Project before the issuance of the bonds, all within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150 and related sections of the Code. 9. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, approve the issuance ofthe bonds. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as the issuance of the bonds has been approved by such Board of Supervisors. 10. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on August 12, 2008, in accordance with law, and that such resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date. WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority, this 12th day of August, 2008. [SEAL] Secretary, Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Draft of McGuireWoods LLP as of 8/6/2008 Resolution In Support of the 800' Extension of Runway 21 At the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport commenced commercial air service in August 1955 to serve the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport contributes over $170 million of direct economic impact to the Albemarle-Charlottesville region; and WHEREAS, the only runway serving the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport was last extended in 1966 to the current size of 6,001' x 150', and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has identified the extension of Runway 21 as critical to the continuing success of air service at the Airport; and WHEREAS, this extension will occur on Airport property and will be funded by the Federal Aviation Administration, Virginia Department of Aviation, and Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport funds; and WHEREAS, it is expected and required that the construction of this extension will occur in a manner that provides the highest level of environmental protection reasonable for this type of construction activity; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby support the extension of Runway 21 by 800' in order to support the economic benefits provided by Airport operations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors extends its appreciation to the Federal Aviation Administration and Virginia Department of Aviation for the funds that will be provided to the Runway Extension Project at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of _ to _' as recorded below, at a meeting held on the _ day of August, 2008. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Ave Nav Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas Hello, my name is Christine Shaw and I live in Forest Lakes at 1489 Birchcrest Lane. I have been a tennis enthusiast all my life. I am also currently a Board Member of the Charlottesville Tennis Patrons Association, a local non profit organization that helps to create tennis programs for youth and adults in our community. I have enjoyed playing tennis all my life, starting at age 7, when I played for my local Parks and Rec. team and continuing on to the present, where I actively play tennis in UST A leagues and ladder matches. I've moved many times over the course of my life, but the one constant element throughout has always been tennis. Wherever I've lived, I found it easy to assimilate into the community by meeting others who play tennis, as well as by getting involved as a volunteer at community-based tennis programs and functions. Playing tennis has been a great way for me to be physically active as well as engaged and connected in the community. Tennis is a fantastic sport. It allows anyone, both young and old and everyone in between, to enjoy a great aerobic workout while also affording them the opportunity to forge lasting friendships. As our society grapples with health problems associated with high obesity rates in children and adults, I strongly recommend that our local government consider creating an environment that fosters active lifestyles for our county residents. One way of doing this is by providing lighted tennis courts, which enables people to enjoy tennis after work and in the coolness of the evening, thus fully utilizing the assets the county already has. A huge proportion of our county residents do not belong to tennis clubs such as Boars Head, Farmington and Glenmore, but they nonetheless have a strong desire to play tennis. Our county tennis courts should be available to them, even in the evening hours. Many county residents work long hours or even non traditional shifts. We ask that the County Board of Supervisors approve lights to be installed at Darden Towe tennis courts. New technological advances in lighting now make lighted tennis courts more "neighborhood friendly" while at the same time meeting the lighting standards from the United States Tennis Association. Lighting systems can be centrally controlled, monitoring when lights come on and off in the evenings. These systems provide maximum playing time, while also being cost-effective. Forest Lakes, a residential community in the northern part of Albemarle County, has 12 lighted tennis courts, 6 in Forest Lakes North and six in Forest Lakes South. Our lights can be turned on and off throughout the evening hours as residents choose to play. The courts are surrounded by nearby single family homes. Here are some pictures taken of our tennis courts in the evening. (Refer to Pictures) I'd like to point out that there is little to no "light drift" from the lights on the court to the surrounding neighborhood. There are no complains from the nearby residents about the lights on the tennis courts. Instead, our association is often complemented by its residents for providing an environment that is conducive to leading an active lifestyle. Please favorably consider installing lights at the Darden Towe Tennis Courts. Lighting the courts would provide a means for county residents to lead an active lifestyle and fully utilize the county's already existing investment in tennis courts at Darden Towe County Park. Thank you. RESOLUTION DISMISSING APPEAL RELATED TO EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 21 AT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AS PREMATURE AND SETTING FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN AMENDMENT TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ~ 17-319 WHEREAS, the County's Program Authority made a preliminary decision that a proposed 800 foot extension of Runway 21 at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport could encroach into a stream buffer on the Airport's property because the runway was a "driveway" within the meaning of Albemarle County Code ~ 17-320(D) which would allow it to be developed within a stream buffer, provided that specified performance standards are satisfied; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, the Board received information from the Airport's Executive Director, who identified the extension of Runway 21 as critical to the continuing success of air service at the Airport and explained that the construction of the runway extension will occur in a manner that provides the highest level of environmental protection reasonable for this type of construction activity; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2008, Allan B. Kindrick submitted a letter purportedly appealing the Program Authority's interpretation of Albemarle County Code S 17-320(D) to the Board of Supervisors, as authorized under Albemarle County Code S 17-311; and WHEREAS, the Program Authority has neither approved the stormwater management plan, nor taken any other action, on the proposed runway extension project and, therefore, no action has been taken that would establish a right to appeal as provided under Albemarle County Code S 17-311; and WHEREAS, the Program Authority has further examined this issue and, because of the important public purposes for the runway extension project, the federal and state environmental review to which this project is subject, and the need for the project to be exempt from any requirements to retain, establish, or manage a stream buffer, as permitted for certain types of development under Albemarle County Code S 17 -319, recommends that the treatment of public airport facilities be specifically addressed by an amendment to the Water Protection Ordinance to include such facilities under the provisions of Albemarle County Code S 17-319. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby dismiss the August 6, 2008 appeal by Allan B. Kindrick as premature; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby sets for public hearing on September 3, 2008 an amendment to Albemarle County Code S 17-319 to add the construction, installation and maintenance of runways, taxiways, and other similar or appurtenant improvements at public airports, including their expansion or extension, as a type of development that is exempt from the duty to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained, and to make other related amendments to Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code as determined to be necessary and appropriate. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on ~~;./t<Aj<: r~ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas Aye Nay y y y y y y 11 August 2008 Dear Sally Thomas etc.- As a member of Preservation Piedmont, I would like to encourage you and your colleagues to support the culturally and environmentally sensitive preservation of the historic headmaster's house at the St. Anne's Belfield School. The house is an important landmark on the entrance corridor between Albemarle County and Charlottesville. The house is central to the current landscape setting of the School, indeed the exclusive character ofSt. Anne's is intricately tied to the large Virginia landscaped estate it occupies. The intentional design ofthe driveways, gateways, and plantings all culminate in that house. The prominence of the house historically captured the loco parentis nature of the boarding school, much akin to the faculty Pavilions amidst the student rooms on the Lawn at the University of Virginia. Rather than demolishing the building, it seems far more interesting and beneficial to incorporate the house in the School's expansion plans. If space is a problem the main house could be preserved while the later wings are removed. Culturally, this would enhance and engage the rich and layered history of the site, providing an exemplary teaching tool for the students, parents, and teachers. This historic building adds to the vitality, history, and longevity of the school, and embodies the tradition touted by the School. It is easy to tear it down, but it would be extraordinary to save it. Environmentally, it makes little sense to support the demolition of a building that can still provide years of useful accommodation. There is little evidence that the designers have fully explored the issue of continued use. They seem to be drawing on a wasteful design sensibility that assumes that the best design is a design unfettered by any effort to creatively reconcile new building with existing conditions. The Board of Supervisors may hesitate to advocate preservation, but we believe your advocacy in this particular instance is appropriate. The School is seeking a special use permit, and encouraging cultural and environmental sensitivity is well within your purview. Moreover, it seems quite reasonable to insist on preservation as part of an agreement that has the School taking advantage of public financing through the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County. Last year members of your Board expressed regret that Authority finances were supporting the senseless demolition of Eugene Bradbury's historic Compton house by the Jefferson Scholars Foundation. Board members refrained from getting involved because the property was located in the City of Charlottesville. We now have a similar case located in the County, which presents an important opportunity to avoid the fate of the Compton House. We feel you can appropriately exercise the oversight that should accompany the grant of public bonds. Otherwise, let St. Anne's do this demolition with its own private financing. Sincerely, Dan Bluestone Eryn Brennan Justin Sarafin Lydia Brandt ..... .- ... TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. To: From: Date: Re: CC: Michael Waylett (STAB) W. Scott Dunn, AICP August 11, 2008 Intersection Modifications at Faulconer Drive and US 29 Off-Ramp Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering); Allen Hamblen (English Construction) The key traffic issues concerning the proposed extension of the westbound right-turn lane storage on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 at the intersection of Faulconer Drive are: · The existing 100 foot right turn lane on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to northbound Faulconer Drive is basically unimpeded. Traffic on Faulconer Drive is stop controlled and must yield the right-of-way to the ramp traffic. Route 601 is one-way traveling westbound only. · There are no queuing issues for vehicles turning right onto northbound Faulconer Drive to enter the school and the existing storage is sufficient for the projected 2012 school traffic. · Extending the existing turn lane further up the ramp from US Route 29 may give drivers the false sense that the ramp has two full lanes. Drivers in the rightmost of the two lanes may not know they are in a right turn lane and may not realize they will have to turn right onto northbound Faulconer Drive. These drivers could try to make a last minute lane change to continue through the intersection onto Route 601 heading towards Ivy Road (US Route 250). · Lower School and Middle School arrival and dismissal times will be staggered by at least 20 minutes. Existing traffic for the Lower School is higher than the projected traffic for the Middle School. · The projected AM peak hour (8:00 - 9:00 AM) volume on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 is 649 vehicles per hour (vph) in 2010. STAB will add 13 trips to the ramp during the AM peak hour; a 2.0% increase. The projected PM peak hour (3:30 - 4:30 AM) volume on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 is 571 vph in 2010. STAB will add 8 trips to the ramp during the PM peak hour; a 1.4% increase. . The extension of the westbound right-turn lane storage on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 was not an improvement identified by the traffic impact study. Cl'\ ..... N M N <( > - "'0 c 0 E co ..r::: \D u 0 ..... a:: ..... N L/) M 0 <:t M 0 co (l) ...., X ::J <{ u. (f) ...., (l) (l) L/) .... \D ...., 0 (f) ..... '" ..... <:t N ..... L/) <:t (f) 0 co r-- ...J ..... W ..... f- >- E '" 0 0 0 u c: Ul .c: c: '" 0 <1l E f- E <1l ~ " ;: '" ;: " ;: ~ '" c: '" ~ c: <1l '0 ~ <1l '" ~ <1l E 0. 0 <1l > <1l CJ <1l ~ V1 STAB - Intersection Modifications at Faulconer Drive and US 29 Off-Ramp August 11, 2008 Page 2 of 2 ..... . ... TIMMONS GROUP it- Based on the field review con~ucted on August 8th and knowledge of the traffic concerns at the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29; the key traffic issues are: · Limited sight distance on northbound Faulconer Drive approaching the intersection of the off-ramp southbound US Route 29. · Queuing from the traffic signal the intersection of Route 601 and Ivy Road (US Route 250) impacts the ramp traffic during peak hours. In order to improve the safety and operation of the intersection of Faulconer Drive and the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29, the following improvements are recommended: · Installing rumble strips on the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to reduce vehicle speeds approaching the intersection of Faulconer Drive. Reducing speeds on the ramp will allow drivers more time to react to any queues that may be present due to the traffic signal at Ivy Road (US Route 250). Reduced speeds on the ramp will also reduce the speed differential between vehicles continuing through on Route 601 and those turning left onto southbound Faulconer Drive. · Realigning the northbound approach of Faulconer Drive at the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to shift traffic onto the existing paved shoulder. This will allow a better radius to help facilitate the left turns from the ramp onto southbound Faulconer Drive and it will allow the stop bar on northbound Faulconer Drive to be shifted to the north; putting it closer to the intersection and improving sight distance. Additionally, the storage capacity of the left turn lane from southbound Faulconer Drive onto Old Ivy Road will be increased, helping with the queuing issues. · Replacing the existing standard sized "STOP" sign on northbound Faulconer Drive with an oversized "STOP" sign for better visibility. The location of the sign will be shifted to the north to the new stop bar location. The new location of the "STOP" sign will be in the open area where the existing "NO RIGHT TURN" sign is located. · Selective tree trimming along the east side of Faulconer Drive between Old Ivy Road and the off-ramp from southbound US Route 29 to provide better visibility of the existing "STOP AHEAD" sign and the relocated oversized "STOP" sign. TIMMONS GROUP ....;... "'! :g I FAULCONER DRIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS )c. \05 ~ , :g . EXHIBIT DRAWING "'_.... _ _....._....... ,... ._"'--'..' "....00<l; ""au"..... ....._.. .__ ~ _.. ~...., _ __.. _.... ..._ ___, ...._..,...., "0' ''''~'''' ._......... _...,. ..../.. .-......,.... ....on, ...,,-,.ho __ _'_ __'.1 _ooos ~ TIMMONS GROUP ~! :g I FAULCONER DRIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS '" I ~ I EXHIBIT DRAWING _ PROPOSED TURNING MOVEMENTS "'_-....... _..... _............. ._.. _I... '-""~ ~1tQU........ ....._.. ____.. _... .._,.... _ _ M_'" ""r __ __. _........, ft.' .....~... to .....""",... _..,. ..._1.. _............ .,...., .._, t... __ _~I... ._... _0005 ~ TIMMONS GROUP ~ i :g I FAULCONER DRIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS "" ~ ' EXHIBIT DRAWING - EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENTS "'_____ ..... ........._ ""1"'~""'~___,_",,,,,,-,,,,,,_,,,,,_,___,,_,,, ..., __ __. -.........'~.. _dolt.. .__t...... _.... ""./.. _''''''''''' ........ ..,_, ""'._ _~,.. _I.' _01<$ GItOIP ~. ..' .;JSHl--. - .- . - - - --. ---- -- "-~- - - .- --- . 9t_ 19()9 . 615 Church Street Lynchburg Vlfginla 2450.1 POBox P-7000. Lynchburg. Vlrgini<124505 1cl (434) 84S-0301 Fax" (434) 845 030f, August 12, 2008 S1. Anne's-Be1field School 2132 Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Attn: Mr. Michael Waylett Re: Intersection Modifications at Faulconer Drive & US 29 Off-Ramp Dear Mr.Waylett: English Construction has received the report by the Timmons Group dated August 11, 2008 with regard to the intersection modifications at Faulconer Drive and US 29 off-ramp. English is prepared to make the modifications based on the report for the lump sum of $44,250.00. This work has been priced to be done while the S1. Anne's-Belfield construction project is in progress. The price does not include any VDOT fees or engineering cost that may be required. The scope of work includes all traffic control, safety, rumble strips, realigning the northbound approach of Faulconer Drive at the off ramp from southbound US route 29, relocation of the stop bar, replacing the "STOP" sign with an oversized "STOP" sign on northbound Faulconer Drive, selective tree trimming on the east side of Faulconer Drive between Old Ivy Road and the off ramp from southbound US Route 29 and all striping as shown in the report. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INe. ~~ Robert W. Lee III Project Manager RWLIIVtlp cc: Cliff Harrison Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering) W. Scott Dunn (Timmons Group) Jennifer DeVaughn (Timmons) .. Page 1 of 1 From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.Denunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, June 13,20083:39 PM To: Judith Wiegand Cc: Glenn Brooks; Juandiego Wade Subject: FW: STAB - Cost Sharing Estimates for Improvements Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: STAB Road Improvement Contribution 061008.pdf Judy, I have reviewed the attached document and do not agree with the methodology used in determining the pro-rata share contribution for the identified road improvements. The study identified six locations where some type of turn lane or taper when the combined traffic was analyzed will be warranted. Five of these locations warrant some type of improvement from background conditions. Even in the five locations that warrant improvements from background, this SP is contributing towards the need for these improvements. One location warrants improvements from the site and one location warrants a right turn and taper from the site and only a taper from the background. So the site traffic only triggers the need for additional improvements in two locations however the site contributes towards all the intersections that the study identifies as needing improvements. I recommend that the contribution should include a pro-rata share for all the needed improvements, or the applicant should be responsible for the entire cost of constructing the improvements that are triggered by the site traffic. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434-293-0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov . file://C:\Documents and Settings\ecarey\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK24\F... 8/12/2008 Page 1 of2 From: Juandiego Wade Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:45 PM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: FW: STAB TIA Comments - Responses attached Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red From: Proctor, Charles C. [mailto:Charles.Proctor@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:47 PM To: Juandiego Wade Cc: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. Subject: FW: STAB TIA Comments - Responses attached Juan, Here are my concerns/ comments. Chuck Charles C. Proctor III District Transportation Planner (PD-10) Planning and Land Development Section Culpeper District Office 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 540-829-7558 charles. proctor@VDOT.virginia.gov From: Proctor, Charles C. Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:13 PM To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.; True, Mike Subject: RE: STAB TIA Comments - Responses attached Joel and Mike, I reviewed the April 8 letter from Timmons and have the following: The documentation for the reductions and distributions needs to be submitted or included in the final study document through an addendum or resubmission; The background traffic will create problems at many location around the site and improvements may be necessary to maintain the safety of the motorist unrelated the this school, however this school will put an additional burden on the transportation network and should participate in some necessary improvements to offset the added impact this school is creating. The cost for these improvements can be quantified and their fair share or their prorate determined based on their percent of the overall traffic. This value could then be put towards the most critical needed improvement in the area; Please add these to your comments. Thanks, file://C:\Documents and Settings\ecarey\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK24\F... 8/12/2008 SP 2007-053, St. Anne's-Belfield, May 16, 2008 3 workable, but I cannot be sure what areas are captured to be treated. I would still prefer to have a drainage area preliminary analysis as indicated in my earlier comments. Conceptual Site Plan Regarding the landscape buffer, what type of trees are being used for the parking buffer? The new field proposed along the southeast part of the property does not meet the buffer requirement for recreational facilities. [Sec. 32.7.9.8.c(3)] A buffer will be required alone: the proposed fields that are adiacent to the southern and southeastern boundaries. This buffer should consist of a fence at a minimum as allowed in 32.7.9.8(a). Applicant has not provided requested details of the parkine: buffer and screenine: for recreational facilities. What is the proposed height of the structure(s)? The maximum heie:ht for any buildine: within a residential district is 35 feet. Please provide a note on the plan that proposed buildine:s will not exceed 35 feet. Entrance Corridor The notes on this plan are not legible and some information has been removed from the plan. Outstanding issues, or issues that appear to remain outstanding because the plan can't be read, are outlined below. 1. The note regarding trees on the south side of the parking lot that is located near the Bypass should read: "Minimum 20' deep landscape buffer at parking area subject to ARB approval." 2. Indicate the intention regarding illumination of the new playing fields. 3. Include notes on the plan indicating: "Minimum 20' -deep landscape buffer at playing fields subject to ARB approval." 4. The following conditions of approval are recommended: a. Landscaping may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual impact of the playing fields and parking on the Entrance Corridor. Planting for screening purposes shall be provided between the parking lot and the southern property line. b. A row of 2 Y:z" caliper shade trees shall be provided along the east side of the relocated portion of SR 855. 5. Provide for review information on proposed building heights. Provide one or more site sections showing the relationship of the proposed building heights to the existing and proposed topography and to the Bypass. 6. Without complete legible information on utilities, the full extent of potential conflicts and impact on the EC can't be assessed. Historic Preservation-The Headmaster's House The applicant has submitted a historical and architectural assessment for the Headmaster's house. The report indicates that the house is not architecturally or historically distinguished. The historian's recommendation is that the house is not eligible for listing in the National Register. Although it is disappointing that the applicant is not able to find a way to re-use the resource, particularly given the size of the site and the educational opportunities and environmental benefits the existing building offers, the historic preservation planner's recommendations on this proposal are satisfied with this submittal. 3 Page 1 of 1 From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:35 PM To: Judith Wiegand; Juandiego Wade; 'charles.proctor@VDOT.virginia.gov'; 'Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.'; 'True, Mike' Cc: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: STAB TIA Comments - Responses attached I have just gotten to this e-mail. My responses to their responses are, in brief: Bullet 1: There does not appear to be any objective traffic count, directional study, or independent data in this response Bullet 2: 30% is too high. I find the assumptions of carpooling, without actual measured counts at the existing schools, excessive. Bullet 3: The continued proposal that the applicant make no improvements, and contribute nothing to inadequate infrastructure, is unacceptable. Bullet 4: The response that the requested analysis is unnecessary is unacceptable. The supposition that traffic conditions would improve must be born out by such an analysis. Glenn file://C:\Documents and Settings\ecarey\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK24\... 8/12/2008 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mcintire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296.5832 x3368 Fax (434) 972-4126 TO: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner FROM Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planner REF: STAB Traffic Impact Analysis Follow Up DATE: May 7, 2008 The Community Development and VDOT staffs have discussed the above project after the Planning Commission worksession and have the following comments/requests: . A survey of the current student body that will reveal the information such as actual vehicle counts, sport events, which direction they are traveling from. This information is critical in order for the County and VDOT to be given a 30% trip reduction. . VDOT will provide the County an estimate for improvements to the intersections the TIA identified that would be most impacted by the STAB project. Staff will then work with the applicant and VDOT to determine the applicant's "fair share" cost for these improvements based on the TIA. ~ Please contact me if you have any questions. ..... .- .-. TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, To: Juandiego Wade (Albemarle County) From: W. Scott Dunn, AICP Re: STAB Middle School Relocation - Road Improvement Contribution Calculation Date: June 10, 2008 Copy: Judy Wiegand (Albemarle County), Glenn Brooks (Albemarle County), Joel Denunzio (VDOT), Michael Waylett (STAB), Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering) Per your request, Timmons Group has calculated the pro-rata share of the requested road improvements associated with the relocation of St Anne's-Belfield's (STAB) Middle School to the Lower Campus located on Faulconer Drive. As indicated in the report, and agreed upon by the County and VDOT, the following intersections/road improvements are associated with the relocation of the Middle School: ~ Southbound right turn lane on Faulconer Drive (exiting the Lower Campus) at the Faulconer Drive/Southbound US 29 off ramp intersection; and ~ Westbound right turn taper on Old Ivy Road at the Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive intersection. The estimate provided by Joel Denunzio (VDOT) for the southbound right turn lane on Faulconer Drive indicated a cost of $71,000. Timmons Group calculated a cost for the requested westbound right turn taper on Old Ivy Road based on the aforementioned estimate. The estimated cost for westbound right turn taper on Old Ivy Road is $40,000. The pro-rata share was determined using (1) the site-generated traffic estimate for the Middle School and (2) the projected 2010 total traffic volumes. The "impact percentage" was calculated using the total number of site-generated trips compared against the total number of entering trips at each of the subject intersections. The calculations are summarized in the table below: Intersection Faulconer Drive at US 29 Ramp Faulconer Drive at Old Ivv Road Time Period AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Site Traffic 155 112 100 69 2010 Total Traffic 1,046 916 1071 789 Impact Percentage 14.8% 12.2% 9.3% 8.7% Average 13.5% 9.0% Proposed Improvement SB Right Turn Lane WB Right Turn Taper Estimated Cost $71,000 $40,000 Pro-rata Share $9,601 $3 616 Total Contribution $13,218 Based on this information, STAB will be required to contribute $13,218 toward those intersection improvements cited in the traffic study for the proposed Middle School. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (804) 200-6955. G\ .-i N M N <( > - <:l C 0 E 00 .I:: \D u 0 .-i c:: .-i N LI'l M 0 '<t M 0 00 Q) ..... x ::J < ... Vl ..... Q) Q) LI'l .... \D ..... 0 Vl .-i '" .-i '<t N .-i LI'l '<t Vl 0 00 r-- --' .-i lU .-i f- >- E '" 0 0 0 u c '" .c c: u 0 ., E f- E ~ ~ :J ;: U ;: :J ;: ~ VI ~ c III ~ c: ., '0 VI ., '" ~ Q) E 0. 0 ., > ., 0 ., ~ Vl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mcintire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 x3368 Fax (434) 972-4126 TO: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner FROM: Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planner DATE: March 28, 2008 REF: St. Anne's-Belfield School Middle School Relocation Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) I have had an opportunity to review the STAB Middle School Relocation traffic impact analysis (TIA). Please find below the comments from VDOT and Community Development staff. . The traffic distribution identified in the TIA does not appear to be logical. Additional information is required to support this distribution rate. . Additional information is required to support the 30% reduction to the estimated trip generation identified on page 12 of the TIA. Staff was under the understanding that applicant would supply information on the location of the students residence (not specific information). . The applicant is not proposing to complete or participant in any improvements identified OJ?- pages 33 and 34. Practically all of the traffic at intersections #4 and #5 (as noted in the TIA) can be contributed to STAB. Staff recommends for the applicant to participate with their fair share based on impacts on the other intersections studied. . Based on the TIA scoping meeting, the applicant agreed to supply additional information on the Route 250 signal timing pIan. Staff will also need additional information on the ramps. Due to the short distance between the existing traffic signals on Route 250, we recommend this signal timing plan include the intersections of Route 250/601/Canterbury, the Route 29/250 southbound ramp intersection, and the Route 29/250 northbound intersection. - We recommend including the intersection of Old Ivy Road and the northbound on-ramp to Route 29 located just east of the Route 29 overpass on Old Ivy Road. In addition to this intersection analysis, we recommend providing merge analyses for the ramp merge onto Route 29 northbound. Please contact me if you have any questions. Cc: Glenn Brooks Joel Denunzio Chuck Proctor ST ANNE'S-BELFIELD SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL RELOCATION ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 22, 2008 PREPARED FOR: GLOECKNER ENGINEERING TIMMONS GROUP ....... YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, · . . STAB - Middle School TJA ~ Z --.. az ~ III~ - 21L J i~ .... 1-; 3j!~, :g~j .lJ12 -"0 1:2 oil! =~ .~- :':,....J '~:;:?ff~ '/ ,..0:....--:... .;'....' .. ,., -3~~, , :~;.'~ _ ~::~;3-:::: =::-~>\'1 \ \ ... --~~_. -', '//~- -~ \ \ \. I . ~~~~, ~-=:.. ....'/',_".;....-'~'~,;.~-.::: ~:i...:--~~..."\ \ ~ :::::::~;-::-- -~;.'~...,~.~:;:;:;::;-:-,;-:,~;-:;;';.:';~~\ '1 \ .-.-:''',/ ,~-:- --.;.....:,.;'-:.~:~~.:......:....;''':'':",.~-- -. , ': -';; ,~ -/'/ '//, _-/,'// 'r '\" \ \, --/_-/~~ '/'///,-"'" fro 1 " ---......... ._....';.... .....-- ....'..",........;;,.......-.....::;,,;,.........." """"-:;'1 '1j"\ ~~~-~;i-:~:- ;f~~~~~:~~~:;:;,;:~- _J (' ,. '.'m OJ "- ::J C'l i.I: N ~ :J ~ CO ....J ~ CJ) ~ CO c: E Q) 1- a.. To A. ~ * ~ i ;:) " 0 11 0 ~ a:: " .. 0 C) ~ L . ~ :. U) 0 ~ . Z " . 0 v ~ . ~ Z . J: 0 ~ 12 J: > ~ ~ :> 0 ~ Z 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4035 , MEMORANDUM FROM: SUBJ: Kurt Gloeckner, Michael Waylett, Scott Dunn Elaine Echols, Juan Wade, John Shepherd, Glenn Brooks, Sherri Proctor, Margaret Maliszewski, Joel DeNunzio, Chuck Proctor Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner Staff Response to the Planning Commission's direction on April 29, 2008 and on the Plan and supporting materials submitted on April 27, 2008 May 16, 2008 TO: CC: DATE: Comments from County staff are given below based on: · Direction from the Planning Commission during the April 29, 2008 worksession · The material submitted on April 27, 2008 · The traffic study These comments are in addition to those submitted by the County in the memorandum dated April 28, 2008. Please note that several of these comments have been made at least once previously. First, several reviewers have commented that the plan submitted on April 27 is illegible. Staff suggests that the consultant look at the actual plan as it is printed out, not simply review it on the screen. The letters are too small and blocked in to be legible. Staff may have additional comments once we review a legible plan. Also, the Planning Commission and the Board prefer 11 x 17 size plans, unless the plans must be larger to be readable. Please see if it is possible to reduce the page size while increasing the print size. Additional Traffic Data During the Planning Commission's worksession on this Special Use Permit on April 29, 2008, the Commission commented: Regarding traffic impacts, since the school will add to the existing problem at several area intersections, the Commission questioned what the school's proportional share should be towards improvements that address that impact. The Commission asked the applicant to provide the missing information in its traffic study so this could be determined. The Commission asked staff to work with VDOT and the applicant to SP 2007-053, St. Anne's-Belfield, May 16, 2008 2 determine the school's impact on the intersections and to determine what the applicant's pro-rata contribution should be to address the impact of this project on the road network. [Draft Action Letter] Given this direction from the Commission, the County's transportation planner discussed the need for additional information with VDOT and Community Development staff. Our main concern is for the applicant to provide information that the County can use to verify the 30 percent reduction in the number of trips. We understand that, due to the end of the school year, a survey will not be feasible at this time. Therefore, we request that the applicant provide information on the travel direction of student households, the sibling composition of high/middle school and lower school students, as well as the school's transportation demand management (TDM) efforts for the past five years. This information should support the applicant's request for a 30 percent reduction. Staff is available to discuss this request with the applicant. Additionally, VDOT will be developing a cost for improvements to the intersection the TIA identified as the most impacted by the St. Anne's-Belfield expansion. Staff will then work with the applicant and VDOT to determine the applicant's "fair share" cost for these improvements, based on the TIA. Staff will contact the applicant as soon as the amount of a recommended contribution has been prepared. Parkin2 Study The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the parking study and can support the number of proposed parking spaces based on the information provided. This parking determination relies heavily on the applicant's knowledge of their parking needs based on a significant history of use. The plan calls for a total of 306 parking spaces. During regular daily academic school use, the number of spaces in use may be much less than that number. However, these facts contribute to the need for some flexibility and the allowance of more than the minimum number of parking spaces: 1. The campus is on a large parcel and different uses/facilities are spread out over a distance of almost 1;4 mile. This distance tends to discourage the use of shared parking spaces for multiple functions/uses. 2. There are numerous facilities and related activities on this property: academic school, numerous athletic fields, convocation center, gymnasium, and the like. There can be several concurrent events. 3. The convocation center and gym are areas of assembly, which can seat up to 700 people (together) and often seat up to 500 attendees. 4. The athletic fields can be the site of regional meets or tournaments involving other schools. This requires more parking than if the fields only served these students. County En2ineer These plans are almost illegible. However, the plans shown by the architect at the Planning Commission meeting were a clear picture ofthe proposed project. I also had the opportunity to talk with Kurt Gloeckner after the Commission meeting. He explained his intent with stormwater, which is briefly noted in his handwritten narrative submitted on April 27. It sounds 2 STAB - Middle School TIA EXISTING ROADWAYS AND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Timmons Group conducted a review of the adjacent roadways that will be most impacted by site- generated traffic. The existing intersection geometry within tl\e study area is summarized on Figure 3. Background turning movement counts were obtained at the following five intersections: 1. Route 250 and Old Ivy Road 2. Route 250 and Canterbury Road/Route 601 3. Route 601 and Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road 4. Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Drive 5. Faulconer Drive and Route 601/Route 250 Off-ramp These locations are shown graphically on Figure 4. This data was collected between January 22nd and January 24th, 2008 during both AM and PM peak hours. AM data was collected from 8:00 to 9:00 am and PM data was collected from 3:30 to 4:30 pm. These hours coincide with the anticipated start"(8:40am) and dismissal (4:10pm) times of the proposed 2S0-student Middle School. The 2008 AM and PM peak hour directional turning movement counts are summarized on Figures SA and SP. The complete traffic data can be found in Appendix A. Background through traffic was projected ahead 2.0% annually through 2010 (opening year of the Middle School). Background traffic volume projections for 2010 are shown on Figures 6A and 6P. 5 - STAB - Middle School ITA w c: -' ~ "" 0 u c: t ~ ~ 1I1 0 J!! ~ t ClI OJ l!? c: c: J!! ~ J:l 0 c: ;:;. c: b 10... :p ~ :::J J:l oS ~ :5 Co z M '0 oS '0 ::;) Ol :5 C'l :g Ol al c: ClI "" ClI Ol i.i: ex '0 ,to! c: ,to! ...J c: Ol ClI 'jij 8 v ClI ~ ,to! c: 'jij c: c: Ol .... t; Ol ClI c: ~ ClI c: 'Vi ';:( Ol c: '" B a. I c: '" .r:; ~ LU Vi ::> ...J U Vl I .0 l.j " Vl f- ~ -1-1 (]) E o (]) t9 C') c :p (J) X W 00 o o N G. .~ '" ::) ::> 0 0 z '~ ClI:: ::> .. 0 CJ '" .... z . :. en 0 > . Z z . 0 .~ . " z . ~ 0 Z 'n ----....c ......... ~ ;; '" - ::> ~ ~ 1 6 '" STAB - Middle School TIA ~ A.~ s:.. :)g n; 0;; c: <( ~ .' cr::g '0 1!l .8 C)~ ltl c: . 0 Vi 0 :. c '" '0 B CI)~ 01 '0 l'A Zi c: ,g ~ . t1 8. 1!l . O~ 'x ~ 12 UJ <L .s . II . Eg I . E :; ~ - ~ t-e 7 - - ---...( Z -- \ l --- \ \ \ .... .... ........ / ..../ ~ ~ b z Q) ~ :::J C'I u: v V) c: o :u Q) V) L.. 2 c: 1--1 co Q) L.. <( >- -0 :J ..., CJ) STAB - Middle School TIA ~z~ Ivy Rd (US 2S0) .... o .., ~ LU 5 Vl ~ b z 1\ " Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) Q) I- :J CJ) [[ <: I lJ') ~ ~ 15 V') OJ E :J o >lo.... U :J &::~ ~~ I-ro en OJ co.. ~::E .~ <( X w ex:> o o N ~ ~ .ii !i a A. :) o .. a:: . C) :. (/) . Z .. 0 eI: I: - to- 8 STAB - Middle School ITA ---.( z ~ Ivy Rd (US 250) ~ <( U (f! g b z 1; ~ 8 ~ Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) Q) 10- ::3 C) i.L a.. I U") Ii' r 1!J U) Q) E ::s o > lo- U ::s ij::O CO:!: Io-~ I- CO ~Q) co.. P:E .!:!l a.. X w CO o o N Ii' ~ ~ J!l a D. :) o .. a::: . ~ :. VI . Z .. 0 OJ:: J:: - I- 9 .., STAB - Middle School TIA ~z~ Ivy Rd (US 250) ~ .l!:l ~ w ~ Vl ~ b z o '" J!l ~ Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) (]) I- ::s 01 u:: <( I \.0 li1 ~ " o (J) Q) E ::J o > U J... &::5 ~J: I-~ "Ceo C Q) ::Jo.. e:;E: ~<( u eo CO o .......t o N li1 ~ ~ B A. :> o .. a:: . C) :. (/) . Z .. 0 ":I: :E - to- 10 STAB - Middle School TIA --.( Z ~ IIIvy Rd (US 250) ~ .. u '" ~ b z $ ~ Ii. Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) OJ '- :J C'l i.I: 0.. I \.0 li! ~ 'C o Vl Q) E ::J o > U L.. &::~ ~J: I-~ "'Oro C Q) ::Ja.. e~ ~a.. u ro CO o ........ o N li! ~ ~ !! B a. :) o .. a::: . C) :. en . Z .. 0 '1: I: - t- 11 STAB - Middle School TIA TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The site-generated traffic volumes for 2010 are shown in Table 1. These estimates are based on trip generation information provided in the 7th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's CITE's) Trip Generation Handbook. Trip generation was calculated using the number of students as the independent variable. Table 1 2010 TriD Generation Summary LAND USE ITE CODE AMOUNT UNITS ADT WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Private School (K-8) 534 250 STIJDENTS 121 99 220 75 84 159 Adjusted Trip Generation assuming 30% reduction due to combined upperlmiddle drop off 85 69 154 53 59 111 SOURCE: "Trip Generation Handbook, 7th ed;" Institute of Transportation Engineers The table above reflects a 30% reduction to the estimated trip generation based on information provided by STAB officials pertaining to families with siblings attending both the Lower and Middle Schools. Data provided by the school indicated that 30% of the students who attend the Middle School have a sibling that attends the Lower School; parents will be permitted to drop off both students at the earlier Lower School start time, thus reducing the traffic impacts associated with the Middle School The distribution of school-generated traffic was estimated based on the distribution of the student population. STAB representatives provided a breakdown of student residences in relation to the proposed Middle School. The estimated 2010 site traffic distributions are shown on Figures 7A and 7B. The 2010 peak hour volumes from Table 1 were multiplied by the percentages from Figures 7A and 7B to generate the 2010 site traffic volumes shown on Figures 8A and 8P. The 2010 background traffic volumes from Figures 6A and 6P were added to the 2010 site traffic volumes from Figures 8A and 8P to generate the projected 2010 total traffic volumes shown on Figures 9A and 9P. 12 STAB - Middle School TIA ---.( Z ~ Ivy Rd (US 250) '"" o \0 ~ w -' .. U III ~ b z <5 ~ 8 ~ . , :ii ,!l ~ Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) Q) :s <: 01 l"- ii: V) OJ en ro ..., c OJ U L. OJ o a.. o c ..cO U:.i:i Ul::S ..c OJ .- ..., L. rot) > .- 'C 0 a..c.. O'C ~l- OOJ N..., c.n en c 'C OJ ..., C W .. . :. . . . . a.~ :J~ O~ D::i5 C)~ cn~ Zi1 O~ ~~ :E~ -" t-e 13 STAB - Middle School TIA ~z~ Ivy Rd (US 250) .... o \D ~ u.J 6 Vl ~ b :z Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) Q) ::; CO C1 l"- ii: li! ~ 5 Vl OJ Cl CO ...., C OJ U L.. OJ 00.. o C ..c u .0 f./)"'" OJE ...., .- CO L.. >t) ~b 0.0. T""'f L.. 0..... NOJ ~ f./) Cl C :p .x w li! ~ ~ a A. :J o .. a:: . C) :. en e Z e. 0 'I: I: - I- 14 STAB - Middle School TIA ---.( Z ~ Ivy Rd (US 250) ~ < u VI g 5 z Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 2S0) Q) L. ::J CJ) u:: <( I CO li! ~ " 5 U) (]J E ::J o > u ft:: ~ L.. r- ::J (]J 0 +.JI Cn~ _CO o (]J 00.. -5~ (j)<( (]J +.J CO > 'C a.. o .......t o N .. . :. . . . . CL .~ ;:)g 0:; an C)~ '" en .~ Zi O~ J:~ J:~ _:> ...~ 15 o STAB - Middle School TIA ----..( Z ~ Ivy Rd (US 250) .... o \ll .l!l ex: w 5 VI ~ b z Old Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) Q) '- :=J CJ) 0: Q.. I 00 ~ ~ ill V) Q) E ~ o > u ~ ~ l- .... ~ Q) 0 ....I in~ _ CO o Q) 00.. -5~ V) 0.. 2 CO > .C 0.. o ....... o N ~ ~ ii !i B A. :) o .. a= . C) :. U) e Z e. 0 OJ: J: - I- 16 STAB - Middle School ITA ----.( z ~ Ivy Rd (US 250) LU -' < U <Jl ~ b z OkJ Garth Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) OJ '- :::J C'I u: <( I 0" U') 0) E :J o L.. > :J U 0 &::I CO~ L.. CO !-O) a.. J9~ ~<( o "1"""1 o N ii1 !5 i a .. . :. . . . . a.~ :Jg O~ an CJ~ Cl en:; Zi O~ 2:~ :E~ - ~ I-~ 17 \' STAB - Middle School TIA ~z- Ivy Rd (US 250) w 6 Vl f2 b z Old Gartl1 Rd Ivy Rd (US 250) .. OJ lo... ::J 0"1 i.i: c.. I 0'\ ~ 0: !' ~ o lJ) w E ::J o L. > ::J U 0 .- I tt:~ ~ CO I-w a.. 2~ ~a.. o ,...-i o N Ii ~ il !l B .. . :. . . . . A.~ :Jg O~ an ,,~ o cn~ Zi O~ z ~~ ~~ _:0 1-; 18 STAB - Middle School TIA LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE ANALYSES The guidelines for left and right turn lane treatments are found in VDOT's Road Design Manual. These guidelines provide criteria for the installation of left and right turn lanes at unsignalized intersections. Right and left turn lane analyses were completed using the 2010 background traffic volumes shown on Figures GA and GP. The location of each warrant analysis along with the findings is shown below: 1. Eastbound right turn lane at Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - no right turn lane required 2. Westbound left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Old Garth Road - no left turn lane required 3. Southbound left turn lane at Route G01/01d Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required 4. Southbound right turn lane at Route Gal/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft right turn lane with 100 ft taper required 5. Northbound left turn lane at Route G01/01d Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required G. Eastbound left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required 7. Westbound right turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive - no right turn lane required 8. Southbound right turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp fronT SB US Route 29 - 100 ft right turn taper required 9. Northbound left turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US Route 29 - no left turn lane required Right and left turn lane analyses were also completed using the 2010 total traffic volumes shown on Figures 9A and 9P. The location of each warrant analysis along with the findings is shown below: 1. Eastbound right turn lane at Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - no right turn lane required 2. Westbound left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Old Garth Road - no left turn lane required 3. Southbound left turn lane at Route Gal/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required 4. Southbound right turn lane at Route G01/01d Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft right turn lane with 100 ft taper required 5. Northbound left turn lane at Route Gal/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required G. Eastbound left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required 7. Westbound right turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive - 100 ft right turn taper required 8. Southbound right turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US Route 29 - 100 ft right turn lane with 100 ft taper required 9. Northbound left turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US Route 29 - no left turn lane required The turn lane warrant analyses are summarized graphically on Figures 10 and 11. The turn lane nomographs are included Appendix B. 19 STAB - Middle School TIA ~ ~ < c: u OJ Vl E g OJ OJ ~ f- I- 5- 0 ::J 0 z c: oS c:n ~ 0 c: :e '0 OJ ~ u:: 0 c: .& :e OJ :0 OJ i!? c: e c: .& OJ ~ 0 E ;::. .s i!? :0 ~ ~ .:; '" :0 -5 '0 3 u f- ..c: .:; '0 '" 01 '" OJ 01 co '0 c: 0. 0 -= OJ ~ a: '0 ,~ c: al ,~ c: 01 OJ n; 0 Qj OJ ~ c: ,~ c: U '0 c: 01 n; 01 c: ~ :0 OJ .2 c: '" OJ II! c: 'iii c: '" 0 0. ';;C 01 c: '" c: ..c: ~ II w iJi :::J -' :::J U al I .t) t.(QL1 <Jl f- ----.( Z -- In .., c: In ro >-.., 1- 1- c: 1- "'Q)ro Q)ES EQ)Q) o > c: Q)Oro 19 5..--l '\JEC: c: 1- ::J I-t ::J O'\JI- ~Q)I- ~-gO ~::JO cot:> o=>c: ~..c:O 0..,,... N .- 'oJ ~ ~ ro CO .. . :. . . . . D.~ ::>>~ O~ a:~ ~~ o U)~ Zi O~ z J:~ J:: " o ~ 20 STAB - Middle School TIA ~ c: <l> E <l> > C 0 5. <l> c: oS E <l> g > ~ c: '0 0 <l> 0 u c: 5. ~ OJ B <l> " U! c: oS c: ~ <l> 2:i g 0 c: ~ ~ !s ;::. c: ~ oS ~ l'i .r: ;::. '0 u I- 0. .r: oS '0 " "' 0 "' <l> 01 o:l I- '0 c: 0. &. '" <l> ~ '0 ,!::! c: '0 '0 ,!::! c: 01 <l> iij 0 <l> <l> 0; <l> ~ ,!::! '0 '0 c: iij c: U c: c: c: 01 a; :;; 01 <l> .2 .2 c: ~ U! c: 'Vi c: "' c. 'x 01 c: "' c: c: .r: 0 ~ II u.J iJi :::> ...J :::> :::> u 0; I .0 l.(Q(Q J VJ I- ~z-- ~ .. u U'l ~ ~ ~ :::J,....j en ,....j u:: II C U') CO +-' 1- C 1- Q) CO ~ E~ +-' Q) Q) Q) > C E ~~ 0 Q) E C ~ ....... 1- ::J CO "'0 I- +-'Q) ~-g b O::J 0 ,.....j"- > OC N=> C ..c 0 :t: "'0 ~ Q) U') CO CO a.. :) o .. ~ . '" :.(1) . Z .. 0 'I: I: - to- 21 STAB - Middle School TIA ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analysis allows traffic engineers to determine the impacts of traffic on the surrounding roadway network. The Highway Capacity Manual methodologies govern how the capacity analyses are conducted and how the results are interpreted. Levels of service (LOS) are determined for each part of the roadway network, with LOS A through C representing acceptable results and LOS D through F representing marginal to unacceptable results. Table 2 shows in detail how each of these levels of service are interpreted. Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS L.O.s. ROADWAY SEGMENTS OR CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAYS A Free flow, low traffic density. B Delay is not unreasonable, stable traffic flow. c Stable condition, movements somewhat restricted due to higher volumes, but not objectionable for motorists. D Movements more restricted, q~s and d~lays may oc:cur during short peaks, but lower demands occur often enough to permit clearing, thus preventing excessive backups. E Actual capacity of the roadway involves delay to all motorists due to congestion. F Forced flow with demand volumes greater than capacity resulting in complete congestion. Volumes drop to zero in extreme cases. INTERSECTIONS No vehicle waits longer than one signal indication. On a rare occasion motorists wait through more than one signal indication. Intermittently drivers w&i t thrOUlh mor~ than one signal indication, and occasionally backups may develop behind left turning vehicles, traffic flow still stable and acceptable. Delays at intersections may be<:ome extensive with some, especially left-turning vehicles waiting two or more signal indications, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance, thus preventing excessive back-ups. Very long queues may create lengthy delays, especially for left turning vehicles. Backups from locations downstream restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of approach creating a storage area during part or all of an hour. SOli'RCE: A Policy on De~n of DesiRn of Urban HiR!lways and Arterial Streets - ^ HTO, 1973 based upon material published in Highway Capacity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, 196'. 22 STAB - Middle School TIA For both unsignalized and signalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of delay, a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Table 3 summarizes the delay associated with each LOS category: Table 3 Level of Service Criteria Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections Level of Delay per Level of Delay per Service Vehicle (sec) Service Vehicle (sec) A 510.0 A 510.0 B > 10.0 to 515.0 B > 10. to <20.0 C > 15.0 to <25.0 C >20.1 to 535.0 D >25.0 to 535.0 D >35.1 to 555.0 E >35.0 to <50.0 E >55.1 to 580.0 F >50.0 F > 80.1 Five intersections were analyzed for the 2008 and 2010 scenarios. These intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, were analyzed using SYNCHRO Version 6 (Build 614) based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies with the following assumptions: . Level terrain; . 12 foot lane widths; . No parking activity or bus stops; . No pedestrians, and . Signal timings provided by VDOT. 23 ~ STAB - Middle School TIA 2008 Capacity Analysis - Existing Traffic Table 4 summarizes the 2008 existing LOS based on the 2008 existing volumes shown on Figures SA and SP and the existing geometry shown on Figure 3. The 2008 AM and PM background LOS is shown on Figure 12 and the corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 4 Level of Service and Delay Summary 2008 Existina Traffic Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall Intersection Number and Type of Lane PM AM PM I PM Description Control Group AM PM AM AM Delay LOS: DeIav LOS Delay LOS !'lI!IJIv LOS Delay LOS n.oIIw LOS Delay LOS I DelaY LOS AM PM 1 Ivy Road Left 83.S F 274.3 F 442.2 F I 54.9 0 Deiay,DeIay at Old Ivy Road Signal ~gh 52.4 0 45.2 0 16.2+ B 25.3 C , 197.9 ' 69.6 Right 1S.0 B 14.9 B 4S.2 0 43.4 0 LOS' LOS Approach 52.4 0 45.2 0 1S.9 I B 222 C 75.6 E 238.9 F 442.2 F 54.9 0 F E 2 Ivy Road Left 214.9 F ! 20.3 C 13.8 ! B 12.4 B Delay Delay at Canterbury Rd/ Signal Through 14.9 B 13.4 B 36,1 0 27.6 C 48.8 0 42.0 0 44.2 0 36.3 0 64.8 25.0 Route 601 Right 8.5 A ' 8.8 A 4S.2 B 40.5 0 43.9 0 35.5 0 LOS LOS Approach 95.2 F 15.8 B 3S,8 I 0 26.9 C 47.3 0 41.3 0 43.9 0 35.6 0 E C 3 Old Garth Road/ Left ;;*~ 8.9 A 8.8 A Delay Delay Old Ivy Road Two- ~gh 286.6 F 26.0 0 47.8 E 1.7 A 1.4 A -- -- Way ! - at Route 601 Stop __Right l t t t t LOS LOS Approach 286,6 F 26.0 D " F 47.8 E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 Old Ivy Road _Left . Delay Delay at Faulconer Dr Two- Through 2.6 A 1.3 A 0,0 A 0.2 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 238.5 F 30.7 0 -- -- Way Right t t t t 17.0 C 10.3 B LOS LOS Stop Approach -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- 0.0 A 0.0 A 211.3 F ' 28.7 0 -- -- 5 Route 601/ ~ I Delay , Delay Route 29 Exit Ramp Two- Through 2.4 i A 1.7 A 98.6 F 25.1 0 36.0 E 21.5 C -- -- at Faulconer Dr Way Right t t t t LOsT LOS Stop Approach -- . -- -- -- 98.6 F 25.1 0 36.0 E 21.5 C -- I -- t SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for movements with no conflicting volumes. "Delay greater than 9999.99 seconds cannot be calculated by SYNCHRO. Each of the two signalized intersections that were analyzed show unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak periods. In addition, the remaining three unsignalized intersections also show unacceptable levels of service. 24 STAB - Middle School TIA ~ .. ~ 12 5 z OJ I... ::J N 0'1 'l"""'l u: Q) E :J Q) g .~ 0lQ) C(/) ._~ "tilo x- W~ OOQ) O....J o N D. :) 0 Vl :B .. a:: 9 ...J . ~ ~ ~ ::J ::J U :. UJ 0 0 '" J: J: 0 Z .>< .>< IX . '" '" Cl . OJ OJ c: 0 "- "- ~ . I ::E ::E 'x . J: .. "- U.J al e J: - ~ 25 STAB - Middle School TIA Table 5 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths for the 2008 existing volumes shown on Figures SA and 5P. The corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 5 95th Percentile Queue Length Summary 2008 Existina Traffic Intersection Number and Type of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Description Control Group Queue Cft) I Queue Cft Queue Cft) I Queue Cft} Queue Cft) I Queue Cft QueueCft)IOueueCft} 1 Ivy Road Left 67 175 190 263 at Old Ivy Road Signal Through #718 #673 108 599 Right 24 58 0 0 2 Ivy Road Left #682 #402 11 15 at Canterbury Rd/ Signal Through #711 452 #892 #581 61 36 85 99 Route 601 Right 3 8 15 14 126 98 3 Old Garth Road/ Two- Left 3 5 Old Ivy Road Way Through 370 39 ** 88 5 4 at Route 601 Stop Right 0 0 4 Old Ivy Road Two- Left 322 99 at Faulconer Dr Way Through 9 3 0 0 0 0 7 3 Stop Right 0 0 5 Route 601/ Two- Left Route 29 Exit Ramp Way Through 7 5 261 54 155 67 at Faulconer Dr Stop Right 0 0 # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. **Delay greater than 9999.99 seconds; queue not calculated by SYNCHRO. .. 26 #' STAB - Middle School TIA 2010 Capacity Analysis - Background Traffic (without Middle SchaaD Table 6 summarizes the 2010 background LOS based on the 2010 background volumes shown on Figures 6A and 6P and the existing geometry shown on Figure 3. The 2010 AM and PM background LOS is shown on Figure 13 and the corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix D. Table 6 Level of Service and Delay Summary 2010 Background Traffic Intersection Number and Type of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall Lane AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Description Control Group I Delay LOS 0eIay LOS Delay LOS 0eIay LOS Delay LOS DeIav LOS Delay LOS IlooIav LOS AM PM 1 Ivy Road Left 215.0 F 119.4 F 188.6 F 123.6 E Delay 0eIay at Old Ivy Road Signal Through 147.7 F sa.5 F 24.3 C 29.4 C 152.6 69.3 Right 22.2 C 16.9 B 52,9 D 42.5 0 LOS LOS Approach 147,7 F sa.5 F 23,7 C 25.7 C 181.2 F 107.6 F 188,6 F 119.3 E F E 2 Ivy Road Left 294,9 F 22.7 C 14.5 B 14.0 B , Delay 0eIay at CanterbIJry Rdl Signal Through 16.2 B 11.4 B 43.5 D 30.7 C 49.2 0 45.1 0 44.1 D 40.7 0 82.1 ' 26.8 Route 601 Right 8.8 A 7.4 A 45.5 0 43.3 0 46.1 D 39.1 D LOS I LOS Apnroach 128,3 F 15.4 B 43,0 0 29.8 C 47,7 0 44.3 0 45.8 0 39.4 0 F I C 3 Old Garth Road! Left Delay' 0eIay Two- F Old Ivy Road Through . 371.7 F 28.7 0 ** 60.2 F 9.0 A 8.9 A 1.8 A , 1.4 A -- -. Way at Route 601 Stop ...Bi.2l't t t t t LOS LOS Anproach 371.7 F 28.7 0 ** F 60.2 F n n -- -. .. n -- .. n - 4 Old Ivy Road Left Delay 0eIay at Faulconer Dr Two- Through 2.7 A 1.3 A 0.0 A 0.2 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 308.9 F 35.4 E .. - Way Right t t t t 17,8 C 1M B LOS LOS Stop Approach -- n .- .. -- n .. - 0.0 A 0.0 A 274.5 F 33.0 0 n -- 5 Route 6011 Left Delay 0eIay Route 29 Exit Ramp Two- Through 2.4 A 1.8 A 132,0 F 27.5 0 44.1 E I 23.3 C , Way -- n at Faulconer Dr Stop Right t t t t I LOS LOS Approach n .. -- .. 132.0 F 27.5 0 44.1 E I 23.3 C -- n t SYNCHRO does not prOVide level of service or delay for movements with no conflicting volumes. **DeIay greater than 9999.99 seconds cannot be calculated by SYNCHRO. Again, it is noted that each of the two signalized intersections show unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak periods and the remaining three unsignalized intersections also show unacceptable levels of service. 27 STAB - Middle School TlA ----.c: Z-.. ~ 15 Vl r:: f- e z Q) L.. ::J M O'l 'I"""l u: Q) E :J o Q) >U "0 .~ C Q) :J(f) O~ I.- 0 ~- U ~ COQ) CO.....J o '1""'"1 o N A. :J 0 fJl fJl .. a:: 0 9 C) ...J . ~ 5 :J "C :. en 0 0 ro :c :c (}. Z -" -" . ro ro 0\ OJ OJ c: . 0 0.. 0.. ~ . \I) II ~ ~ ';ii . 1: <( 0.. W <:0 e 1: 28 STAB - Middle School TIA Table 7 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths for the 2010 background volumes shown on Figures 6A and 6P. The corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix D. Table 7 : - 95th Percentile Queue Length Summary 2010 BackGround Traffic Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Intersection Number and Type of Lane AM PM AM PM AM PM AM I PM Description Control Group Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) i Queue (ft 1 Ivy Road Left 175 #366 0 0 at Old Ivy Road Signal Through #992 #756 143 655 Rioht 29 70 78 181 2 Ivy Road Left #720 #312 11 12 at Canterbury Rd/ Signal Through #763 364 #951 563 64 37 88 118 Route 601 Right 3 6 15 14 164 117 3 Oid Ga rth Road/ Two- Left 3 6 Old Ivy Road Way Through 428 45 ** 106 6 4 at Route 601 Stop Right 0 0 4 Old Ivy Road Two- Left 372 116 at Faulconer Dr Way Through 9 3 0 0 0 0 8 3 Stop ~- Right 0 0 5 Route 601/ Two- Left -- Route 29 Exit Ramp Way Through 8 5 310 62 186 n at Faulconer Dr Stop Right 0 0 # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. **Delay greater than 9999.99 seconds; queue not calculated by SYNCHRO. 29 STAB - Middle School TIA 2010 Capacity Analysis - Total Traffic (with the Middle School) Table 8 summarizes the 2010 total LOS based on the 2010 total volumes shown on Figures 9A and 9P and the existing geometry shown on Figure 3. The 2010 AM and PM total traffic LOS is summarized on Figure 14 and the corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix E. As with the 2010 background volumes, it is noted that each of the two signalized intersections show unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak periods and the remaining three unsignalized intersections also show unacceptable levels of service under 2010 total conditions. Intersection Number and Description 1 Ivy Road at Old Ivy Road 2 Ivy Road at Canterbury Rdl Route 601 3 Old Garth Roadl Old Ivy Road at Route 601 4 Old Ivy Road at Faulconer Dr 5 Route 601/ Route 29 Exit Ramp at Faulconer Dr Table 8 Level of Service and Delay Summary 2010 Total Traffic Eastbound Westbound Type of Lane AM PM AM PM Control Group Delay LOS Iloolav LOS Delay I LOS ll<!Iav LOS Signal ~~~' F 94.0 F-2i~c 29.6 C Right 21.7 C 17.0 B Approach 167.3 F 94.0 F 23.0 C 25.8 C Left 104.1 F 26.9 C 16.1, A 14.6 B Through 10,9 B 11.1 B 65. OIE- 33.2 C Signal Right 6.2 A 7.3 A I Ap.:;-oach 50.0 D 17.0 B 64.3' E 32.2 C Left . Two- Way Throug"-~1.7 F 32.6 D ** Stop _RigI1L e- - Approach 491. 7 F 32.6 D Two- - L"-fL "--- Way ~g"- 4.2_ A' 2.1 A 0,0 A 0.2 A Stop Right t t t t Approach -- -- -- -- -- i -- -- -- Left Two- Through Way Stop Right Approach Northbound Southbound AM PM AMI PM Delay LOS Iloolav LOS Delay LOS! Delay LOS 210.5 F 119.4 F 220.1 F 145.5 F OVerall 54.6 50.4 52.9 45.1 41.8 425 AM PM Delay Delay 171.l_'~ LOS LOS F E Delay Delay o 63.4 29.2 o LOS LOS DEe Delay Delay 49,0 176,8 D 42.5 0 F 107.6 F 220.1 F 145.5 F D 47.3 0 D 45.4 0 D 46.4 D 136,6 F n.8 E 89.4 F F -+-- --**IF 74.4 9,2 t A t 9.1 t A t 1.9 A 1.5 A LOS LOS 74.4 F 0.0 F B F Delay Delay -- -- --=--- LOS LOS 0.0 A A 857.1 F, 72.9 24.1 A! 10.7 A 770,7 F 67.7 0.0 A 0.0 Delay Delay 2.4 i A t t 1.8 t A 488,9 F t 42.7 E 144.2 F 35.1 E LOS LOS -- 488.9 F 42.7 E 144.2 F 35.1 E t SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for movements with no conflicting volumes. **Delay greater than 9999,99 seconds cannot be calculated by SYNCHRO, . 30 STAB - Middle School ITA ~ z --.. !:l <( u VI g .... o z Q) L.. :J V 01 ...... u::: Q) E Q) ::l U o C: > Q) -(f) CO...... -0 0 1-- Q) o > T'"" Q) o....J N A. :> 0 Vl Vl .. a:: 9 0 C) ....J . 5 5 '0 :. en 0 0 co I I il Z .>< .>< . co co C\ . & '" c 0 0.. :c . '" II :;: :;: 'x . J: <C 0.. W co e J: - to- 31 ;, STAB - Middle School TIA Table 9 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths for the 2010 total volumes shown on Figures 9A and 9P. The corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix E. Table 9 95th Percentile Queue Length Summary 2010 Total Traffic Intersection Number and Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Type of lane AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Description Control Group Queue (ft) loueue (ft Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) I Queue (ft Queue (ft) QUeue (ffi 1 Ivy Road Left 174 #399 0 0 at Old Ivy Road Signal Through #954 #764 141 660 I Right 33 73 73 181 I 2 Ivy Road Left #627 #359 7 12 at Canterbury Rd/ Signal Through 478 355 #954 #624 65 37 #139 132 Route 601 Right 2 6 15 14 #259 #175 3 Old Garth Road/ Two- Left 3 6 I Old Ivy Road Way Through 477 51 ** 122 6 5 at Route 601 Stop Right 0 0 4 Old Ivy Road Two- Left 608 213 at Faulconer Dr Way Th rougl! _u 17 6 0 0 0 0 12 3 Stop Right 0 0 5 Route 601/ Two- Left _.u_ ---- Route 29 Exit Ramp Way Through 8 5 885 125 494 154 at Faulconer Dr Stop Right 0 0 # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. **Delay greater than 9999.99 seconds; queue not calculated by SYNCHRO. 32 STAB - Middle School TIA Conclusions The conclusions reflect the necessary roadway improvements that are needed in two distinct phases. The first phase includes the improvements that are ,pecessary due to overall traffic growth in the area based on the 2010 background traffic volumes. The second phase consists of the improvements that are required due to traffic generated by the proposed Middle School in 2010. 2010 Backoround (without Middle Schoo/) Each of the five intersections that were analyzed showed unacceptable levels of service under 2010 background conditions. With respect to the signalized intersection on the US Route 250 corridor, it appears that additional through lanes are necessary to handle projected traffic volumes. While the additional through lanes would significantly improve east/west traffic movement along the corridor, the minor approaches at both Route Gal and Old Ivy Road are less than desirable and somewhat limiting with respect to efficient overall traffic flow. The remaining three unsignalized intersections do not warrant the installation of traffic signals; furthermore their locations and geometrics are not suited for such an improvement. That being said, the turn lane analyses indicate that the following auxiliary lanes are warranted: . Southbound left turn lane at Route Gal/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required . Southbound right turn lane at Route Gal/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft right turn lane with 100 ft taper required . Northbound left turn lane at Route Gal/Old Garth Road/Old Ivy Road - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required . Eastbound left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive - 100 ft left turn lane with 100 ft taper required . Southbound right turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from S6 US Route 29 - 100 ft right turn taper required It is recommended that the above listed turn lane improvement be considered by the County; again, these are improvements warranted by projected background traffic. 33 STAB - Middle School TIA 2010 Middle School Imorovements The addition of the Middle School in 2010 is estimated to add approximately 154 total AM peak trips (85 enter, 69 exit) and 112 PM peak trips (53 enter, 59 exit). Provided the trip distribution and surrounding road network, the additional traffic will be most evident at two locations - Faulconer Drive/Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Drive/56 US 29 Off ramp. Under 2010 total traffic conditions, each of these intersections were noted as satisfying the following turn lane warrants: · Westbound right turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive - 100 ft right turn taper · Southbound right turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from 56 US Route 29 - 100 ft right turn lane with 100 ft taper The westbound right turn ta~r.at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive was not warranted under 2010 background conditions. With respect to the Faulconer Drive/Ramp from southbound US Route 29 intersection, a similar intersection improvement was noted under 2010 background conditions (i.e. a right turn taper). Given the fact that a right turn treatment was warranted under 2010 background conditions at the Faulconer Drive/Ramp from southbound US Route 29 intersection it is not recommended that the proposed Middle School be held responsible for this improvement. . With respect to the westbound right turn taper at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive, it is not recommended that the Middle School be responsible for the installation. Estimates indicate the proposed middle school will add approximately 20 vehicles to this specific movement; a volume of this magnitude in this setting should not require installation of an auxiliary taper. -' 34 ..... . - ... TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, April 8, 2008 Mr. Juandiego Wade Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: St. Anne's-Belfield School Middle School Relocation Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Comments · Dear Mr. Wade: ~ " We have reviewed your comments and recommendations regarding the traffic impact analysis for the proposed St. Anne's-Belfield (STAB) School Middle School Relocation (shown in italics) and offer the following: . The traffic distribution identified in the TIA does not appear to be logical. Additional information is required to support this distribution rate. Based on the student information provided by STAB - 45% of the student body resides to the west, 30% resides to the east, 15% resides to the north, and 10% resides to the south. Given this distribution, the following travel paths were assumed for traffic entering the site: From the west: 40% will use Route 250 Business EB and turn left onto Route 601. The remaining 5% will use 1-64 to 250 Bypass EB, exit onto 250 Business WB and turn right onto Route 601 (this adjustment was made per VDOT/County request from the 2/5/08 meeting). From the east: 25% will exit Ivy Road onto Old Ivy Road (near the existing STAB Upper School) and proceed to the lower campus. The remaining 5% will continue straight on Route 250 Business WB and turn right onto 601. From the north: All 15% will exit Route 250 Bypass WB and turn right onto Faulconer Drive. From the south: All 10% will use 250 Bypass EB, exit onto 250 Business WB and turn right onto Route 601. Traffic exiting the site was assumed to follow the same distribution. These percentages correspond with the distribution shown in the submitted traffic impact analysis. 0\ ...... N C""l N <C > - "0 c: 0 E 00 ..c: \0 u 0 ...... cr:: ...... N Lt1 C""l 0 V C""l 0 00 Q) ..... x ::J <( ... lJ) ..... Q) Q) Lt1 ... \0 ..... 0 lJ) ...... ~ ...... V N ...... Lt1 V lJ) 0 00 r-. ...J ...... W ...... f- >- E '" 0 0 0 ~ c: VI '" c: u 0 ClJ E f- E ClJ .... " == u == ::> == ~ '" ~ c: '" ~ c: ClJ '0 '" ClJ '" ~ c: ClJ E 0. 0 0; > ClJ 0 ~ U'l STAB TIA Comment Aprl/8, 2008 Page 2 of4 ....;;... TIMMONS GROUP · Additional information is required to support the 30% reduction to the estimated trip generation identified on page 12 of the TIA. Staff was under the understanding that applicant would supply information on the location of the students residence (not specific information). The following information was provided by STAB with respect to the 2007-2008 enrollments: · # of families with children in Pre-School to Grade 4 (lower campus) = 199 · # of families with children in Grades 5 to 8 (upper campus) = 182 · # of families with children at both lower campus AND upper campus = 53 Given these numbers, 53 families of the 182 will drop off both siblings at the start of the lower school, which occurs prior to the upper school day. These 53 families represent 30% of the upper campus population (assuming only one upper school child per family) that will not be making a drop off during the upper campus peak; thus a 30% reduction to the ITE-based trip generation was applied. · The applicant is not proposing to complete or participant in any improvements identified on pages 33 and 34. Practically all of the traffic at intersections #4 and #5 (as noted in the TIA) can be contributed to STAB. Staff recommends for the applicant to participate with their fair share based on impacts on the other intersections studied. The following improvements are listed on page 33 of the STAB middle school TlA: · SB left turn lane at Route 601/01d Garth Road/Old Ivy Road · SB right turn lane at Route 601/01d Garth Road/Old Ivy Road · NB left turn lane at Route 601/01d Garth Road/Old Ivy Road · EB Left turn lane at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive · SB right turn taper at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US 29 All of aforementioned improvements are warranted by 2010 background traffic volumes; they are not related to the STAB middle school relocation. These improvements are warranted by projected volumes that will exist at these intersections regardless of the middle school's presence and are the responsibility of Albemarle County/yDOT. Two additional improvements are shown on page 34: · SB right turn lane at Faulconer Drive/Ramp from SB US 29 · WB right turn taper at Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive ~,-:; With respect to the right turn lane on Faulconer Drive, capacity analysis indicates the additional turn lane would improve the level of service for SB approach. In reality, given the concentrated traffic flows associated with a school, it is likely that the traffic queue associated with the through movement would not allow for continuous access to a right turn lane. Second, and more importantly, the provision of a right turn lane could compromise the safety of the intersection. Today, drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic exiting US 29/Route 250 that typically travels at a high rate of speed. The addition of a right turn lane will create a situation in which those drivers turning right from Faulcon~ Drive/STAB would have limited ability to see approaching vehicles (i.e. blocked by vehicles 'sitting in the through queue). Based on this, I do not recommend that a right turn lane be installed (by either the County or the school). Furthermore, this traffic queue is impacting school traffic only, not the general public. STAB TIA Comment Apri/8, 2008 Page 3 of4 ...;... TIMMONS GROUP At the Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive intersection, estimated middle-school traffic increases are 21 EB rights in the AM peak and 13 EB rights in the PM peak. The VDOT turn lane nomograhphs indicate a right turn taper is recommended for the PM peak volumes. During the PM peak, westbound traffic at this intersection operates at a LOS A with or without the right turn taper, eastbound traffic operates at a LOS A with or without the WB right turn taper, SB traffic operates at a LOS F with or without the WB right turn taper. Essentially, the right turn taper makes no operational improvement to the intersection and should not be installed. . Based on the 7lA scoping meeting, the applicant agreed to supply additional information on the Route 250 signal timing plan. Staff will also need additional information on the ramps. Due to the short distance between the existing traffic signals on Route 250, we recommend this signal timing plan include the intersections of Route 250/601/Canterbury, the Route 29/250 southbound ramp intersection, and the Route 29/250 northbound intersection. Following the February 5th meeting, VDOT was contacted regarcMng the signal timings at the Route 250 Business/Route 250 Bypass interchange. We were informed that the signals on Route 250 (at Route 601 and the Bypass Ramps) are currently not part of a coordinated system and run in "free" operation, independent of one another; this information was shared with both the County and VDOT. That being said, there currently is no signal timing plan for this corridor to revise. Furthermore, it is not the school's responsibility to create one. In addition, it should be noted the relocation of this school will ultimately decrease traffic on US 250 Business through the interchange. Currently, middle school students from the west (40% of student traffic) proceed through the interchange to reach the Upper Campus. With the relocation, these students will exit at Route 601 and not enter the interchange. It is acknowledged that those students exiting US 250 Bypass EB will turn left as opposed to the right that they are currently making and that an estimated 5% will enter on US 250 Business WB from the City; that being said, a net decrease is still anticipated. Lastly, the table below compares the estimated middle-school related trips to the projected 2010 background volumes that enter (WB, from the interchange) and exit (EB, toward the interchange) the Route 250 Business/Route 601 intersection: Direction STAB MS Traffic Route 250 Busi ness Percentaae AM PM AM PM AM PM WB 17 11 681 571 2.5% 2.0% EB 14 12 770 645 2.0% 2.0% This comparison indicates that projected middle school traffic (Le. less than 20 vehicles per direction during the peak hours) will account for only a 2.0% - 2.5% increase in traffic. Studying the interchange for this amount of traffic is unnecessary. STAB TIA Comment Apr//8, 2008 Page 4of4 ....;... TIMMONS GROUP · We recommend including the intersection of Old Ivy Road and the northbound on-ramp to Route 29 located just east of the Route 29 overpass on Old Ivy Road In addition to this intersection analysis/ we recommend providing merge analyses for the ramp merge onto Route 29 northbound. Trip distribution estimates indicate that 15% of the exiting middle school-related traffic will use the northbound on-ramp. This equates to 11 EB vehicles in the AM peak and 9 EB vehicles in the PM peak. Counts collected at the Old Ivy Road/Faulconer Drive intersection indicate that in 2010 there will be 798 EB vehicles during the AM peak and 513 EB vehicles during the PM peak on Old Ivy Road. This indicates site-related vehicles will account for a 1.4% to 1.8% volume increase to the EB approach of the intersection. Traffic volume increases this minor do not necessitate additional analysis. With respect to the merge analysis, again, it is unnecessary. VDOT counts indicate an ADT of 51,000 on US 29/250 Bypass with an NB directional peak hour flows of approximately 2,000 vehicles. The addition of approximately 10 vehicles to the ramp, or US 291Route 250 itself, will be undetectable. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to make this submittal, and look forward to continuing our work with you on this project. Respectfully submitted, TIMMONS GROUP p~~j)~ W. Scott Dunn, A.I.c.P. Project Manager Cc: Juandiego Wade (Albemarle County) Judith Wiegand (Albemarle County) Glenn Brooks (Albemarle County) Joel Denunzio (VDOT) Chuck Proctor (VDOT) Mike True (VDOT) Michael A. Wayleft (STAB) Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering) ..... . -. .. TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. To: Ms. Judy Wiegand, AICP (Albemarle County) From: W. Scott Dunn, AICP Date: May 21, 2008 Re: St. Anne's-Belfield Middle School Relocation - Additional Traffic Data per the May 16, 2008 Memorandum Copy: Albemarle County - Juandiego Wade, Glenn Brooks, Elaine Echols VDOT - Joel Denunzio, Chuck Proctor Project Team - Michael Waylett (STAB); Kurt Gloeckner (Gloeckner Engineering) The May 16, 2008 memorandum issued by Ms. Judy Wiegand indicated that the main concern is "for the applicant to provide information that the County can use to verify the 30 percent reduction in trips" that was applied in the submitted traffic impact analysis (TIA) . In light of that request, St. Anne's-Belfield (STAB) has reviewed their student records for the previous five years with respect to families with children attending the Lower School, families with children attending the Middle School, and families with children attending both schools. This information is summarized below in Table 1. Table 1 Attendance by School School School Year 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Lower School 224 212 205 204 202 Middle School 217 210 191 199 192 Both Schools 69 58 52 69 58 :/;;,:'>' . ' , 'F"';; .,.': .......;7; mw..,. .' ...... ,.... % of MS families with a sibling in 32% 28% 27% 35% 30% the lower school Table 1 illustrates that over the past five years, the number of families with a student in the Middle School and a younger sibling in the Lower School has remained at approximately 30%; which equates to the reduction that was applied in the study. As discussed previously, STAB is providing accommodations to support a single drop-off by those families with children in each of the schools to be located on the Lower Campus and reduce the overall traffic impacts of the proposed relocation. 0'1 ..... N M N <C > - "tJ c: 0 E co .c 1.0 u 0 ..... ~ ..... N Ltl M 0 V M 0 co Q) ..... x :J <I: u. 1Il ..... Q) Q) Ltl .... 1.0 ..... 0 1Il ': ~ ..... V N ..... Ltl V 1Il 0 co r-- ...J ..... W ..... f- >- E '" 0 0 0 u c Ul .c c: u 0 '" E f- E '" ~ ~ ::> ~ ~ u ~ ::> ~ ~ '" c '" ~ c '" '0 ~ '" '" ~ '" E c. .9 '" > '" Cl '" ~ Vl STAB - Response to May 16, 2008 Memorandum May 21, 2008 In addition to the data to support the applied trip reduction rate, Ms. Wiegand also cited the county's desire for additional information pertaining to the where the Middle School student population resides with respect to the proposed relocation. Information pertaining to where Middle School students reside with respect to the proposed facility is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Middle School Student Origin Data Year Approaching From North East South West 2003-2004 26% 24% 9% 41% 2004-2005 30% 18% 9% 42% 2005-2006 30% 17% 8% 45% 2006-2007 30% 20% 10% 40% 2007~8 30% 21% 10% 34% ,>.1it., >- ..../.:,..,..c" .'./(. .".i.. ,':;;; ~.;. 'm;"", Average 30% 20% 9% 41% These averages are similar to the distribution used in the traffic study (i.e. North - 30%, East - 15%, South - 10%, West 45%) that was based on a smaller sampling previously provided by STAB. With respect to the school's transportation demand management (TDM) strategies (also mentioned in the memorandum), STAB currently provides bus service between the Upper Campus and Lower Campus to accommodate after school activities. This service is anticipated to continue, however, with the Middle School relocating it is possible that ridership will decrease; this is based on the assumption that high school students (with vehicles) will continue to carpool to the lower campus as they currently do today. On a final note, the memorandum indicates that VDOT will prepare a cost estimate for potential improvements and subsequently work with the County and the applicant to determine the applicant's "fair share" cost for these improvements. To date, the applicant has not been included in collaborations between the County and VDOT with respect to traffic concerns/issues. That being said, the applicant and his engineer request that an itemized engineer's opinion of probable cost be provided for review prior to any meetings in which cost estimates or contributions will be discussed. If any additional information or data is required from the applicant, feel free to contact me directly at (804) 200-6955 or Scott.Dunn@Timmons.com.