HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500024 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2016-06-18County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project:
The Field School of Charlottesville
Plan preparer:
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St.
Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 fiustinAshimp-en ine eering coml
Owner or rep.:
Country Inns Extraordinaire, Inc. -1296 Clifton Inn Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Plan received date:
22 Oct 2015
(Rev. 1)
24 Feb 2016
(Rev. 2)
7 Jun 2016
Date of comments:
19 Nov 2015
(Rev. 1)
27 Feb 2016
(Rev. 2)
18 Jun 2016
Reviewer:
John Anderson (for Engineering)
Project Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein
SP201500024
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. (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. As
follow up:
a. Confirm whether Rte. 654 traffic volumes are current, or future. Analysis should compare year of
maximum enrollment (2020, for example) against traffic volume on Rte. 654 in that year. If future
projections were not used, revise to provide a reasonably conservative estimate of Rte. 654 traffic
volume in year coincident with maximum enrollment. 6-Jun letter states: "While a current analysis
shows that a left turn lane is not required for the school use, the site has adequate frontage and
sight distance to provide turn lanes as needed if future warrants should change." If future warrants
change, it is unclear who might bear responsibility for widening Rte. 654 to accommodate a left -
turn lane. While this comment (a., b., c.) expresses concern, County defers to VDOT acceptance
of left -turn analysis; whether analysis presented with this submittal is acceptable, or not.
b. Table 1 PM peak hour (future maximum enrollment: 150) inbound =13 (vehicles), outbound =15,
values appear unlikely given the limited number of evening school and sporting events (10-12; 15-
20, respectively, per year). Given limited number of after -hour events, on most days, PM peak
values should more nearly reflect AM peak values. Also, if peak represents the highest number of
vehicles exiting on a given afternoon, if Max =15 (and no other hour may exceed 15), and if AM
peak =74, then for equal numbers of students to depart as arrive each day, these values indicate
students exit premises over a period lasting 5 hours (±). This is specious; PM peak values should
be revised to more nearly resemble AM peak values. Note: Engineering also recommends against
proposition that a parent may spend their child's entire school day shopping as an unreliable and
needless design variable.
c. Left turn Analysis opposing/advancing graphic values appear transposed in both images. AM
eastbound traffic (Advancing) should be higher than opposing traffic volume. More vehicles
approach Charlottesville at this location (EB) in the morning, than leave. Likewise, PM
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
Advancing Volume should be lower. More traffic leaves Charlottesville during the PM Peak hour
(Opposing left -turning vehicles). Please ref. image (below). Revise Left -turn Analysis.
Left -Turning Volume opposing Volume
---------------- SV,.)--------- V
ye,&.cmg Volume y5lraighl Through 1
V Volume V
Figure 1. Volumes for Use in Left -Turn Lane Warrant Methods.
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.] (Rev. 2) Addressed.
4. Ensure internal access meets VDOT standards —ref. 14-412. (Rev. 1) see #9/initial & New 4, 5, below.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: "These three comments [4, 5, 61 concern items required for
consideration with an initial site plan application." Engineering accepts this statement.
5. Ensure parking areas meet 18-4.12.15 requirements for parking areas. (Rev. 1) See New #5, below. (Rev.
2) Addressed.
6. Ensure final design meets 18-4.12.17 requirements for vehicle access aisles. (Rev. 1) See New #5. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
9. Conceptual Plan of Development (I I" 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 [", s"e] (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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) As follow-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. (Rev. 2) Not Addressed. Sheets 3 and 5 may be
compared using a light table, but a single exhibit is essential to support Critical Slopes Waiver. Comment
restated: please show/shade proposed critical slope impacts on sheet 5. Also, in anticipation of critical
slopes waiver request that will go before the Planning Commission, please support the following statement:
"The water quality treatment, detention, infiltration, and conveyance systems represent an improvement to
the current conditions at the site." This is intuitively unclear. The site is undeveloped (ref. image, below).
Typical pre -developed site characteristics limit runoff impacts if compared with post -developed condition.
Provide rationale to assist Planning Agent frame critical slope narrative for a knowledgeable audience.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
11. Attachments A and B did not reach Engineering. Please provide .PDFs of Attachments A/B for review.
(Rev. 1) see New #2. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Adequate descriptive documents provided.
New [Rev. 1 ]
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: "A separate BLA submittal will be
provided."
2. 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).
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
3. 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. rT,,..ber and spacing of contour labels bolo : of „ffife sefl ble but help,,
[Rev. 2: GIS images removed] (Rev. 2) Addressed.
4. Sheet 5 —Fine print labels are unreadable, and should be revised with future submittals. See #9, above.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
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.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
6. Note —There were no inherently objectionable conceptual features with October submittal, or this one, but
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
Please contact Frank Pohl, County Engineer, if any questions - 434-296-5832 —x7914
SP201500024 Field School Cville 061816rev2