Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201600025 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2017-04-12Short Review Comments Report for: SP201600025 SubApplication Type: Regents of Charlottesville Amend Existing Special Use Permit Date Completed:10/21/2016 Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review Review Status:QC Denied Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/27/2016 Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review Review Status:QC OK Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/22/2016 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:Comments a, b .c Division: Date Completed:11/14/2016 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:11/14/2016 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:no objection Division: Date Completed:11/14/2016 Reviewer:Ron Higgins CDD Zoning Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:11/30/2016 Reviewer:Kevin McDermott CDD Planning Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/14/2016 Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/01/2016 Reviewer:Frank Pohl CDD Engineering Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:01/31/2017 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning Review Status:See Recommendations Division: Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:July 24, 2017 Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:STAFF REPORT TO PC FEB 7th Date Completed:03/23/2017 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:I need to work on the Executive Summary and enter it into granicus and work on the modified conditions (applicant, zoning and legal). Division: Date Completed:04/12/2017 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:July 24, 2017 44100 Christopher Perez From: David Benish Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:41 PM To: John Blair; Kevin McDermott; Ron Higgins; Christopher Perez; Ron Higgins Subject: RE: Regents - Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition #10 I have a few points/question: 1) Should the and highlighted in yellow(below) actually be an or? Use of"and' usually means both conditions have to be met. I think in this case it means either ingress or egress. 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025,there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is (a) due to site ingress and or egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours (as established in condition 5 (??); and (b)determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition #9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. 2) What constitutes the school activity hours noted in this condition?Are these the same hours as identified in existing condition 5? That condition states"hours of operation shall be between 7:45 am and 4:00 pm,except that occasional school–related events may occur after 4:00." If the school activity hours are the same as those in condition 5,then: - Does an accident related to an occasional school event(evening play/recital, etc.) after 4:00 count the way the proposed condition is worded? I assume to answer is yes. - I am assuming "normal" pre-and post-school activities(like student drop-off and pick-up, before and after school tutoring, parent-teacher meetings, play/recital rehearsals, band practices, after school clubs,etc.) are not the same as"occasional school related events," and are restricted to the hours between 7:45–4:00. So we would not have a situation where,for example, a parent would be picking up a student at 4:30 pm after a regular/typical after-school activity. Correct? Otherwise, if accident occurred at that time, it would not count under this condition as worded, I think. [ Existing condition 5. The hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a. m. and 4: 00 p. m., except that occasional school- related events may occur after 4: 00 p. m.] 3) An accident at the intersection of Broomley Rd. and Rt. 250 as a result of a u-turn movement after a parent drops off a student, even if we could determine the driver's association to a school activity, would not count under this condition—correct? 4) How would we be able to determine the "specifically attributable"facts through accident reports(that the parties involved in the crash were associated with a school event)? And if we can,why can't we apply that same measure/attribute to accidents that occurred along a segment of Rt. 250(say%2 mile in either direction of the Regents School site)? How much lag time is there in the reporting of accident data–can we get up to date crash data that covers that two year window? I think some of the Board members might ask these types of questions. We should be ready for that possibility. We need to make sure the condition is technically acceptable, should the Board choose to support the applicant's request (thanks, Ron and John for your help with that). Most of my comments above are focused on that part of evaluating this proposed condition. The second issue we need to be prepared for is whether staff would recommend favorably on this condition (Christopher, Kevin, Elaine/I will figure that out–but Ron and John,your input is always 1 welcome). I'm not sure this condition allows us to address the main issue remaining with the traffic ' pacts from this use,the impacts to Rt. 250, particularly the U-turn movements along Rt. 250.This condition only ow an assessment of accidents related to turning movements directly at the Regents School entrance. That movem t has already been addressed and prohibited through physical improvements made to the site. So I tend to agr with Christopher's concern with this condition. Kevin and Christopher, let's discuss tomorrow. Ok From:John Blair Sent: Monday,April 10, 2017 2:52 PM v� To: Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albema .org,C : . er •erez <cperez@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhi::•• • cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 I am in agreement with this condition . From: Kevin McDermott Sent:Sunday, April 9, 2017 6:07 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair <iblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Chris, This is what we discussed.There just isn't any other method to directly attribute safety issues related to the school except this one specific movement during school activity hours. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Kevin From: Ron Higgins Sent: Friday,April 07, 2017 11:22 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair<iblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott <kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Folks: I have no objection to this condition as worded. The responsibility is on the applicants to present the findings in two years if they want the 2021 sunset provision lifted. From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,April 07, 2017 9:10 AM To:John Blair<iblair@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 John, Ron, Kevin, and David 2 SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville The applicant has provided their alternative condition for staff consideration in prep for the April 12th public hearing (see below in red suggested condition, and attached doc for complete explanation). Evidently after talks w/Kevin McDermott and Bill Wench they proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. See attached explanation. This differs from what we previously discussed about using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option, they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Suggested condition text: 9. SP-2016-00025 shall expire on August 13, 2021, subject to the provisions of condition#10 herein. 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025,there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is(a)due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition #9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. If you can take a look at this before wed that would be great, if you all want to setup a quick 30 min meeting on Tuesday to discuss it as a group, that would be helpful too. Let me know your thoughts. Ron, John, and David: is it enforceable? John: is it legal? Kevin: is this what you all talked about? Christopher P.Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:36 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Wuensch<w.wuensch@epr-pc.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition #10 Hi Chris, I left you a voicemail earlier today but wanted to follow up by email.Attached is an updated traffic memo for Regents School that identifies the key traffic issues related to the site and how they can be addressed by a 10th condition that "monitors" traffic and then if no issues arise from such monitoring,the sunset clause would be automatically terminated. In our meeting several weeks ago we had discussed using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option, they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Instead, we proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. Let us know your thoughts on the language we proposed on the last page of the attached memo. '• it carefully so that the County would not have to 3 initiate a further study of the site but that the applicant would wisp present data at a specified time in order for. automatic termination of the sunset clause to come into effect. Bill can also be reached for any questions or concerns as they relate to traffic and how we came to the conclusion outlined in the attached memo. His office#is(434) 244-4014 and mobile#is (434) 202-5082. He is also cc'd on this email.Also feel free to call or email me or Valerie with any and all questions or concerns. Thank you and hope you enjoy the weekend, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro@williamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. • 4 Christopher Perez ;?.L� From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:44 PM To: John Blair; Kevin McDermott; Ron Higgins; David Benish; Ron Higgins Subject: RE: Regents - Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 All, After giving it some thought I don't think this condition does much for us with regard to the turnaround location, which I believe is going to be where the accidents most likely occur. This condition only focuses on the primary entrance where the pork chops at. Whereas David Benish's previous suggestion of percentages on the corridor would have also covered the turnaround locations and catch an uptick in accidents vs just the entrance to the site. What do you all think about this aspect of the proposed language? 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025, there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is (a) due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition#9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:John Blair Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 2:52 PM To: Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 I am in agreement with this condition . From: Kevin McDermott Sent:Sunday, April 9, 2017 6:07 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair <iblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Chris, This is what we discussed.There just isn't any other method to directly attribute safety issues related to the school except this one specific movement during school activity hours. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Kevin 1 From: Ron Higgins Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:22 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott <kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents-Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Folks: I have no objection to this condition as worded. The responsibility is on the applicants to present the findings in two years if they want the 2021 sunset provision lifted. From:Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,April 07, 2017 9:10 AM To:John Blair<iblair@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition #10 John, Ron, Kevin, and David SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville The applicant has provided their alternative condition for staff consideration in prep for the April 12th public hearing (see below in red suggested condition, and attached doc for complete explanation). Evidently after talks w/Kevin McDermott and Bill Wench they proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. See attached explanation. This differs from what we previously discussed about using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option, they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Suggested condition text: 9. SP-2016-00025 shall expire on August 13, 2021, subject to the provisions of condition#10 herein. 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025,there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is(a)due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition #9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. If you can take a look at this before wed that would be great, if you all want to setup a quick 30 min meeting on Tuesday to discuss it as a group,that would be helpful too. Let me know your thoughts. Ron, John, and David: is it enforceable? John: is it legal? Kevin: is this what you all talked about? Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development!County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:36 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Wuensch<w.wuensch@epr-pc.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Hi Chris, I left you a voicemail earlier today but wanted to follow up by email.Attached is an updated traffic memo for Regents School that identifies the key traffic issues related to the site and how they can be addressed by a 10th condition that "monitors" traffic and then if no issues arise from such monitoring,the sunset clause would be automatically terminated. In our meeting several weeks ago we had discussed using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option,they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Instead,we proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the siteentrance. Let us know your thoughts on the language we proposed on the last page of the attached memo. tried _to word it carefully so that the County would not have to initiate a further study of the site but that the app ant would have to present data at a specified time in order for the automatic teination of the sunset clause to come into effete Bill can also be reached for any questions or concerns as they relate to traffic and how we came to the conclusion outlined in the attached memo. His office# is(434) 244-4014 and mobile# is(434) 202-5082. He is also cc'd on this email. Also feel free to call or email me or Valerie with any and all questions or concerns. Thank you and hope you enjoy the weekend, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St.Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 2290. T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro@williamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee, the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 3 Christopher Perez From: Ron Higgins Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:49 PM To: Christopher Perez;John Blair; Kevin McDermott; David Benish; Ron Higgins Subject: RE: Regents - Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 („4, Chris: From a safety standpoint that would probably be better, even if a bit more complicated for the applicants (but it might be worth it to them). From:Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:44 PM To:John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins <rhiggins@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 All, After giving it some thought I don't think this condition does much for us with regard to the turnaround location, which I believe is going to be where the accidents most likely occur. This condition only focuses on the primary entrance where the pork chops at. Whereas David Benish's previous suggestion of percentages on the corridor would have also covered the turnaround locations and catch an uptick in accidents vs just the entrance to the site. What do you all think about this aspect of the proposed language? 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025, there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is (a) due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition#9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:John Blair Sent: Monday,April 10, 2017 2:52 PM To: Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 I am in agreement with this condition . From: Kevin McDermott Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 6:07 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair i MN NOW NNW <iblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm- cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents-Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Chris, This is what we discussed.There just isn't any other method to directly attribute safety issues related to the school except this one specific movement during school activity hours. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Kevin From: Ron Higgins Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:22 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott <kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Folks: I have no objection to this condition as worded. The responsibility is on the applicants to present the findings in two years if they want the 2021 sunset provision lifted. From:Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:10 AM To:John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 John, Ron, Kevin, and David SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville The applicant has provided their alternative condition for staff consideration in prep for the April 12th public hearing (see below in red suggested condition, and attached doc for complete explanation). Evidently after talks w/Kevin McDermott and Bill Wench they proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. See attached explanation. This differs from what we previously discussed about using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option, they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Suggested condition text: 9. SP-2016-00025 shall expire on August 13, 2021, subject to the provisions of condition#10 herein. 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025, there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is(a)due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition #9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. If you can take a look at this before wed that would be great, if you all want to setup a quick 30 min meeting on 2 w Tuesday to discuss it as a group, that would be helpful too. Let me know your thoughts. Ron, John, and David: is it enforceable? John: is it legal? Kevin: is this what you all talked about? Christopher P.Perez 1 Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:36 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Wuensch<w.wuensch@epr-pc.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Hi Chris, I left you a voicemail earlier today but wanted to follow up by email. Attached is an updated traffic memo for Regents School that identifies the key traffic issues related to the site and how they can be addressed by a 10th condition that "monitors" traffic and then if no issues arise from such monitoring,the sunset clause would be automatically terminated. In our meeting several weeks ago we had discussed using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option,they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Instead, we proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. Let us know your thoughts on the language we proposed on the last page of the attached memo.We tried to word it carefully so that the County would not have to initiate a further study of the site but that the applicant would have to present data at a specified time in order for the automatic termination of the sunset clause to come into effect. Bill can also be reached for any questions or concerns as they relate to traffic and how we came to the conclusion outlined in the attached memo. His office# is(434) 244-4014 and mobile# is (434) 202-5082. He is also cc'd on this email.Also feel free to call or email me or Valerie with any and all questions or concerns. Thank you and hope you enjoy the weekend, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscroCalwilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the i> information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. A 4 I 1 i 3 1 wsid Now E/ALChristopher Perez i L, From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 12:25 PM To: David Benish; Christopher Perez Subject: FW: Regents - Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Thanks, David. Chris has been keeping me up to speed on the process. It would seem to me that even one crash is too many. Maybe if the condition should say that, "if there are no crashes nor traffic incidents attributable to school activities at the intersection of x and x,then the condition will automatically expire." (This may have already been discussed and discounted, so, I'm just offering it up in case it hasn't.) Elaine From: David Benish Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:55 AM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 I'm just now getting to this but I see that Christopher did not copy you on this, so I am forwarding on to you as an fyi and for comment you may want to provide. From: Ron Higgins Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:22 AM YeA To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott <kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Folks: I have no objection to this condition as worded. The responsibility is on the applicants to present the findings in two years if they want the 2021 sunset provision lifted. From:Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,April 07, 2017 9:10 AM To:John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@cobra-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 John, Ron, Kevin, and David SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville The applicant has provided their alternative condition for staff consideration in prep for the April 12th public hearing (see below in red suggested condition, and attached doc for complete explanation). Evidently after talks w/Kevin McDermott and Bill Wench they proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. See attached explanation. This differs from what we previously discussed about using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option, they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that 1 would be specifically related to the School use. Suggested condition text: 9. SP-2016-00025 shall expire on August 13, 2021, subject to the provisions of condition#10 herein. 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-00025, there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is(a)due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition #9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. If you can take a look at this before wed that would be great, if you all want to setup a quick 30 min meeting on Tuesday to discuss it as a group, that would be helpful too. Let me know your thoughts. Ron, John, and David: is it enforceable? John: is it legal? Kevin: is this what you all talked about? Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.comj Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:36 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Wuensch<w.wuensch@epr-pc.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Hi Chris, I left you a voicemail earlier today but wanted to follow up by email. Attached is an updated traffic memo for Regents School that identifies the key traffic issues related to the site and how they can be addressed by a 10th condition that "monitors" traffic and then if no issues arise from such monitoring,the sunset clause would be automatically terminated. In our meeting several weeks ago we had discussed using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option,they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Instead, we proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. Let us know your thoughts on the language we proposed on the last page of the attached memo. We tried to word it carefully so that the County would not have to initiate a further study of the site but that the applicant would have to present data at a specified time in order for the automatic termination of the sunset clause to come into effect. Bill can also be reached for any questions or concerns as they relate to traffic and how we came to the conclusion outlined in the attached memo. His office# is(434) 244-4014 and mobile#is(434) 202-5082. He is also cc'd on this email. Also feel free to call or email me or Valerie with any and all questions or concerns. Thank you and hope you enjoy the weekend, Nicole 2 Nicole kr I Attome I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400IChaWtte Charlottesville,VA 29023200 T 434.951.5728 CStglwmIFq+y%m2In maAm mllen.cmIwww.williamsmullen.com TICE: InforAm contained in Gst transmission to the named addressee is pro/etryand is subject to attorney-client privilege and wo&p product confidentiality. Ifth recipient of this transm m&n thenamed addres e,th recipient*odimmediately notify the sender and destroyth information trasmitdwWJm@m any copy mdistribution thrf. j 1-11 \ ) . \ . \ ) ) I } 3 � } � o Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,April 07, 2017 9:11 AM To: 'Scro, Nicole' Subject: RE: Regents - Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Nichole, Thanks. From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:36 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Wuensch<w.wuensch@epr-pc.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents- Updated Traffic Memo and Proposal for Condition#10 Hi Chris, I left you a voicemail earlier today but wanted to follow up by email.Attached is an updated traffic memo for Regents School that identifies the key traffic issues related to the site and how they can be addressed by a 10th condition that "monitors"traffic and then if no issues arise from such monitoring,the sunset clause would be automatically terminated. In our meeting several weeks ago we had discussed using a percentage increase in the crash rate as a metric to monitor traffic at the site but after Kevin and Bill discuss that option,they agreed that it would not be viable because the rate varies so wildly from year to year and encompasses so many more variables than those that would be specifically related to the School use. Instead,we proposed a trigger of the automatic termination of the sunset clause if there is more than one left angle crash during School activity hours at the site entrance. Let us know your thoughts on the language we proposed on the last page of the attached memo. We tried to word it carefully so that the County would not have to initiate a further study of the site but that the applicant would have to present data at a specified time in order for the automatic termination of the sunset clause to come into effect. Bill can also be reached for any questions or concerns as they relate to traffic and how we came to the conclusion outlined in the attached memo. His office#is(434) 244-4014 and mobile#is(434) 202-5082. He is also cc'd on this email.Also feel free to call or email me or Valerie with any and all questions or concerns. Thank you and hope you enjoy the weekend, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St, Suite 400 j Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200 T 439.951.5728 I C 631.513..5180 F 434.817.0977 I nscro©williamsmullen.com www.'williarnsmullerucom NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client nt privy lege and work product confidentiality', If the recipient of this trans ission is not the named addressee,the rec &valid ion med.'lat_e9, notify the sender end destroy oy the information transmitted without making any cony or distribution thereof, 1 t PRpc EPR, P,C. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 MEMORANDUM TO: NICOLE SCRO FROM: BILL WUENSCH, P.E., PTOE ORGANIZATION: WILLIAMS MULLENS DATE: MARCH 31, 2017 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: Re: REGENTS SCHOOL—CUP CONDITIONS TEXT YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: ❑URGENT X FOR YOUR USE 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE Regents School Traffic—Text for CUP Conditions Traffic Concerns The purpose of this memorandum is to: 1. provide a brief review of the initially identified traffic concerns for the Regents School site, and 2. identify recommended text to include into the conditional use permit to address conditions to monitor relative to traffic access concerns at the school entrance along Ivy Road. Initially Identified Traffic Access Concerns In the original traffic study for the site, two conditions were identified that caused concerns relative to traffic access and safety. Both concerns were relative to the left turn egress movement, and were closely related. These included: A. the left turn egress movement had difficulty finding gaps in the eastbound traffic, which resulted in relatively long delays to make the turn from the site onto Ivy Road, and relatively long queues internal to the site. B. Often, vehicles turning onto eastbound Ivy Road would turn into the hatched area between the eastbound and westbound lanes. The hatched area is not of sufficient width to serve as a receiving lane. Note that it was only the left turn egress movement that was deemed of concern. The left turn ingress movement has a long turn lane on Ivy Road and at no time did we observe queuing, long delays, or dangerous movements into the site. In the AM peak period the opposing (westbound) traffic is relatively light, and the school PM peak does not correspond to the PM peak of Ivy Road. Thus, no concerns were noted with the ingress traffic for the site. 1 iPc. EPR, P,C. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" ...< 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 Note that based on the previous crash analysis we did not see evidence of angle crashes occurring at the school entrance. Below is the summary of crashes as provided in the previous traffic study document. Crash Analysis (from prior report) As part of the investigation, EPR assembled crash data per the VDOT crash database information. Data from 9/2011 thru 6/2016 was summarized and examined. The primary crash pattern in the study area was rear end crashes. The rear end crashes are likely the result of queueing as a result of the traffic signals to the east and west of the school entrance. [not related to the school site] There were no angle crashes at the school entrance. There were no crashes reported that appear to be attributable to the Regents entrance. Per my discussion with Mr. McDermott, and follow-up analysis, EPR's suggestion is to monitor the crash history relative to the turns to and from the site entrance. Suggested condition text: 9. SP-2016-00025 shall expire on August 13, 2021, subject to the provisions of condition #10 herein. 10. If the applicant's traffic engineer can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County traffic planner, that for a period of two years from the date of the approval of SP-2016- 00025, there has not been more than one left turn angle crash that is (a) due to site ingress and egress at the Regents School entrance during school activity hours; and (b) determined to be specifically attributable to the Regents School use, then condition #9 shall automatically expire and become null and void at the end of such two-year period. END OF MEMORANDUM 3 VChristopher Perez Ae rH_d From: Long, Valerie <vlong@williamsmullen.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 11:35 AM To: Christopher Perez; Scro, Nicole Cc: Ron Higgins; Kevin McDermott;John Blair; David Benish; Ashley Davies; Claudette Borgersen Subject: RE: SP201600025- Regents School of Charlottesville Thank you, Chris. We want to keep moving with Option A. We're continuing to work with our Traffic Engineer on phrasing a condition that makes sense and is reasonable. We should have that resolved in the next few days and will send to you afterwards for review and wordsmithing by you and others as needed. Thank you, and please let us know if you need anything else from us in the meantime. Valerie Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434.951.5709 From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:59 AM To: Scro, Nicole Cc: Ron Higgins; Kevin McDermott; John Blair; David Benish; Long, Valerie; Davies, Ashley; Claudette Borgersen Subject: RE: SP201600025- Regents School of Charlottesville Nicole, RE: SP201600025-Regents School of Charlottesville I am finalizing the transmittal of the staff report to the BOS for their April 12r'meeting. This transmittal cannot take into account an alternative condition because the final language of such a condition has not been submitted for staff(Planning, Zoning, and County Attorney) consideration since our last meeting. Nor has any analysis in this condition taken place. We've got two options: A) Keep moving forward to the April 12t BOS meeting without mention of the alternative condition in the transmittal from staff. In the mean time you can continue working with staff till the April 12"'meeting to assure such a condition is enforceable and language is agreeable to staff and then submit the alternative condition to the BOS prior to the meeting and hope they are willing to take an action considering it. or B)Pull the item from the April 12`1'agenda today by Noon,and reschedule it for May 10t11 BOS meeting. This should allow you enough additional time to get that alternative condition in, reviewed by the respectable parties, and discussed in the transmittal sheet to the BOS. How would you like to proceed? Christopher P.Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia 1 401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:13 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>;John Blair <jblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: Regents, Proposed Condition - Meeting 2/22 Hi Chris, Thank you for checking in! I spoke with Bill and he was going to get some language to us early this week. I will check in with him and get something to you ASAP. Nicole Scro 434.951.5728 nscro@williamsmullen.com From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:06 AM To: Scro, Nicole Cc: Ron Higgins; Kevin McDermott; John Blair; David Benish; Long, Valerie; Davies, Ashley Subject: RE: Regents, Proposed Condition - Meeting 2/22 Nicole, RE: Regents School of Charlottesville I wanted to check in on the status of your work on the modified condition. I believe Kevin and Bill Wench recently discussed this item, after which Bill was going to be working with you to formulate the new language. The County is still waiting on revised language of the condition. I'm looking for this sooner than later so I can run it by John Blair(County Attorney) and Ron Higgins (Zoning) and possibly include it in an executive summary to the BOS for their April 12t'' meeting. Please advise. From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:11 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott <kmcdermott@albemarle.org>;John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents, Proposed Condition- Meeting 2/22 Chris, Ron, Kevin,John and David, We very much look forward to discussing the proposed addition of a condition on Regent School's special use permit that would automatically terminate the sunset clause condition. Attached is a brief proposal and our thoughts on the legality of the condition. Thank you again and see you all soon! 2 -Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St.Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 l C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro@williamsmullen.com l www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 3 Christopher Perez From: Scro, Nicole <nscro@williamsmullen.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:11 PM To: Ron Higgins; Christopher Perez; Kevin McDermott;John Blair; David Benish; Christopher Perez Cc: Valerie Long;Ashley Davies Subject: Regents, Proposed Condition - Meeting 2/22 Attachments: Regents, Itr to County staff(Automatic Termination of Sunset Condition).DOCX Chris, Ron, Kevin,John and David, We very much look forward to discussing the proposed addition of a condition on Regent School's special use permit that would automatically terminate the sunset clause condition.Attached is a brief proposal and our thoughts on the legality of the condition. Thank you again and see you all soon! -Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro©williamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.corn 4 NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. I 1 1 I 1 1 3 I I : 1 R Direct Dial:434-951-5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com February 21, 2017 , # 7, Via E-Mail s -Y"r P•P _14_ea(4 Christopher Perez, Senior Planner �`� P �d ,..the, .,.._ Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner- Transportation ,.� 0,y1/4g 63 �� IQ e/ a a %s 9� b John Blair, Deputy County Attorney i �yg.� k'�o ` ���4, " c Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Administrator ��5t 1 ,,e,,Jr. fid County of Albemarle �A°` r("'`� ,. °- , ` , Department of Community Development7 :� P )J /e1 A� 401 McIntire Road, .i'� �^'' Charlottesville, VA 22902 >r\ KQ 491" as ��� ) RE: Re'ents School of Charlottesville— Pro 8 o.ed Cond tion lt 40t.-4Y. ,c P9 Dear Chris, Kevin, Ron and John: W On behalf of our client, the Regents School of C arlottesville (the "Schoo " , we propose the modification of the special use permit's ninth cc dition and the addition of. enth condition that would eliminate the "sunset"provision upon th. School's demonstration of se al specific standards. The current conditions are attached fl r your reference. Without the eli ' ation of the sunset clause, the School would have to come b:ck for a fifth special use permit ame •ment. We hope we can work together to avoid the School ,_oing through the costly process of ame sing its special use permit while still meeting County s,aff's standards to ensure safe traffic condit ins. S � We propose the following language but welco e any input you may have: , i,.re ry. "9. SP-2016-00025 shall expire on Au:: st 13, 2022. M g,II d' '14. ,A 11. after 4years from the date of the approval of SP-2016-001 5, the Applicant can � pp PP demonstrate to the satisfaction of Alb:marle County staff, thr s . the co i i'i .ti•n of an updated traffic analysis and crash dat., that there is no identi able pattern of crashes specificall attributabl- . 1 - Re_ent. School use, condition#9 Mall become null and , void." 5 vii..-F a `rok o, ;s I el'aivccpAivt44131e- A key issue with regards to the above proposed condition is whether to Board of Supervisors would have the authority to grant approval of this kind. The Virgi Se I Sinclair v. New Lingular W,_ i_reless PCS, LLC : •• •• I •. •• •' -•• as case law at / egl�ent's�Planning Commission public hearing not supporting such authority. There are several reasons why we believe the current situation is distinguishable. It was the delegation of a legislative action by the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission that the court in Sinclair determined was not allowed. The current situation involves delegation of an administrative action by the Board of Supervisors to County staff. The court in Sinclair stated, 1 "We have held that local governing bodies may delegate administrative or ministerial acts without statutory authorization." The court then provided an example, which involved delegation of authority to a building inspector to grant or refuse an application for a permit to build an asphalt plant in an area zoned for light industrial. The guidelines given the building inspector were that satisfactory evidence must be presented that such establishment"will not adversely affect any contiguous district through the dissemination of smoke, fumes, dust, odor, or noise by reason of vibration and that such establishment will not result in any unusual danger of fire or explosion." In contrast, the Planning Commission in Sinclair was empowered not merely to evaluate but to impose conditions of its own. The current situation is similar to the example of delegation of administrative power that was provided in Sinclair; the Board of Supervisors would be delegating to County staff the power to evaluate certain standards to protect the public welfare. In effect, the proposed condition is no different than the previous nine conditions. For instance, the conditions imposing hours of operation restrictions and the implementation of a van pool must be evaluated as satisfactory by County staff. Similarly, the tenth imposed by the Board of Supervisors, if accepted,would delegate evaluative authority to County staff to determine if the provided traffic data is satisfactory to the stated standard of the absence of a pattern of crashes attributable to the School. The court in Sinclair noted the importance of the ability of local government to delegate power, stating, "...a local governing body must work through some instrumentality or agency to perform its duties, since it does not sit continuously." The court continued, "Under the changing circumstances of life, it is frequently necessary that power be delegated to an agent to determine some fact or state of things upon which the legislative body may make laws operative. Otherwise the wheels of government would cease to operate." The only limitation on such authority to delegate administrative actions is that the standards prescribed for guidance must be as reasonably precise as the subject matter requires or permits. We believe ascertaining whether a "pattern of crashes" is specifically attributable to the School is sufficiently precise but we welcome any input that would enable even further precision. We look forward to meeting with each of you and thank you for taking the time to help us to enable the School to avoid the costly burden of a possible fifth special use permit amendment. Sincerely, Valerie W. Long 32940691_1 2 ar as-�7 chrua ^� � Cos — v! -t1 0 ' S � Al . 6_0 1 A • Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:49 PM To: 'Scro, Nicole' Cc: Stephanie Mallory Subject: RE: Regents School of Charlottesville (SP 2016-00025) - follow up, set up meeting w/ County Attorney, Planning,Zoning and Transportation Planner Nicole, A„ RE: Regents School of Charlottesville .P 2016-00025)-follow up,set up meeting w/County Attorney,Planning, Zoning and Transportation Planner Your item is scheduled for the BOS , eeting o April 12t'' We have already missed the deadlines to have any advertisement sent for the March 8th BOS.meets ; itionally that meeting was full with some very large items: Rio Rd Small Area Plan&The County Budget. April 12t'is the soonest date you can get to the Board for this item. I had started a nice explanation email w/all those folks you requested at a meeting but seeing you just sent a meeting request to everyone, I deleted it.No worries. I understand time is of the essence here. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development 'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:29 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Regents-follow up, set up meeting w/County Attorney, Planning and Transportation Hi Chris, I was able to gather the relevant staff emails from Valerie and the County's website so I'm going to send out an email to try to get something scheduled. Let me know when we are scheduled for the BOS though and if we can get on the March schedule (if not,then we can't do April 5). Thanks again, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen . t" t Main St Suite Charlottesville, te 100 I :r9, -0(402-3200 m .9 I. I 1 C 631.513.5-180 ( F 43t - i GF.7 I nscro©Qwilliamsmullen.com j ifirkivistfilillarristirkilioniconti Ni i M I *. i fo 1 a. .in contained in this traiminissign to the named ed addresse v is proprietary ietar'and is subject to attorney-client privilege . . work k! , .i ht confidentiality. it the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee, ,e recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information.... r.to-:'j without in. any y or distribution thereof, 1 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:45 PM To: 'Scro, Nicole' Cc: Ron Higgins;Amelia McCulley; Francis MacCall Subject: RE: Regents School of Charlottesville - Proposed Automatic Expiration Condition Ron Higgins or Amelia McCulley or someone else from Zoning should be at this meeting too. Ron won't be back till Feb 21 and Amelia is out till the 22"d. I do not assume this meeting will be scheduled before they get back but I'll CC Francis to your email request just to assure he knows about the request so we can get the wheels spinning. Thanks From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:38 PM To:John Blair<jblair@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott <kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Cc: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents School of Charlottesville - Proposed Automatic Expiration Condition John, David, Kevin and Chris, I hope you are all doing well. I am working with Chris Perez on the Regents School's amendment to its special use permit.As you all may know, we are proposing removal of a "sunset" provision or expiration of the SUP. However we think a compromise may be inserting conditional language allowing for the automatic termination of the sunset provision upon meeting certain standards related to traffic.We are hoping to avoid Regents having to come back for a fifth time to amend their SUP. We are working on a proposal of exact language of the condition and other relevant information that we will send out to you all shortly. However,we would like to get a meeting scheduled on the books fairly quickly as we are short on time before we go to the Board of Supervisors. Is there a good time/day that works, perhaps next week, for each of you?We can do Monday until 230,Tuesday 330- 500 or lunchtime,or Wednesday/Thursday has large chunks of free time. Please let us know what works best and we hope to send out more information by the end of the week. Thank you, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen p ;�� t:; .,t ivi r;l3:` t Suite 400 I 4tt �� . tf p`_-�V' \IA!L } /'.:a c'.;`31 ric/2C 631,533 _t' r1, 2 .l.0t 77 nscro@williamsmullen.conl ... ,1,,..<<9. _€� , ,c:um NOTICE n or. ,..tion contalned tc,the WTI(v, ,__SS. IS , etar Ha,I ,f' to atto '}'�f�I F,J;t. arid c.(, (IrlC iL 3.;tyt.t.C`,tec tsts U ;_ rv_ .. named .£_,?t I:' , til' i, t scoc,r4 ; iinrormaLon t ,ss.ofted with;ui ro,smrio ary c y or dist 1 ikrod Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 10:31 AM To: 'Scro, Nicole' Cc: Valerie Long; David Benish Subject: FW: Regents School - Meeting to Clarify Traffic Nicole, Thanks for writing me, see all my responses/findings below in red. I hope this helps clear things up. Hi Chris, I hope you are doing well and thank you again for your help throughout this process. We were hoping we could meet either at your offices or simply talk by phone. I am hoping this email will suffice. We want to clarify a few things before we come before the Board and we are worried that some confusion might be generated from last night's public hearing. Understood. 4 _ Our first concern relates to how much current traf data there is-we want to be sure the Board knows that there has been 2.5 years of traffic data(I -3:'. this is a false statement, there has not been 2.5 years of traffic data, the study only provided data fro e 9-201 o 7-31-2016, see explanation and calculations below). The previous SP was approved in August • i 4, and higher enrollment numbers were implemented immediately. Aug 13, 2014 is when the school SP was approved, but the date of the pork chop was installed matters most, as this is when the new traffic pattern went into effect. The Major Site Plan Amendment approving the design/installation of the pork chop was not approved till 12-10-2014 be of incorrect signage/location; however, I visited the site on Oct 16, 2014 and the porkchop was installed w/incorrect signage locations. For arguments sake, and for purposes of calculating the time in which the new traffic pattern was in place let us assume the school installed it per the conditions of the SP (within 30 days of the approval = Sept 13,2014 pork chop installed). So-traffic data has been generated for the 2014-2015 school year(Per recent conversations with the headmaster,the `school year' starts: from August 28th and goes till May 3rd/or June 20. 2014-2015 school year: Sept 13,2014—June 29,2015 (9 months 16 days) 2015-2016 school year: Aug 28,2015—June 29,2016 (10 months 2 days) 2016-2017: The traffic study only provided crash data up to 7-31-2016. For a total of 1 year 7 months and 18 days, of applicable traffic data when school was in session, not omitting weekends or holidays. Other time calculations: total time covered in the traffic data since the pork chop was installed(1 year, 10 months, and 18 days), total time since SP2014-5 was approved regardless of traffic data as a consideration 2 years 6 months. The above does seem to be a slight error in my staff report on page 4 (see below an excerpt). I will work with David to assure this is corrected through a transmittal sheet to the BOS, to read: "However, this assessment is based on 1 year and 10 months and 18 days of data (or nearly 2 full school years). " 1 To date,available traffic information does not indicate there is a significant traffic issue resulting from the increased enrollment previously approved.However,this assessment is based on 2 years of data(or I lull school year).The County's Transportation Planner has recommended that live years of crash data is preferable to 2 years of data in order to prevent potential safety hazards that may become evident in the years to come.A five-year study is the standard relied upon by traffic engineers to analyze traffic and accident trends for existing site conditions.It is staffs opinion that in order to make a recommendation in favor of omitting the sunset clause,as the applicant has requested,that more time would have had to have passed to assess the true traffic impacts of the use with the modified entrance,the current school traffic levels,and other access management strategies occurring onsite(vambus pool).Staff does not recommend removing a sunset clause to SP20I60025 Regema Scout utClwlwionlk IRS(1 Planning Commission:February 7.:017 a Let us know if you think differently! We just want to be sure the correct information is presented. Our second concern relates to representing what we are/have been requesting versus what the Board has previously imposed. We had previously asked for a longer sunset period(5 years from 2014) but the Board imposed a shorter one (3 years) so it could check in. From our reading of the minutes, the Board never considered a longer period due to concern that 3 years would not generate sufficient traffic data. After having jumped back into the minutes, I am in agreeance on this, and I will correct this in my presentation to the Board. Nothing in the staff report needs to changed. All the changes with regard to the 5 years are in my presentation; this is where the 5 years timeframe got muddled. The Board floated a bunch of time frames, 5 years, 3 year, 2 years, and the final decision was 3 years to make a final decision/check in and see. This issue is important to us so please let us know how you came to a different conclusion. Attached is a copy of the minutes in case you do not have one handy (the sunset timeframe discussion begins on page 11). The minutes were already apart of my staff report to the PC and BOS. Notably the above does not change how staff got to 5 years of traffic data being needed to fully assess the long- term traffic impacts of the site and for any traffic issues to become evident. This is being provided to the Board as the time needed per recommendation of the County's transportation planner, etc. This is staff's best professional judgement of what we feel would be needed to make this assessment, regardless of the Board's 3 years that they approved in 2014. We would love the opportunity to discuss these issues with you. Please let us know what works best. Thank you again, Nicole Nicole Scro Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St.Suite 400 I Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscroCafwilliamsmullen.com I www.williarnsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. • 2 .11010. adm, Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 12:47 PM To: 'Long, Valerie' Cc: Elaine Echols; David Benish; Ron Higgins; Greg Kamptner Subject: RE: Regents School of Charlottesville (SP 2016-00025) Valerie, RE: Regents School of Charlottesville (SP 2016-00025) - Public Hearing 2-7-17 at 6pm Recommended condition#9 in staff report: "SP-2014-00005 shall expire on August 13, 2021." Applicant suggested modification to the condition: "If after 3 years from the date of the approval of this Special Use Permit, no traffic crash hotspots have been identified by Albemarle County staff or VDOT that are specifically attributable to the Regents School use, condition #9 shall become null and void. " The problem I have with the reworded condition is it puts the burden on the County to have to check in on the traffic issues 3 or 4 years down the road. What is going to push this item back to the top of the stacks for staff to review and to pull traffic data, gauge citizen feedback on the proposal, etc?Also, if such a traffic problem is identified by staff at that time, then what happens?Would we then write the school notifying them of the issue and that they need to come in for a SP amendment before when? I am really behind the 8-ball on a couple large projects that need my immediate attention, I will not be able to spend any more time on the above discussion prior to the PC meeting tomorrow night. If you would like you can bring the suggestion up at the PC meeting and see what the Commission thinks. After the meeting, we'll have more time to bring in Zoning, the County Attorney, and you for discussion on a modified condition for the BOS to consider when reviewing/taking an action on your proposal. Hope this helps. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Long,Valerie [mailto:vlong@williamsmullen.comj Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 12:13 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Regents School of Charlottesville (SP 2016-00025) Chris, I just left you a voicemail about this general concept, but wanted to discuss it with you. Rather than having the sunset provision extended for another four years to allow time to fully-assess the long-term traffic impacts of the site, which will automatically require the school to come back and amend its SUP if it has not yet found an alternate location, we propose a condition that would have the sunset clause expire UNLESS a true safety problem is identified that is attributable to the school: 1 10. If after 3 years from the date of the approval of this Special Use Permit, no traffic crash hotspots have been identified by Albemarle County staff or VDOT that are specifically attributable to the Regents School use, condition#9 shall becomEi null and void. We think the merits of this proposal is that it provides the County the opportunity to continue to address the long-term traffic impacts of the site which was the goal of the sunset clause in 2014, while also eliminating the need for Regents School to have to go through the expensive SUP amendment process unnecessarily if there have not been any traffic impacts identified that are attributable to the school. It seems to address the needs and goals of the County without imposing an unnecessary burden and expense on the school. I would like to discuss this with you if you have some time today. Let me know when it would be convenient for us to talk by phone or I am happy to come by your office. Thanks,Valerie Valerie Wagner Long I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5709 I C 434-242-6792 I F 434.817.0977 I vlonq©awilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:06 AM To: Stephanie Mallory Subject: PC STAFF REPORT 2-7-17- SP2016-00025_Regents School Attachments: Attachment C - Minutes from the August 13, 2014 Public Hearing of SP2014-5.pdf; Attachment D - Community Meeting Notes 12-8-16.pdf; Attachment E - Current Conditions Traffic Study.pdf; Attachment F - County Transportation Planner Review Comments.pdf; PC STAFF REPORT 2-7-17- SP2016-00025_Regents School.pdf; Attachment A - Action Letter 5P201400005 (Approval w Conditions).pdf; Attachment B - SP2014-00005 Staff Report.pdf Stephanie, RE: SP2016-00025_Regents School Attached is the staff report and all attachments for the above ref project, which is heading to the PC on Feb 7, 2017. Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 1 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:10 AM To: 'Courtney Palumbo' Cc: Stephanie Mallory Subject: RE: Courtney, The Feb 7th PC meeting starts at 6:00 P.M. but I do not know where on the agenda you are at. I presume your item is at the beginning of the meeting. It is best to be there at 6pm. From:Courtney Palumbo [mailto:cpalumbo@regents-school.org] Sent: Monday,January 30, 2017 8:20 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: Hey.. do you have a time on the planning commission meeting? Thank you! Courtney Palumbo 1 N Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:22 PM To: 'Long, Valerie'; Ashley Davies; Scro, Nicole Cc: Stephanie Mallory; David Benish Subject: RE: SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville Ste' 4 (71/4 - Valerie, RE: SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville The February public hearing dates for the PC ar the Th .nd 21". No other items are listed on those meetings at this point in time. Which of these two meetings work best : ou?Please make sure you CC Stephanie& David to your response as I'll be out of the office till Monday, Jan 9th and want to make sure one of them gets this item on the schedule for you. thanks Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Long,Valerie [mailto:vlong@williamsmullen.com] Sent:Wednesday, December 28, 2016 2:23 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com>; Scro, Nicole <nscro@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville 12-22-16 Thank you, Chris, we appreciate your sending these along. We expect that the School will want to proceed to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Can you let us know how soon we could get on the agenda? We will make arrangements to have the legal ad fees paid promptly. Thank you, Valerie Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434.951.5709 From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:05 PM To: Long, Valerie; Davies, Ashley; Scro, Nicole Subject: SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville 12-22-16 Valerie, Ashley, and Nicole, SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville Attached are the review comments for the above ref application.If you choose to resubmit for any reason let me know and I'll assure the 2017 schedule makes it to you. The 2017 resubmittal schedule has not been finalized yet. 1 II Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner War Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 3:38 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) Hi Chris, We had not realized that there was a resubmittal. Was when we submitted the traffic report what counted as a resubmittal?That was never conveyed to us and would result in us losing our first free resubmittal.We had thought the traffic report was simply completing the original 10/17 submittal. Nicole Scro 434.951.5728 nscro@williamsmullen.com From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez©albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:20 AM To: Scro, Nicole Cc: Long, Valerie; Davies, Ashley Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) They are due on the 23rd of Dec. Hope to have them to you by the 22nd. From: Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:07 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) Hi Chris, I hope you had a great weekend. I just wanted to check in on the status of staff comments for Regents School's SUP amendment application (SP 2016-25). Thank you, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscroPwilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:05 PM To: Valerie Long; Ashley Davies; 'Scro, Nicole' Subject: SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville 12-22-16 Attachments: CD1 SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville 12-22-16.pdf Valerie, Ashley, and Nicole, SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville Attached are the review comments for the above ref application.If you choose to resubmit for any reason let me know and I'll assure the 2017 schedule makes it to you. The 2017 resubmittal schedule has not been finalized yet. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 3:38 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments(SP 2016-25) Hi Chris, We had not realized that there was a resubmittal. Was when we submitted the traffic report what counted as a resubmittal?That was never conveyed to us and would result in us losing our first free resubmittal. We had thought the traffic report was simply completing the original 10/17 submittal. Nicole Scro 434.951.5728 nscro@williamsmullen.com From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez©albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:20 AM To: Scro, Nicole Cc: Long, Valerie; Davies, Ashley Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) They are due on the 23rd of Dec. Hope to have them to you by the 22nd. From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:07 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents, Status of Staff Comments(SP 2016-25) Hi Chris, 1 I hope you had a great weekend. I just wanted to check in on the status of staff comments for Regents School's SUP amendment application (SP 2016-25). Thank you, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro@rnilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee, the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 2 • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 December 22, 2016 Valerie Long 321 E. Main Street Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville Dear Ms. Long: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the request to omit condition #9 of SP2014-5 (the SP shall expire on Aug 13, 2017). No increase in enrollment or modifications to the school are requested. Comments from all reviewers are provided below or attached to this letter. There does not appear to be any major issues that need to be addressed in a resubmittal before moving forward to the Planning Commission: Planning Comments (Christopher Perez) After reviewing the above referenced application and taking into consideration review comments from various reviewers provided herein, it is this departments opinion that in order to make a recommendation in favor of omitting the sunset clause that more time would have had to have passed to assess the true traffic impacts of the use with the new "pork chop", the current school traffic levels, and other access management strategies occurring onsite (van pool). Per conversations with our Transportation Planner and VDOT five (5) years of crash data, with current existing conditions, is the standard relied upon time frame used by traffic engineers to analyze traffic and accident trends for existing site conditions. The current traffic pattern for the use has only been in effect for a mere 2 years. Additionally, the school currently only has 108 students enrolled but is permitted up to 130 students. The additional 22 students and additional staff the school is permitted will generate more daily trips if they are not part of the van pool. This department finds no reason to deny the application based on the available traffic data for the site; however, based on a 5 -year time frame discussed above, and the amount of time it takes for crash data to be publically released we recommend the sunset clause be extended by an additional three (3) years. Staff also recommends the applicant be granted an additional one (1) year to allow for another special use permit amendment to be applied for and processed to reconsider the request to omit the sunset clause. Based on these findings staff recommends the sunset clause be extended till Aug 13, 2021. Additionally, I would encourage the school to continue and expand the "van pool' program as discussed at the community meeting. The proposed expansion of the program to a full sized school bus would greatly reduce the number of trips in and out of the site. Transportation Planner Comments (Kevin McDermott) • Comments attached Virginia Department of Transportation Comments (Adam Moore) 0 Comments attached (no objections) Zoning Comments (Ron Higgins) • No objections Engineering Comments (Frank Pohl) • No objections Fire & Rescue Comments (Robbie Gilmer) • No objections Building Inspection Comments (Jay Schlothauer) • No objections Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $288 Cost for newspaper advertisement $215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $215 + actual postage/$1 per owner after50 adjoining owners) $503 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed: $288 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $791 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the some time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at cperez@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3443. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Division 2 .0610, *iiste 40Y A`, 40, ©_• It\ 111P1: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 December 22,2016 Valerie Long 321 E. Main Street Charlottesville VA 22902 RE:SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville Dear Ms. Long: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the request to omit condition#9 of SP2014-5(the SP shall expire on Aug 13,2017). No increase in enrollment or modifications to the school are requested.Comments from all reviewers are provided below or attached to this letter.There does not appear to be any major issues that need to be addressed in a resubmittal before moving forward to the Planning Commission: Planning Comments(Christopher Perez) After reviewing the above referenced application and taking into consideration review comments from various reviewers provided herein,it is this departments opinion that in order to make a recommendation in favor of omitting the sunset clause that more time would have had to have passed to assess the true traffic impacts of the use with the new"pork chop",the current school traffic levels,and other access management strategies occurring onsite(van pool). Per conversations with our Transportation Planner and VDOT five(5)years of crash data,with current existing conditions,is the standard relied upon time frame used by traffic engineers to analyze traffic and accident trends for existing site conditions.The current traffic pattern for the use has only been in effect for a mere 2 years.Additionally,the school currently only has 108 students enrolled but is permitted up to 130 students. The additional 22 students and additional staff the school is permitted will generate more daily trips if they are not part of the van pool. This department finds no reason to deny the application based on the available traffic data for the site;however, based on a 5-year time frame discussed above,and the amount of time it takes for crash data to be publically released we recommend the sunset clause be extended by an additional three(3)years.Staff also recommends the applicant be granted an additional one(1)year to allow for another special use permit amendment to be applied for and processed to reconsider the request to omit the sunset clause. Based on these findings staff recommends the sunset clause be extended till Aug 13,2021. Additionally, I would encourage the school to continue and expand the"van pool"program as discussed at the community meeting.The proposed expansion of the program to a full sized school bus would greatly reduce the number of trips in and out of the site. Transportation Planner Comments(Kevin McDermott) • Comments attached Virginia Department of Transportation Comments(Adam Moore) • Comments attached(no objections) 1 Zoning Comments(Ron Higgins) • No objections Engineering Comments(Frank Pohl) • No objections Fire&Rescue Comments(Robbie Gilmer) • No objections Building Inspection Comments(Jay Schlothauer) • No objections Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after Receipt of Comment Letter"which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form.There is no fee for the first resubmittal.The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission,payment of the following fees is needed: $288 Cost for newspaper advertisement $215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners(minimum$215+actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $503 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing,payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed: $288 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $791 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at cperez@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832,ext. 3443. Sincerely, /�w J Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Division 2 40 A ",t �IttGi131� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Perez; Senior Planner FROM: Kevin McDermott,Principal Planner-Transportation DATE: 11/23/2016 RE: SP-2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville;Transportation Planning Review Following are comments and questions regarding the above referenced Special Use Permit application related to the review of the submitted traffic study and application information. Enrollment at the school is 108 students and sixteen staff members at the time this traffic study was conducted. The number of AM and PM peak hour trips and PM peak fifteen minute trips have increased since the 2014 traffic study (only 45 minutes are provided for comparison in the PM).However,with the installation of the forced turn island at the entrance of the school,egress queues have been reduced to an acceptable number.The observed activity showed no more than two vehicles queued up at any time during the peak hours.There have been no crashes at the entrance to the site related to school traffic since the installation of the forced turn island. Turn lane queues on US 250 are also reasonable according to the updated traffic study.With the current queue conditions staff has no concerns related to unsafe movements occurring as a result of long wait times to exit or enter the property. Overall,traffic in the US 250 Corridor continues to increase resulting in worsening congestion conditions especially during peak hours.The morning peak period for the corridor coincides with the peak period for school traffic,however, the afternoon peaks do not coincide. Crashes within the US 250 West Corridor overall also continue to increase from 57 crashes in 2011 to 72 crashes in 2015(Route 240/Three Notched Road to Route 29). Crashes are prevalent throughout the corridor including in the area of Broomley Road and the school entrance,however,it does not appear that the school has contributed to the high number of crashes in any discernable manner. There are no identified crash hotspots in the vicinity to the west of the school entrance where school traffic could be making left turns in order to return to the Charlottesville area after leaving the school. Staff pulled crash data for the All Saints Anglican Church where the school has an agreement to accommodate a traffic turn around and there was no apparent crash increase in the area that could be attributable to the school. One angle crash did occur in the past year that could possibly have been related to the school turn around traffic although there is no way to identify it as such other than the type of crash and date and time. Staff sees no reason to deny the application based on the traffic data available.However,I would recommend a sunset clause be instituted in order to allow additional review of traffic over a longer period with the current school traffic levels and access management occurring on site. The current two-year period for which data is available is not really sufficient to determine potential problems. Additionally,I would encourage the school to continue operation of the shuttle van and if possible expand the program. The remote location on a busy highway and fact that the school draws most students from more than a mile away makes bicycle and pedestrian options unavailable.Therefore,improving van or bus service provides the best option for reducing the vehicular traffic. General Notes/Comments on Traffic Report • Text references one left turn exiting site but this is not shown in the table. • Confirm that the table is showing all traffic exiting site during the peak period not just apparent school related traffic. • Additional information on the van ridership would be informative to present. • Under the morning site review notes was the traffic queueing on 250 EB past the school turn lane?Was this from the signal at the UVA health center site? • In the afternoon Total Vehicle Traffic table why is one EB thru movement shown? Cc: COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper Virginia 22701 Commissioner December 13, 2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Regents School of Charlottesville SP -2016-00220 Review #1 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced application as submitted by Valerie Long, dated 17 October 2016, and find it to be generally acceptable. The entrance appears to be functioning sufficiently, as designed, for the proposed enrollment. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found hare. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. 4 FURMVICKINIAMA %P# Ut AMWM % DACC P44 RV %601 kfttv. go Cly Ov. imesubmittal ol f information for C I Special Use Permit PR0JF(T Nt'%IBFR THAT JIAS OFFN SP2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesv& 0% ner/AppLicang Nlu%# Read and Sign hercb%, muN that the information provided with this resubmatuil is what has been requested from stall" Signature cot' Oumm, Conuf=-.1PUWhw4-,t Print Name Iritic Djytmw pit mc number ol'Sigmlor% FEES If., biwi it] 41 fi t, r n i ) n I i t -,i I 10 f I Fm ougmal Sjwval ( 7,,e Petftt kv of $1,073 1:mA (tsubtfiL'Sten 11'401W.. VAOD "DIEN a Hk RUM MILV%WN ll -o WAUL 90 9NA AM. S9 kl•Vl J L;ii:h;-xWituu=l tcs&mis-iton I I u HE P.O.ID % 111E% fl ffl- flu-sk 00MADEUP IN V%kk MAK) ai Fol 011girw NfWW UW llcirmt fix U132,M) OtlY, PA R)VVI L% A mi. 141F.S4 w4mr.Z..lax N,%L� &F lo 6.K -s rmq) t mkl ithwull mmAU41 i ks sto D I I't ". )A k, V%l DU t# Q, -,, T I 11. if P. sq 4 kl Ix"14 b-% I N q 3, P j i1s1.141 ltt0 1 1 i I Counn 4 Itr DepArcowne of CG1-J)'r41"),)JFy Pt's 0 fseaent 401 Me I nfirt Mi, VA 22"2 Ve4v; �434 I . ,3,2 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Pft- Wd I Ir -P-01 -5. Pale I of I 5 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:05 PM To: 'Scro, Nicole' Cc: Valerie Long; Ashley Davies Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) Attachments: RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014-00005 Nicole, Your application has not been resubmitted.This is still the initial review. You still have your"free/included resubmittal" which has yet to be used. Because you submitted the traffic study so late in the game,your item was pushed to the next review schedule to allow everyone to actually review the traffic study in your 1St submittal,this was conveyed to you in the attached email. All reviewer's comments are due to me by the 16th and my comments to you are due the 23rd From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 3:38 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments(SP 2016-25) Hi Chris, We had not realized that there was a resubmittal. Was when we submitted the traffic report what counted as a resubmittal?That was never conveyed to us and would result in us losing our first free resubmittal. We had thought the traffic report was simply completing the original 10/17 submittal. Nicole Scro 434.951.5728 nscro@williamsmullen.com From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:20 AM To: Scro, Nicole Cc: Long, Valerie; Davies, Ashley Subject: RE: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) They are due on the 23rd of Dec. Hope to have them to you by the 22nd. From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:07 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents, Status of Staff Comments (SP 2016-25) Hi Chris, 1 *rrr' I hope you had a great weekend. I just wanted to check in on the status of staff comments for Regents School's SUP amendment application (SP 2016-25). Thank you, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro@williamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee, the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:11 PM To: Frank Pohl; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT); Kevin McDermott Cc: Christopher Perez; 'Davies, Ashley'; Scro, Nicole;Valerie Long; David Benish Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014-00005 Attachments: Regents 2016 Traffic Report final.pdf All, RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP- 2014-00005 The applicant of the above referenced application has submitted the requested traffic study for review. Comments were due from you all by December 2nd; however, with this late breaking traffic study we're going to postpone that due date till December 16, 2016 to allow you to incorporate the study into your review. Attached is a copy of the traffic report of existing conditions onsite, please review this document and utilize it in your review. I will also provide you a hard copy of this report in your mailbox along with a revised transmittal sheet. Thank you Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 3:13 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents School of Charlottesville-Traffic Report Hi Chris, Thank you for compiling the neighbor invitation list.As Ashley mentioned, we are hoping to have a community meeting on Thursday, December 8th at 6pm at the school. I also wanted to submit Regent's traffic report. I'm sorry we did not get this to you earlier but please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks again, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscroawilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com 1 NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product ,r confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 2 wrw -yw Christopher Perez From: Karen Firehock Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 4:52 PM To: Valerie Long; Christopher Perez Cc: Liz Palmer; Diantha Mckeel; Russell Lafferty; Scro, Nicole; Diantha McKeel Subject: RE: Regents School of Charlottesville Hello Valier, I hope you get this message. My truck had a major repair issues (more than its value)and I can't drive it -- I am at the Toyota Dealer trying to come up with other solutions. Cheers, Karen Karen Firehock, Planning Commissioner Samuel Miller District Albemarle County, VA mobile: 434-249-2492 From: Long, Valerie [vlong@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:55 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Liz Palmer; Diantha Mckeel; Russell Lafferty; Karen Firehock; Scro, Nicole; Diantha McKeel Subject: RE: Regents School of Charlottesville The community meeting is still on as scheduled. Liz Palmer indicated in an email that she will be able to attend a portion of the meeting, but will be arriving late due to another meeting she had already committed to attending. We sincerely appreciate everyone's flexibility and efforts to attend. As a reminder,the meeting will start at 6:00 pm, and is being held in the Library at the Regents School. We do not have a set end time, but are happy to stay as long as anyone may like. If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you,Valerie Valerie Wagner Long I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5709'1 C 434-242-6792 I F 434.817.0977 1 viong@williamsmullen.com 1 www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:14 AM To: Long, Valerie Cc: Liz Palmer; Diantha Mckeel; Russell Lafferty; Karen Firehock; Scro, Nicole; Diantha McKeel Subject: RE: Regents School of Charlottesville Valerie, RE: Regents School of Charlottesville 1 Nov ‘1400 I'm checking on the status of the community meeting. Are we still on for the 8th of Dec (tomorrow) or did you and Diantha agree to move it to the 15th or later? From: Diantha McKee! Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 5:01 PM To:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Cc: Liz Palmer<Ipalmer@albemarle.org>; Diantha Mckeel<diantha.mckeel@gmail.com>; Russell Lafferty <rlafferty@gmail.com>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Karen Firehock<kfirehock@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Regents School of Charlottesville Hi Valerie! I know the Dec 8th community meeting letters have gone out. Have you decided to go forward with that date or reschedule to the Dec 15th or later date? I may have missed an email.... Thanks! Diantha Diantha McKee! Albemarle County Supervisor Sent from my iPhone! Please excuse typos and brevity. On Nov 30, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org> wrote: Thanks Valerie. I know these glitches happen. The only Dec. date that works for me is Thursday Dec 15th. Seems like you are in a hurry....but January also works. Liz, what say you? Diantha Diantha McKeel Albemarle County Supervisor Sent from my iPhone! Please excuse typos and brevity. On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Long, Valerie<vlong@williamsmullen.com>wrote: Dear Liz and Diantha: I owe you both two apologies—one for my delay in responding to your quick responses. And two,for not checking with you before we scheduled the Community Meeting. That is entirely my fault, I usually check,and frankly, I just got caught up in the realization that we needed to get it scheduled, get the list of neighbors to invite from the County,secure the room, etc. , that I left off the two most important people. I sincerely apologize for my oversight. I have been struggling with how to handle this, and I have a couple of suggestions, although I am certainly open to other ideas. (1) reschedule the meeting for December 12, 13, 15 or 19. If one of those dates works for you,we can get replacement letters out quickly tomorrow(and emails to those for whom we have emails); (2) reschedule the 2 *arso *id meeting for a date in early January that is convenient for you both. I think the week of January 9th would work. If at all possible we would like to find a date in December that works so that we can have the community meeting within the guidelines the Community Development Department publishes for community meetings. I also wanted to address Liz's question about the number of students at the Ivy Road location this year. Starting with the August, 2016 semester,there are at most 108 students at the Ivy Road location (it may be as few as 105, I am awaiting confirmation from the school to this question, as I had both 105 and 108 in my notes). This is an increase of 12 students over the enrollment that was in place at the time of the 2014 special use permit amendment. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you, Valerie Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434.9513709 From: Diantha McKeel [mailto:dmckeel©albemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 3:17 PM To: Long, Valerie Cc: Liz Palmer; Diantha Mckeel Subject: Re: Regents School of Charlottesville Hi again! Like Liz, I cannot make the community meeting. My understanding has been that staff checks with the "supervisor of record" before scheduling this type of meeting. Have I missed a request or email? Knowing my unavailability, I would check with Liz regarding her calendar as she represents the areas adjoining areas. Seems that neither of us will be able to attend. Thanks, Diantha Diantha McKeel Albemarle County Supervisor Sent from my iPhone! Please excuse typos and brevity. On Nov 25, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Diantha Mckeel <diantha.mckeel@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Valerie! I am forwarding this email to my AC account. Will respond from there. Hope you have had a lovely Thanksgiving. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: 3 I From: "Long, Valerie" <vlong@williamsmullen.com> Date: November 24, 2016 at 11:12:42 AM GMT+13 To: Diantha Mckeel <diantha.mckeel@grail.com>, Liz Palmer <I p alm er(a,alb em arl e.org> Subject: Regents School of Charlottesville Dear Diantha and Liz, As you may remember, in 2014 we assisted the Regents School of Charlottesville with the final steps of its special use permit application to increase its school enrollment to 130 students. I know that this was not an application that either of you felt you could support, and that you received input from residents of your districts about the proposal. At the time the 2014 SUP amendment was approved,the Board incorporated a sunset provision into the conditions of approval to ensure that it had an opportunity to revisit the issues and to ensure that the potential traffic concerns resulting from the increased enrollment were effectively mitigated. Since then, Regents School has taken steps to minimize any traffic impacts, such as implementing a physical barrier against left turns out of the School property onto Route 250, implementing a van-pool system for students, and creating a culture of strict compliance with the conditions of approval of the 2014 SUP amendment. Since 2014 Regents School has continued to search for a new home in the community, and was able to move its upper school to a location in the City as of this school year, such that only the lower school is at the Ivy Road location. At this time, however, it has not yet secured a new permanent location where the entire school can be together, although its diligent efforts continue. Given that we believe the traffic impacts have been effectively addressed (and we have a traffic study update that we will share) and that the school has not yet secured a new location, we recently submitted an application to amend the 2014 SUP to remove the sunset provision. As part of the SUP application,we are hosting a community meeting to share information with the community about the request. We have scheduled this meeting for Thursday, December 8th at Regents School, and I have attached a copy of the invitation that we sent out today to nearby landowners and neighbors. The list of landowners that we sent the invitation to was provided by the Planner in the Community Development department. 4 At the community meeting we will share more detailed information about the proposal, answer questions from the community, and address any concerns that are raised. We would welcome your attendance if it is convenient for you to attend the meeting. In the meantime, I would be pleased to meet with either or both of you to discuss the proposal in more detail. I would also invite you to tour the Regents School, meet with Courtney Palumbo, the Head of School, and learn more about Regents School generally. I recently toured the lower school and was impressed with how well they have adapted to a temporary space. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss the proposal, or if you would like to set up a meeting or a tour. Perhaps it would be helpful for us to meet in advance of the community meeting? I realize you will both be busy celebrating Thanksgiving with your families this weekend, and certainly do not expect you to reach out before the weekend is over, but please know that you can contact me at any time you wish. My office number and cell phone number are below. With thanks, and best wishes for a joyous Thanksgiving Valerie Valerie Wagner Long I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5709 I C 434-242-6792 I F 434.817.0977 I vlong©williamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. <Regents Community Meeting Invitation.pdf> 5 bale CS,pF ALptt, .11.I.ii t• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Perez;Senior Planner FROM: Kevin McDermott,Principal Planner-Transportation DATE: 11/23/2016 RE: SP-2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville;Transportation Planning Review Following are comments and questions regarding the above referenced Special Use Permit application related to the review of the submitted traffic study and application information. Enrollment at the school is 108 students and sixteen staff members at the time this traffic study was conducted. The number of AM and PM peak hour trips and PM peak fifteen minute trips have increased since the 2014 traffic study (only 45 minutes are provided for comparison in the PM).However,with the installation of the forced turn island at the entrance of the school,egress queues have been reduced to an acceptable number.The observed activity showed no more than two vehicles queued up at any time during the peak hours.There have been no crashes at the entrance to the site related to school traffic since the installation of the forced turn island. Turn 1 ena queues on US 250 are also reasonable according to the updated traffic study. With the current queue conditions staff has no concerns related to unsafe movements occurring as a result of long wait times to exit or enter the property. t/ Overall,traffic in the US 250 Corridor continues to increase resulting in worsening congestion conditions especially during peak hours.The morning peak period for the corridor coincides with the peak period for school traffic,however, the afternoon peaks do not coincide. Crashes within the US 250 West Corridor overall also continue to increase from 57 crashes in 2011 to 72 crashes in 2015(Route 240/Three Notched Road to Route 29).Crashes are prevalent throughout the corridor including in the area of Broomley Road and the school entrance,however,it does not appear that the school has contributed to the high / number of crashes in any discernable manner.There are no identified crash hotspots m t e mini y o e west o t e ✓/ school entrance where school traffic could be making left turns in order to return to the Charlottesville area after leaving the school. Staff pulled crash data for the All Saints Anglican Church where the school has an agreement to accommodate a traffic turn around and there was no apparent crash increase in the area that could be attributable to the school.One angle crash did occur in the past year that could possibly have been related to the school turn around traffic although there is no way to identify it as such other than the type of crash and date and time. Staff sees no reason to deny the application based on the traffic data available.However,I would recommend a sunset clause be instituted in order to allow additional review of traffic over a longer period with the current school traffic levels and access management occurring on site. The current two-year period for which data is available is not really sufficient to determine potential problems. Additionally,I would encourage the school to continue operation of the shuttle van and if possible expand the program. The remote location on a busy highway and fact that the school draws most students from more than a mile away makes bicycle and pedestrian options unavailable.Therefore,improving van or bus service provides the best option for reducing the vehicular traffic. General Notes/Comments on Traffic Report • Text references one left turn exiting site but this is not shown in the table. • Confirm that the table is showing all traffic exiting site during the peak period not just apparent school related traffic. • Additional information on the van ridership would be informative to present. • Under the morning site review notes was the traffic queueing on 250 EB past the school turn lane?Was this from the signal at the UVA health center site? • In the afternoon Total Vehicle Traffic table why is one EB thru movement shown? Cc: • 0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Perez; Senior Planner FROM: Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner - Transportation DATE: 11/23/2016 RE: SP -2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville; Transportation Planning Review Following are comments and questions regarding the above referenced Special Use Permit application related to the review of the submitted traffic study and application information. Enrollment at the school is 108 students and sixteen staff members at the time this traffic study was conducted. The number of AM and PM peak hour trips and PM peak fifteen minute trips have increased since the 2014 traffic study (only 45 minutes are provided for comparison in the PM). However, with the installation of the forced turn island at the entrance of the school, egress queues have been reduced to an acceptable number. The observed activity showed no more than two vehicles queued up at any time during the peak hours. There have been no crashes at the entrance to the site related to school traffic since the installation of the forced turn island. Turn lane queues on US 250 are also reasonable according to the updated traffic study. With the current queue conditions staff has no concerns related to unsafe movements occurring as a result of long wait times to exit or enter the property. Overall, traffic in the US 250 Corridor continues to increase resulting in worsening congestion conditions especially during peak hours. The morning peak period for the corridor coincides with the peak period for school traffic, however, the afternoon peaks do not coincide. Crashes within the US 250 West Corridor overall also continue to increase from 57 crashes in 2011 to 72 crashes in 2015 (Route 240/Three Notched Road to Route 29). Crashes are prevalent throughout the corridor including in the area of Broomley Road and the school entrance, however, it does not appear that the school has contributed to the high number of crashes in any discernable manner. There are no identified crash hotspots in the vicinity to the west of the school entrance where school traffic could be making left turns in order to return to the Charlottesville area after leaving the school. Staff pulled crash data for the All Saints Anglican Church where the school has an agreement to accommodate a traffic turn around and there was no apparent crash increase in the area that could be attributable to the school. One angle crash did occur in the past year that could possibly have been related to the school turn around traffic although there is no way to identify it as such other than the type of crash and date and time. Staff sees no reason to deny the application based on the traffic data available. However, I would recommend a sunset clause be instituted in order to allow additional review of traffic over a longer period with the current school traffic levels and access management occurring on site. The current two-year period for which data is available is not really sufficient to determine potential problems. Additionally, I would encourage the school to continue operation of the shuttle van and if possible expand the program. The remote location on a busy highway and fact that the school draws most students from more than a mile away makes bicycle and pedestrian options unavailable. Therefore, improving van or bus service provides the best option for reducing the vehicular traffic. General Notes/Comments on Traffic Report • Text references one left turn exiting site but this is not shown in the table. • Confirm that the table is showing all traffic exiting site during the peak period not just apparent school related traffic. • Additional information on the van ridership would be informative to present. • Under the morning site review notes was the traffic queueing on 250 EB past the school turn lane? Was this from the signal at the UVA health center site? • In the afternoon Total Vehicle Traffic table why is one EB thru movement shown? Cc: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE �oF AL*,„, Department Community Development Planning Services Division IOW; 401 McIntire Road North Wing• Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Gf�rciNtr Phone: (434)296-5823 • Fax: (434)972-4035 Transmittal From: Christopher Perez Date: 11/21/16 To: OAdam Moore-VDOT 0 OFrank Pohl-Eng 0 0 }fie v4,‘ ,/)(\eThecM, — izw sPo� ,�l�.. 0 0 0 0 0 JOB #/FILE NAME:SP-2016-25 Regents School of Charlottesville We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or n Under separate cover ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Plats ❑ Specifications n Other # of Date Description Copies 1 11/21/16 traffic study of existing conditions These are transmitted as checked below: ® For review and comments ® For approval n Other Remarks: Comments due date has been modified from Dec 2 to Dec 16th to allow you to incorperate the study into your review. Comments are due in City View or email by: 12/16/16 Signature: Christopher Perez aot VS— .n ems, r Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:11 PM To: Frank Pohl; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT); Kevin McDermott Cc: Christopher Perez; 'Davies, Ashley'; Scro, Nicole;Valerie Long; David Benish Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014-00005 Attachments: Regents 2016 Traffic Report final.pdf All, RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP- 2014-00005 The applicant of the above referenced application has submitted the requested traffic study for review. Comments were due from you all by December 2nd; however, with this late breaking traffic study we're going to postpone that due date till December 16, 2016 to allow you to incorporate the study into your review. Attached is a copy of the traffic report of existing conditions onsite, please review this document and utilize it in your review. I will also provide you a hard copy of this report in your mailbox along with a revised transmittal sheet. Thank you Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 3:13 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc:Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: Regents School of Charlottesville -Traffic Report Hi Chris, Thank you for compiling the neighbor invitation list.As Ashley mentioned, we are hoping to have a community meeting on Thursday, December 8th at 6pm at the school. I also wanted to submit Regent's traffic report. I'm sorry we did not get this to you earlier but please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks again, Nicole Nicole Scro I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St.Suite 400 I Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5728 I C 631.513.5480 I F 434.817.0977 I nscro(awilliamsmullen.com I www.williamsmullen.com 1 • • NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. s ti 2 pfp' EPR, P,C. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" E 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 MEMORANDUM TO: ASHLEY DAVIES FROM: BILL WUENSCH, P.E., PTOE ORGANIZATION: WILLIAMS MULLENS DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2016 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: Re: TRAFFIC CONDITIONS UPDATE MEMO YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: ❑URGENT X FOR YOUR USE ❑ PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE Regents School Traffic Conditions Summary The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize current site access traffic conditions per field observations and a recent entrance traffic count. This is being provided as a comparison to prior traffic conditions per the 201.4 traffic study and approval by the County for the school to expand enrollment. At that time,the school made a commitment to change the site entrance to restrict egress to right-out only, and also provide a van shuttle to the school to help decrease the overall site trip generation. At present,the enrollment at this location is 108 students with a typical staff count of 11 full time and 5 part time employees. Traffic observations were conducted on the afternoon of Tuesday November 1st, and the morning of Wednesday November 2nd, 2016. A summary of observation are as follows: Afternoon of November 1st, 2016 (2:30 to 3:30PM) • At 2:45 a vehicle make a left out the site but it was not associated with the school. • Traffic was heaviest between 2:45 and 3:15PM • At 3:15 the queue at the Broomley Road Signal for the westbound approach backed up past the school entrance. • School traffic was 51 vehicles into the site and 52 vehicles out of the site, thus 103 trips total. In the peak 15 minute period there was total of 56 trips into and out of the site. • In the prior study the count did not include the 2:30 to 2:45 period. Thus from 2:45 to 3:30 there are 89 trips to/from the site. By comparison for the same 45 minute period in the recent count the total was 95 trips to/from the site. This means that there are 1 rr E EPR, P,C. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 currently 6 more trips in the 45 minute peak period. However, in the peak 15 minute period the 2014 PM count had 34 trips as compared to the current count of 56 total trips, for a difference of 22 trips (sum of entering and existing). Interpreting this difference, over a 15 minute period in the current count there was one more car entering of leaving every 40 seconds than in the previous count. The current PM count summary is shown below. Total vehicle traffic NorthBound Eastbound Southbound Westbound Interval starts Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 14:30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 14:45 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 21 27 15:00 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 12 56 15:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 12 • Overall, as observed there was never more than 2 cars in the eastbound left turn queue entering the site. Generally there was only one vehicle in queue as it waited a short time to make the turn into the site. There was no queue for the right turns entering the site. • The egress right turn movement moved with little delay, usually only one car though on a couple occasions there were as many as three cars in queue. Average delay appeared to be very low. • Per observations, there were no "close calls" between the ingress left turn and westbound through movements. There appeared to be sufficient gaps to make this movement. • There were no occasions of school related traffic making the prohibited left turn out of the site. Morning of November 2nd , 2016 (7:30 to 8:30AM) • The shuttle van dropped off at 7:44. There were numerous students dropped off by the van. • At 8:10 the eastbound through movement began to queue up to past the school entrance. This is due to the through volume traffic exceeding the through movement capacity at the downstream signal ( ). • Comparing the 2014 study counts,there were 83 total trips(ingress and egress)versus 103 total trips in the current count. The different of 20 trips over the hour mean that there is on emore car currently every three minutes on average. In the peak 15 minute period the prior count was 53 total trips and the current count is 49 total trips, very similar results. 2 EPR, P,[.. "ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES" EPl R�l C 637 BERKMAR CIRCLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 A summary of the traffic counts is as shown below: Total vehicle traffic NorthBound Eastbound Southbound Westbound Interval starts Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 07:30 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 07:45 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 22 0 0 18 49 08:00 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 17 39 08:15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 5 • Per the observations, there were no violations of the left turn prohibition at the intersection. • Delays of for all vehicles, entering and exiting, was minimal. For the egress queueing there was generally only one car in queue though on a couple occasions there were as many as two cars in the queue. Crash Analysis As part of the investigation, EPR assembled crash data per the VDOT crash database information. Data from 9/2011 thru 6/2016 was summarized and examined. The primary crash pattern in the study area was rear end crashes. The rear end crashes are likely the result of queueing as a result of the traffic signals to the east and west of the school entrance. There were no angle crashes at the school entrance. There were no crashes reported that appear to be attributable to the Regents entrance. The crash diagram is attached to this memorandum. Other Information: • The shuttle van was said to pick up at the Walmart on Route 29. • Vehicle leaving the site are forced per the turn restriction to go west on Route 250. It is unknown where they go to turn around. Per discussion with Ms. Palumbo, it is thought that these vehicles use alternate routes to access 1-64, Earlysville, or perhaps turn around at the All Saints Anglican Church,approximately 1.5 miles to the west, with whom Regents has an agreement to accommodate this traffic. END OF MEMORANDUM Attachments: Crash Diagram 3 NOV' "NNW -aBBBBBB5CI00©0©©00 r . - .. 3 CAN A N P A A A N N co P P ( .-or• • W N N N 0 N N O 0 {/lti• = + A 0 •0 W N 03 P O P V P N N P V V W Co d P 0 NO nV OOO Cn Cn CCn 0 0 Cn Cn 3 en a N W O — gW2 Sk S- CNm0ao .0 70 tt V Cr, •O V 0, v v NO 0 M O 0 el • M \ ACO \ V \ - Co P J Cn \ O P \ N 70 - V O O v P v. \ J v, \ v. \ 'a 70 • m NJ o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 4.3 0 _ o 0 0 0 0 ( y T O • D ta Q N W N AA W O 4. 4 1 m o!, • rn a -, /v y o� m m c, Xi Or 10.E p o a 4.11 N Z w N 00pa • Y (7 CD C) 07 N N N CD D CD N > °- 0 N CD CD -.., 3 �. m N m f-' ,n- 0 0 0 n a 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 CD N 9, fl 0 K 11 ., a 0 a a a a a a s OM o a a a 7 m • F , r a O n .. ••. co •-11....••`, . c •.. (n W OJ Cn •O (n - Cn J 03 OD O 'C N CO •O Cn --i aw „ C� vl 0 0' 0 w 0 O`.. o co 0 ov ov 0 0. 0 o0o 0 O - Y ° � �, -# O D- 0 00a 0 -0 a a a a 0 a s -o -o o -O CD h� p N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 I-% 0."404 , 9 . ,rt B®®®8 088888®8 B D v m I—' �'h 4. zil f W 0 N A (n Co N Cr, P Cn N W N W W • .Q O O N N W W N N N W . •wb O A A 03 O O - O W W OD OD 0 Co V W O -cam ,,; �'*� �' m - o_ o o Cn Cn 00 0„ Cn co v, p o 0 0 o s N J lO J a! L'1:-:'.,. 1 O A P a O W A A •O O N O O O O t a6 , V W (n O N W O Cn U, O W Cn • A W O al o L.: '4 {i` N Cn P \ P 0 P N A. N V f . frit ,!-,At....'. , Q ' 3 W co O N \ N _ N J \ N \ O AT '.:-..t., " . '+ In CNi, W CO V v. 0• P P •O V OD �° a :`-, .w ` ( a �+ „ N N N N N N O N O N O N O N O O O cD "� 4 ' 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O : 'r , .•kt 't. • . N N fJ A Cn W (n co Pco IJ CO A N G) PI-. • c� n r- _ a a a a o a a oD Q � o o g Q o .5 m "$ m m m m rn m rn m - - m a m m m m m 0 LU C µ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 CD co 7 7 7 o o 7 < D N U) a a a a a a a a a a a a a a (-3 N 3 S m A A 'C P W A V N W J V CO Cr. CO -- A C. Cr V) ¢ M" '� N A Cn W Cn A A A C. N 0 N N N Ca (D F C e 4 Cn W •O — P •O _ V 0 V 0O 'C CO — Cn W v 3 B. m ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 `D "2 4•', v 4 (D T illt- 4' -*4-" *,. . . . '•4 '�'ffi m0 m D m cl • m N` ` v • •1 „ Co D z O ., �' �• � r • ..-.r..' i • , .N 4t -- ' , ate '.O ' rt ,tNi vIof U . . =4 t T N �•'o ma.[ b_ .- x x� iii, Q (D O O. 00 r, ....r .. Say ..4 p �.. �`' C7 -0 f71 N v, CD 71 lt m W Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:08 AM To: 'Scro, Nicole' Cc: Ashley Davies;Valerie Long; Francis MacCall; Kevin McDermott; Elaine Echols; Courtneypalumbo@aol.com; cpalumbo@regents-school.org;Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014-00005 Nicole, ,4110 That sounds great. 411.-4; Thank you �• Christopher P.Perez 1 Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virgin: 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Scro, Nicole [mailto:nscro@williamsmulle .com] Sent:Wednesday, November 02, 2016 5:59 P To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.or: Cc:Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmulle .com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McD-rmott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Courtneyp• umbo@aol.com; cpalumbo@regents-school.org;Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Ap• 'cation SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014- 00005 Hi Chris, Thank you for checking in on us with regards to the traffic study. We have been in touch with Bill. He has conducted field observations yesterday and today and says he should have something to us by the beginning of next week. We will forward it along as soon as we have it! Thanks again, Nicole From: Christopher Perez [mailtg:cperez©albemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 12:27 PM To: Scro, Nicole Cc: Davies, Ashley; Long, Valerie; Francis MacCall; Kevin McDermott; Elaine Echols; Courtneypalumbo@aol.com; cpalumbo(d)regents-school.orq; Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014- 00005 Ms. Scro, 1, RE: SP2016-25 Regents School f Charlottesville Amendment of SP2014-5 I'll be the Planner reviewing the above mentioned Special Use Permit. As discussed at the pre application meeting and noted in the mandatory letter, a revised traffic study w/ current conditions is required along with the SP submittal. It appears the traffic study was not submitted w/the SP application and somehow slipped by the County's QC check for acceptance of the SP. Regardless, the County accepted the application and it is being processed/reviewed. It is highly recommended that you submit the study as soon as possible to allow ample time for the various reviewers (VDOT, Engineering, Planning, and Transportation) to review the study and comment on it prior to the SP moving forward to the PC & BOS. This strong recommendation is being provided be the main focus of the last 2 or 3 SP reviews for the school focused primarily on traffic related issues. The pork chop has only been in place for a relatively short time frame which makes it difficult to assure that the crash data accurately reflects the true impacts of the development. Thus the request for the revised traffic study. When do you anticipate submitting the traffic study? The 1st round of written comments are due to the applicant on 12-2-16. Without the traffic study staff will request a resubmittal to include the study.Attached is the last traffic study provided to staff during the SP2014-5 review. Hopefully it'll be relatively painless to have Bill Wuensch revise this study to analyze existing conditions. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Johnathan Newberry Sent:Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:27 PM To:Scro, Nicole<nscro@williamsmullen.com> Cc:Ashley Davies<adavies@williamsmullen.com>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014- 00005 Hi Nicole, Sorry I wasn't able to return your voicemail or emails earlier this afternoon. The information you provided looks good for the accident reports. Do you also plan to provide a revised traffic study? It was mentioned in Chris's email and the application checklist(see attached). His last staff report(for SP201400005) goes into significant detail about the "Threshold Analysis/traffic study" beginning on page 3. I would think this is what he was requesting to be revised, but you may have some additional information that I'm not aware of. Can you please let me know your thoughts?Without a revised study, we'll have the narrative and the accident report for traffic information.That may be fine, but I would like to confirm whether or not more information is forthcoming. I didn't attend the pre-app meeting, so you have a better sense of the discussion. Thanks, .1.rT. Newberry Senior Ilajiller 2 County of Albemarle, I11nin Division 434-296-583',2, ext. :3c O x Other'pedal studios or dowmsntation,11'medicable,and any other Information identified as neo.ssety by tfe county on the pr.-epplic.tion comment form. 1)Revised traffic study 2)Accident reports at this location since the school opened From: Francis MacCall Sent:Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:39 PM To:Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Cc:Scro, Nicole<nscro@williamsmullen.com>;Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>; Stephanie Mallory<smallory@albemarle.org>; Erika Castillo <ecastillo@albemarle.org> Subject:Special Use Permit Application SP-2016-00025 Regents School of Charlottesville Amendment of SP-2014-00005 Mrs. Long, The Special Use Permit application received in the Department of Community Development on 10/17/2016 has been deemed complete by County staff.The applicant must now pay the required fee for this application to be further processed for review. The fee required for SP-2016-00025 is$1075.00 Please provide a check to the front office staff in the Department of Community Development for the amount noted above, payable to the "County of Albemarle", by no later than Tuesday November 1g,2016 If this fee is received after Tuesday November 15Y then your application will be processed with the next round of application submittals. Submittal Schedule Also, please provide a copy of this email along with your check as verification that your fee can be accepted. ADDITIONAL FEES REQUIRED BUT NOT DUE AT THIS TIME. Please note that there will be at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors.Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Special Use Permit may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to you after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be between $400 and $450 per hearing. This estimate reflects the average cost of public notice fees for Special Use Permit applications, but the cost of certain applications may be higher. If applicable any fees for waiver/special exceptions will be required at the time the additional fees noted above are calculated.The current fee for a special exception is$457. Let me know if you have any questions. 3 lierr NNW Francis H. MacCall Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902-4596 ph. 434-296-5832 ext. 3418 fax 434-972-4126 4