HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500024 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-02-27Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
SP201500024
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
The Field School of Charlottesville
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St.
Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustinAshimp-en ine eering coml
Country Inns Extraordinaire, Inc. -1296 Clifton Inn Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
22 Oct 2015
24 Feb 2016
19 Nov 2015
27 Feb 2016
John Anderson
Rachel Falkenstein
1. Provide traffic analysis that examines special events/regular school drop-off queuing movements, left- and
right for vehicles entering from Barracks Road (S.R. 654); that examines whether Rt. 654 dedicated turn
lanes are warranted. Provide detailed analysis that adequately addresses the effects of proposed enrollment
and design. Encourage evaluation of any possible increase in enrollment, 10-25%, for example. Use ITE
Code 534, and conservative assumptions. Abandon reliance on field study (2013) performed at school's
current location. As written description ofproposal makes clear, student population is anticipated to
change. There is no assurance that a study in Crozet is predictive of patterns that may develop at this
location with a higher student enrollment. (Rev. 1) see New #2, below.
2. Examine need for dedicated right- / left -turn lanes for exiting traffic. A vehicle turning left may impede any
vehicle turning west, toward Crozet, unless there are two exit lanes. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Examine sight -line distance required for posted speed limit of 50 mph. (Rev. 1) As follow-up: Response to
comment does not appear to be included with submittal. [Also: New #2.]
4. Ensure internal access meets VDOT standards —ref. 14-412. (Rev. 1) see #9/initial & New 4, 5, below.
5. Ensure parking areas meet 18-4.12.15 requirements for parking areas. (Rev. 1) See New #5, below.
6. Ensure final design meets 18-4.12.17 requirements for vehicle access aisles. (Rev. 1) See New #5.
7. Provide conceptual SWM plan based on Part II B technical criteria. Conceptual SWM design should not
rely on existing 3 -acre pond. (9VAC25-870-62 — 9VAC25-870-92) (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As
follow-up, provide at least minimal narrative and conceptual selection of SWM facility type to address
stormwater quantity/quality requirements.
8. SWM BMPs should focus on stream buffer and pond preservation, with on-site BMPs that meet Part II B
criteria. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed—pond/stream buffers appear preserved, but see #7, above.
9. Conceptual Plan of Development (11" x 17") includes unreadable text labels. Please revise, or furnish full-
size conceptual plan that is legible and more readily useful. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Full-size plan
includes barely readable text [11�1Sile]
10. Critical slope impacts are relatively minor. With thoughtful final design, Engineering should be positioned
to support limited critical slope impacts proposed with conceptual design. (Rev. 1) Asfollow-up, in order
to evaluate critical slopes impacts, in anticipation of 18-4.2.5.a.1. waiver request to impact critical slopes,
please prepare items required by this section of code. Engineering cannot easily correlate impacts with
development, since slope impacts are shown on sheet 3, not conceptual plan of development. Please
show/shade proposed critical slope impacts on sheet 5.
11. Attachments A and B did not reach Engineering. Please provide .PDFs of Attachments AB for review.
(Rev. 1) see New #2.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
12. Written description of the proposal dated 19 -Jun, rev. 19 -Oct, 2015 presents in-depth information that is
reasonably supportive of locating The Field School of Charlottesville on TM/P 60/68 and TM/P 60/68E.
(Rev. 1) see New #2.
New [Rev. 1 ]
Defer to Planning on Special Use Permit and Boundary Line Adjustment combined Application, though
intent appears clear: show a single parcel for development. No comment on BLA at this time. Anticipate
separate BLA plat submittal.
Please ref. 1, 11, 12, above —If supporting documentation is available or intended to be reviewed, please
submit supplemental items for Engineering review/comment (may be available internally; will check).
Sheets 3, 4, 5 —Provide 2' contour intervals; provide additional contour labels —it appears 7 contour labels,
total, are provided (7, each sheet). It is easier to visualize conceptual plan with elevation labels. County
GIS provides 2' intervals. Number and spacing of contour labels below is not unreasonable, but helpful.
0 0 yep Motile 5ei.=IDOOR
4. Sheet 5 —Fine print labels are unreadable, and should be revised with future submittals. See #9, above.
5. Scale 1" =100' is useful, but Engineering requests 1" =60' (or lesser) scale that shows central portion of
development —Multi-purpose ballfield, pond edge, access, parking, buildings, and paved oval, to aid review.
6. Note —There were no inherently objectionable conceptual features with October submittal, or this one, but
3
dao
� Y
4
�✓
Opo
o lame
nnl roarm
ave wPO
0 o
Help mobile
srak �'=SoOR
Rq
1
S
m
g
1
% �o-Y
ea a
4. Sheet 5 —Fine print labels are unreadable, and should be revised with future submittals. See #9, above.
5. Scale 1" =100' is useful, but Engineering requests 1" =60' (or lesser) scale that shows central portion of
development —Multi-purpose ballfield, pond edge, access, parking, buildings, and paved oval, to aid review.
6. Note —There were no inherently objectionable conceptual features with October submittal, or this one, but
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
submittal format is unusual. Additional documents, if available, will aid Engineering review. Design
response to initial comment (follow-up) remarks, above, and response to new comments will be helpful.
Thank you
Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. janderson2(aalbemarle.org / 434-296-5832 —0069
SP201500024 Field School Cville 022716revl