HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500024 Other 2017-03-09Elaine Echols
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:19 AM
To: Elaine Echols; Frank Pohl
Subject: RE: Field School - Central Sewerage Systems
It is the part about conformity with the Comprehensive Plan that makes me squirm. If you read the enabling authority
for this section of the County Code (VAC 15.2-2121) you will find it is focused on the technical specifications of the
system and consideration of when they would be required to connect to pubic sewer in the future. There is nothing in
this section to imply a discretionary authority related to Comprehensive Plan goals. If you research further into the
reason this legislation was put into State code to give us the authority, you'll find it was focused on regulating central
systems in areas planned for public services, recognizing a central system might deny a service authority of anticipated
future revenues where debt had been undertaken with the anticipation of service revenues to pay that debt service.
In this case, I consider the conformity with the Comprehensive Plan to be a moot question, as the Board shouldn't have
approved the SP if it wasn't consistent with our Comp Plan. However, for those future cases unrelated to a SP or ZMA
application (e.g. Misty Mountain Campground), I want to make sure Frank understands the authorized basis for his
analysis before providing a report to the Board.
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:21 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Field School - Central Sewerage Systems
Hi Mark —
I forgot to tell you last night that Frank is actually very familiar with this and help write the analysis that is in the staff
report. I guess that with the information we have, Frank needs to do some coordinating with the Health Dept. (I'll ask
Rachel what has been done to date.) We thought we could have included the Board action last night, were it not for the
required notice. Here is what was in the staff report:
REQUEST FOR CENTRAL SEWERAGE SYSTEM:
The applicant is also requesting approval of a central sewerage system for the school use (Attachment G),
which requires approval from the Board. This approval does not require action of the Planning Commission.
The proposed system would consist of a sewer lateral system, collecting waste from three buildings along with
a distribution box and drainfield as seen on the attached exhibit (Attachment D). The plans identify an area for
a primary drainfield and two reserve drainfields. Section 16 of the County Code defines a central sewerage
system as a system designed to serve three or more connections. Primary users of central systems are public
schools and campgrounds in the Rural Area. Though the applicant has not completed a final design for the
private school layout, the applicant anticipates building three separate structures on site: an academic
building, a gymnasium and a dining hall. While the three building connections are for one overall use, they are
considered a central system requiring Board approval.
Use of central sewage systems in the Rural Area is discouraged due to the potential of a proliferation of
residential uses using a central system or the potential for uses that should be in the Development Area to
locate in the Rural Area. They also have a tendency to promote development of a higher intensity. The Board
of Supervisors must hold a public hearing on requests for central water or sewer systems and alternatives to
central systems are encouraged. As part of any request, applicants must provide a justification.
There are several alternatives available to the applicant to avoid the need for the central system. One
alternative is to provide two or three separate systems, each with its own distribution box and primary and
reserve drainfield. This alternative would create a greater area of land disturbance on site because of the need
to construct two or three separate primary and reserve drainfields as well as result in a higher cost and need
for maintenance by the owner.
Another alternative available to the applicant would be to limit the school infrastructure to only one or two
buildings. The applicant's justification for the three building layout is to provide a campus setting for the
students requiring them to transport themselves from one setting to another, which the applicant has stated is
an integral part of their approach to education. If the applicant were to only construct one or two buildings it
would increase the maximum building footprint to a size much larger than the proposed 12,000 square feet.
One or two larger buildings would increase the visual and scenic impacts on the site and the school would
likely be more visible from surrounding properties and the Entrance Corridor. Three smaller buildings of no
more than 12,0000 square feet are more in keeping with the scale and size of other Rural Area uses and will
be easier to screen from surrounding properties.
Staff reviews requests such as this for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and also for technical
feasibility. The County Engineer has reviewed this request and has no objection to the design and location of
the proposed system. County Engineer and Health Department approval of the final system specifications will
be required prior to construction. Regarding conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that
allowing the central system in this case will result in a fewer impacts to scenic and natural resources and
create a better site design. Usage and capacity of the sewerage system would not change for the centralized
system but will allow for three smaller buildings, which will be less visually intrusive to the Rural Area and will
reduce land disturbance. For this reason, staff is supportive of the request and recommends approval of the
proposed central sewerage lateral system for three buildings, as shown on Attachment D.
*We* need to find out about the public hearing advertisement requirements. Hopefully, all the work is done except for
the Health Dept., Frank's writing a blurb, and the advertisement.
Elaine
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:11 AM
To: Frank Pohl <fPohl @albemarle.org>
Cc: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Field School - Central Sewerage Systems
As part of acting on the Field School SP at last night's meeting, the Board also set a public hearing for consideration of a
Central Sewerage System, as required by Chapter 16 of the County Code for April 12th . ( Yes, once again, I am exposing
you to another previously unknown responsibility of the County Engineer.) To be specific, here is the pertinent
ordinance language:
Sec. 16-103 Transmittal of notice and plans for review.
Upon receipt of a notice pursuant to section 16-102, the clerk of the board of supervisors shall transmit a copy of the notice,
and all information accompanying the notice, to the county engineer. The county engineer shall review the notice and
information to determine its compliance with this Code and the policies of the county engineer. The county engineer shall
coordinate his review with the health
department and, when applicable, the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Sec. 16-104 Hearing on proposal.
Upon receipt of a notice pursuant to section 16-102, the clerk of the board of supervisors shall place the proposal on the
agenda of the board of supervisors for consideration of the proposal at a regular meeting of the board. The hearing shall not
be conducted until the county engineer has completed a review of the plans submitted by the applicant. Prior to the meeting at
which the proposal will be considered, the
county engineer shall submit a written recommendation to the board. The applicant shall appear in person when the proposal
is considered by the board.
Elaine has this request and will forward you a copy. This one is on a fast track and I am willing to step in, as I'm already
up to speed on it, but I would also like to use this as a learning opportunity for the future. Historically, Albemarle has
somewhat twisted the intent of the State enabling authority in doing this evaluation. Despite what the Board and most
planners assume, our enabling authority for reviewing these systems is supposed to be focused on areas planned for
future public sewer, rather than be used as a land use tool in our Rural Areas. That hasn't yet blown up in our faces, but
the potential is there. You'll probably see a similar request every few years, just infrequent enough that you don't get
used to doing them. Thus, if I run with this one, it is important for me to bring you up to speed with it.
I'll catch up with your later on this.
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
Elaine Echols
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 5:57 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: FW: Hi Joe, FYI Comments on The Fields School (friend of Diantha)
Attachments: THE FIELD SHOOL APPROVAL ISSUES v 3.0.docx
Importance: High
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
From: Diantha McKeel
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Joel DeNunzio, P.E. <joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>; jeepnewman@aol.com
Subject: FW: Hi Joe, FYI Comments on The Fields School (friend of Diantha)
Importance: High
Joel and Mark, FYI. I will represent these concerns tonight.
Thanks Jeep.
From: jeepnewman@aol.com [mailto:ieepnewman@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 3:04 PM
To: Joel DeNunzio, P.E. <ioel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov>
Subject: Hi Joe, FYI Comments on The Fields School (friend of Diantha)
Jeep Newman 434-825-2428
James W.(Jeep) Newman Jr
THE FIELD SCHOOL ISSUES
TRAFFIC SAFETY! TRAFFIC SAFETY,
WAS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE APPLICATION.
THE ONLY ISSUE IS HOW TO AMELIORATE THE UNSAFE ASPECTS
OF THE HORRENDOUS TOPOGRAPHY, AT THE DESIRED
LOCATION, TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR ANY USE THAT GENERATES
HIGH TRAFFIC, AT CURRENT HIGH TRAFFIC TIMES OF THE DAY.
I. Technical Issues
a. Old survey of properties across the street were used in site plan
which fails to reflect the existence of two additional installed
driveways
b. A much larger area should be used to identify ALL current driveway
and road openings on to Barracks Road including Montvue Drive and
Colthurst Drive.
c. Current entrance should be located opposite an existing road or
driveway.
d. School amended their application, on the fly at the Planning
Commissions Public Hearing, by increasing the allowable student
enrollment from 120 to 150 Students. Shouldn't they be required to
update the site plan and be required to have another meeting?
Traffic Safety- Must have formal traffic study
a. Current Speed limit is 50... actual Speed of vehicles at proposed
entrance 60+ MPH
b. "Barracks Road is a major collector Road" true. Between 7:30 and
9:15 am and between 3 and 6PM every work day, traffic usage is
CURRENTLY extreme and fast. Even today, it is often difficult as
well as dangerous, to turn left out of Montvue Drive. Deceleration
lanes to site, should be at least 500 to 600 feet in both directions-
to enable thou traffic to proceed. The acceleration "merge" lane,
Right turn from site, should be at least 200-250 feet heading East.
c. Speed limit needs to be reduced to 35MPH from Georgetown Road
to Colthurst Drive an hour before and after school day ends and as
well as for any private or school associated function.
d. Standard "Flashing School Zone Signs" must be installed and speed
limit reduced to 25 mph. one hour before school starts and one
hour after school ends. These signs should be installed far east and
west of the school's entrance since the sight distance is limited due
to THE SPEEDS VEHICLES ARE ACTUALLY TRAVELING
e. lust East of Montvue Drive, on the bank of the South Side of
Barracks Road, should be lowered so as to significantly increase the
site distance to the West.
f. I believe the application for The Field School was made before OUT
OF BOUNDS construction began (55 units- not even half of them
are occupied) as well as Stone Field Development which is still
being built -out . These developments have exacerbated the
reduction of "throughput" because of the traffic light at Barracks
Road and Georgetown Road is now FOUR way.
I believe, if substantially all of the foregoing suggestions are not seriously
considered, and addressed, the experience of parents with the lack of safe access
to the school, will greatly hamper enrollment.
Respectively submitted,
March 8, 2017
Jeep Newman, personally, (I live on Barracks Road),
And as a representative of Montvue Home Owners Association
Elaine Echols
From:
Elaine Echols
Sent:
Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:57 PM
To:
'Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)'
Subject:
RE: Field School Staff Report
https://albemarle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2973809&GUID=OA766A18-4605-42E7-B361-5496EC69FF27
See if you can get this from the County's website for the BOS agenda. Please let me know if this doesn't work.
From: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) [mailto:Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:20 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: Field School Staff Report
Elaine,
To follow up my voicemail, Joel and I are looking for the staff report on the Field School application in preparation for
tonight's meeting. Could you send that to me? Thanks,
Adam J. Moore, P.E. I Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
-01 VDOT \\ av I (:harkxresvillc I VA
�
main 434.422.9782
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SHIMCIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERINGa
C_1.>
March 7, 2017
Mr. Mark Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA, 22902
Regarding: Field School of Charlottesville
Traffic Impact Study
Mr. Graham,
The following is a traffic impact analysis for the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road due to the
projected traffic for the Field School of Charlottesville. We found that the overall traffic increase represents a small
percentage of total daily trips and peak hour trips. Of the 16 quarter hour increments that make up rush hour (two
hours in AM and two hours in PM), only one 15 minute increment sees an increase in peak traffic.
The Field School is a private middle school with a maximum enrollment of 150 students, to be located west of the
intersection in question. The school day starts at 9 AM and finishes at 4 PM. According to school officials, incoming
and outgoing traffic is evenly distributed during the time periods of 8:30-9 AM and 3:45-4:15 PM. The highest design
value for Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the school (at full capacity) is 422 trips, which represents 1.9% of
the measured AADT of Barracks Road at the intersection with Georgetown Road. The highest peak hour design
traffic from the school represents 2.6% of measured peak hour traffic at the intersection.
Our study is based on the following assumptions regarding the concentration and direction of peak traffic. We
assumed that all AM peak hour traffic occurs within the 30 minute time intervals just before school starts. All PM peak
hour traffic is assumed to occur in a 30 minute window centered around school letting out. This assumption allows for
a conservative estimate of peak traffic volume. Peak hour traffic data was projected using Online Traffic Impact Study
Software (OTISS). Figures 1 and 2 are derived directly from the OTISS analysis. Regarding direction of traffic, we
assumed that 15% of all trips to and from the school occur west of the school and would therefore not be included in
the Barracks -Georgetown intersection analysis. Of the remaining 85% of trips, 15% of those are assumed to travel to
and from Georgetown Road (12.75% of total trips). 72.25% of the total school trips occur from/to Barracks Road east
of its intersection with Georgetown. The breakdown of peak hour trips in each direction at the intersection is
summarized in Table 2.
The estimated trips to and from the school were added to and compared with existing intersection data collected on
February 23, 2017 by Engineering Planning Resources, P.C. Table 3 shows a comparison of the turns made at the
intersection of Barracks and Georgetown during the peak hour of school traffic, both before and after the school data
was added. Figure 3 accompanies Table 3, providing a visual graphic of each maneuver,
The following Table 1 condenses our results to compare the existing 15-minute peak traffic volume at the four
intersection movements impacted by the school with the projected peak traffic with the school in operation. Because
the peak school traffic does not occur during the same time period as the existing peak traffic, the increases to peak
15-minute intervals are minimal.
Table 1. Comparison of measured daily 15-minute peak traffic to peak traffic with school trips added
Peak
Peak Ex.
Peak
School
Peak
Increase
Traffic
Ex.
Traffic
School
in Peak
Direction
Time
Traffic
Time
Traffic
Hour Trips
Georgetown Southbound
Right
4:15 PM
33
4:00 PM
30
0
Barracks Westbound Thru
5:15 PM
111
4:00 PM
107
0
Barracks Eastbound Thru
7:45 AM
173
8:30 AM
125
0
Barracks Eastbound Left
8:45 AM
37
8:45 AM
41
4
The only 15-minute peak traffic volume that shows an increase from the school is the Barracks Eastbound left at 8:45
AM. There is an increase of 4 cars, approximately 1 car every 4 minutes, during this time.
If you have any questions you may contact me at: justin@shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
Private School (K-S) (W
AVERAGE VF.nIC.:.E TRIP ENDS VS:
Students
ON A:
Weekday
A M Peak Hour of Generator
DIRELltONAL rNSTKIVU I ION
551, enlering 45% eo ping
Data Plot and Equation
All Calcutafed values are Dared on ttte Selected Pl Vine@ Cola Set _
... i
i
I
100
t-
x
too
. k � NumberW student',
Actuat Data Pants Omdt<d Data Ptnn6 fitted c—, - - - A,—Ce c. ,:-
Figure 1.OTISS peak AM school trips
Private School (K-8) (5341
Students .
ON A:
V"dav
P.M Peak Hour of Generator
CAR['
7iONAL DISTAIatITiu N.
47% entering. 53'%exiting
Data Plot and Equation
At calculated values are based on ttre seeded Prmare Data Ser
I
I i
too -
j
90
87 i............... ..... .._..... ..... _.... .. _.____.. _,
I I
It
% _ Nomeer,f stud,,
ACt" Date POlnts 0mrtmd Dale Pants --- fine^
Figure 2. OTISS peak PM school trips
A
Orrvo�s :r� M
e r0� S sk 4d :i c
• � ,� fi thry �,.: ��a� » w � Lbw ,,��,�
l x P i Gm hFIn z
'Al
ARP
In
st If;
"MI
t„
Image Provided by Bing Maps
Figure 3. Intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road
Table 2. OTISS trio count breakdown
AM
PM
Use Description
ITE
Qty
in
out
Total
in
out
Total
Private School
534
150 Students
74
61
135
42
48
90
Alternative Route
11
9
20
6
7
13
From Georgetown
9
8
17
5
6
12
From Barracks
54
44
98
31
35
65
Table 3. Comparison of intersection turns with and without projected school trips
Georgetown Southbound Righl
Barracks Westbound Thru
Barracks Eastbound
Time Interval
Thru Thru Let Left
8:30 - 8:45 A N
21 17
89 62
125 103 40 36
8:45 - 9:00 A N
26 21
95 68
122 100 41 37
4:00 - 4:15 P P4
30 27
107 91
106 98 36 33
With School Traffic
Raw Data
Elaine Echols
From:
Diantha McKeel
Sent:
Friday, March 03, 2017 3:24 PM
To:
Elaine Echols; Greg Jurick
Cc:
Diantha McKeel
Subject:
RE: Field School
Thank you Elaine.
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 2:32 PM
To: Greg Jurick <Greg@myerscornerhomes.com>; Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Field School
Hello Mr. Jurick,
I didn't try to replicate your Google Map history but went to the County's imagery at GIS web for 1996 — 2013. The
photo below is from 2009. The Director of Community Development, who is also a professional engineer, provided this
information:
With respect to potentially building on the fill areas, this comes up on occasion and we routinely require a geotechnical
engineer's report as part of the building permit where we suspect fill. This will often result in a special foundation
design (e.g. piles) or shifting of the building to fit outside of certain areas, but sometimes the engineer comes back and
says it is fine. We noted the fill area back when that activity occurred, so regardless of whether there is a Special Use
Permit for this property, we will expect this to be addressed as part of any building permit that includes this part of the
site.
With respect to the extent of the manmade slopes, I think the first thing to note is that construction of the right turn lane
is pretty clearly exempted from the critical slopes provisions by 18-4.2.6.c because the turn lane must be located with the
entrance and the entrance is fairly well established.
Accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities, and any other public facilities
necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the
requirements of this section 4.2.2, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or
alignment exists.
Next, the grading area shows pretty clearly on the GIS's 2009 orthophotos. I note this photo shows the area just as it
was being stabilized post fill and before the sediment basin control structure was removed. If you want to determine the
extent of manmade slopes, they equal the cleared area in this picture.
With regards to your
question about
providing additional
opportunities for
schooling, the
statement was
intended as a
general statement
about private
schools. You are
correct that this
school will not
provide significantly
more private school
seats than it
currently does. I
believe that the
current enrollment is
under 150 students,
but not much under.
Elaine
From: Greg Jurick
[mailto:Greg@myerscornerhomes.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 11:48 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHO LS@albemarle.or>; Diantha McKee[ <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
Subject: Field School
Elaine,
I received your response letter yesterday concerning the Field School. There are some questions you left
unanswered. I have attached my letter and your letter with the items marked. Would you please answer
these questions? Thank you
Greg Jurick
96 Colthurst Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
2
Elaine Echols
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:13 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: FW: Field School Traffic
FYI, still haven't seen the referenced summary.
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
-----Original Message -----
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:42 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Field School Traffic
Hi Mark,
Fyi, should have a report over to you in an hour or so. Its just a 4 page summary of the peak hour (or peak 1/4 hour in
this case) traffic impacts. As we had suspected they are very low.
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org> wrote:
> Thanks, that will help in case questions come up next week.
> That said, great job wit the CAC the other night. I hope that put the issues to bed, but we'll see.
> Mark B Graham, P.E.
> Director of Community Development
> Albemarle County, Virginia
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin@shimp-engineering.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:56 PM
> To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
> Subject: Field School Traffic
> Hi Mark,
> I've got the trip data in and am working up a diagram showing the various movements before and after the school.
Should have something to you tomorrow.
> Justin Shimp, P.E.
> 434-953-6116
Elaine Echols
From: Greg Jurick <Greg@myerscornerhomes.com>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 11:48 AM
To: Elaine Echols; Diantha McKeel
Subject: Field School
Attachments: Field School.pdf
Elaine,
I received your response letter yesterday concerning the Field School. There are some questions you left
unanswered. I have attached my letter and your letter with the items marked. Would you please answer
these questions? Thank you
Greg Jurick
96 Colthurst Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Febuary 3, 2107
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
401 McIntire Rd, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Rachel,
I would like to address a number of issues and questions I have with
SP201500024 Field School Of Charlottesville. I feel that this SUP is not
being scrutinized by staff in the manner a SUP application that is outside
of the growth area should be scrutinized. I will use the staff report
dated, December 13, 2016 to outline my issues and questions.
Factors Favorable
-Favorable Factors # 1 notes the defined building envelopes restrict
U aSc land disturbance to mostly areas that were previously disturbed for the
fill/waste use on site and leave the majority of the site undeveloped.
This is simply not accurate. On Google Earth you can clearly see the fill
activity as well as preservation of trees that took place by the previous
owner in and around year's 2006- 2009, the building envelopes are
outside of that activity. The Google images that clearly show the fill
activity with the building envelopes outlined are attached. Also, if the
building envelopes are on a fill/waste area, -d ow wou �t iey build on
unsuitable fill? Can staff ask applicant if borings have been done in those
areas to determine if the fill was compacted and placed in a manner that
will support the proposed buildings? Are the proposed building
envelopes locations a condition of a potential approval? They should be
required to keep buildings where proposed.
-Favorable Factor #2 notes that the site offers adequate infrastructure
for the proposed use, including access to public water. It is my
understanding that this property is not in the jurisdictional area/
boundary of the ACSA. To be included in the ACSA jurisdictional area
would require board action. The site does not have public water or
public sewer. How can staff say the site has adequate infrastructure
when access to public water is not guaranteed and when the applicant is
proposing a central sewage system which staff has said is an
unfavorable factor?
-Favorable factor # 3 notes the proposal will provide an additional
e school option for residents of the County. Yet the Field School is already
open at another County location, so this cannot be another additional
school option.
-Therefore there are not any favorable factors to support this
application.
Specific Question/ Comments
1.Staff notes that in 2013, the school applied for a SUP at a location on
Polo Grounds Rd. The SUP was not approved amidst concerns about
traffic on Polo Grounds Rd and at the intersection of RT. 29 & Polo
Grounds Rd. The RT.29 & Polo Grounds Rd intersection is signaled and
Rt.29 is designed for moving massive amounts of vehicles. How can
dumping 419 daily trips pet, day onto Barracks Rd be a better/safer
option than RT.29 and Polo Grounds Rd? Did staff visit the Barrack Rd
location at morning & evening peak traffic flow and observe the traffic?
Why was VDOT not asked to install traffic courting tubes in this location
and get a true sense of the traffic on the road?
2.Staff notes that the proposal will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots. By right development of this site can be no more than two
residential lots. Can you please explain how 32,120SF of building, ball
fields, parking lots and 150 students generating 419 trips pet- day is not
detrimental to adjacent lots and will not have more of an impact than
two homes that generate 20 trips per day?
#3.Staff notes that according to applicant, 80% of the critical slopes to
be graded if requested waiver is granted are man made. Does staff not
verify information submitted by applicants? Can staff ask applicant to
Gk provide evidence detailii irh loues to be graded are manmade? -
e Attached are Google images and contour map showing the critical slopes
needing grading to a ow or t e right hand turn lane. The Goog e
images are outline wit i tt e ct•itica slope in question. The Google
'ages are from years 1994, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2016.
The Google images show no grading
can m images or. In fact, all the a
bf the slopes ss opes and due to their size
activity on this slope as far back as I
:tached pictures s ow trees on most
`. wau ex ect the•�ave been there
muc i longer time than the recent grading work on the property.
dhow was t is s ope create v ttie exist ti ig -en aiice orMthe
t155— one waste area —for-construction debris in 2006-2009? TTie
y shows a swale extending through the site in the
e c ca opes in question. Also, note that B��acks..R_is in.� ..
-filfisectioii at this location. T ie evidence that I have provided supports
the ac t t-c}estien-1s nat man-made.
#4. VDOT is requiring two turn lanes to be built onto Barracks Rd. With
the posted speed of 50rnph, the building of the left turn lane will require
a lane shift with a 500' taper in each direction of the entrance plus left
turn lane itself. In addition the right turn lane will be needed, doubling
the width of the current road. Does applicant have the Right of Way to
accomplish this? Does applicant need private off site grading/ drainage
easements for the left turn lane? If the lanes are a
requirement/condition from_ VDOT, doesn't applicant need to
demonstrate that they have ability to build the turn lane before SUP is
approved?
I would sincerely appreciate a timely response with answers to the
question and concerns I have raised and that this information is shared
with the Supervisors. I feel that the Planning Commission was poorly
informed with misleading information from the applicant and County
planning staff.
Since)
Greg Jurick
96 Colthurst :
Charlottesville
CC:
Diantha McKee]
Albemarle County Supervisor, Board Chair
ANN.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
February 27, 2017
Mr. Greg Jurick
96 Colthurst Drive
Charlottesville, VA
Dear Mr. Jurick:
Thank you for your recent letter which we received on February 8. As you probably know,
Rachel Falkenstein, the coordinating planner, has been out on maternity leave. I am working on
many of her projects while she is gone, including the Field School. This letter is in response to
your questions.
I'm sorry that you have been left with the impression that staff has not fully reviewed or
scrutinized this application. Rachel has coordinated her review with staff, including her
supervisors and the project has been discussed at the level of our Department head. Our
recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval was not made lightly. Policy issues
related to private schools in the Rural Areas were analyzed several times before reaching a
recommendation for approval.
If approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant will have to abide by
the conditions of approval to have and maintain the private school use. These conditions
include, among other things, preservation of areas shown on the concept plan, additional
plantings, and grading only the slopes identified on that plan. The building envelopes have been
shown and are also controlling features of the plan. Buildings, parking, and the playing fields
can only occur in the places shown on the plan.
In your letter, you questioned whether the property is in the ACSA jurisdictional area for public
water and sewer. The property is located in the jurisdictional area for public water only. The on-
line maps show it as such and research was done to make sure this information is correct.
Public sewer service is not available.
You asked whether or not building construction could be approved on fill sites. The answer is,
"yes," as long as the compaction meets building code requirements. Regarding the existence of
man-made slopes on the property and identified on the plan, some of the slopes would have
been created in conjunction with past road widening projects along Barracks Road. Other slope
construction took place with the fill and subsequent reburial of fill material activities in'the mid -
to -late s. va�ll 2./e , '� e. 8 -\�
Traffic along Barracks Road and at the intersection with Georgetown Road has been a concern
of the public and of staff. The applicant provided information on anticipated traffic impacts from
the school. VDOT analyzed the impacts and believes that the road can safely accommodate the
additional traffic from the school with the addition of turn -lanes. The r.o.w, appears to be
sufficient for the road modifications; however, if needed, the applicant can dedicate more r.o.w.
on his property in order to have sufficient area for the improvements. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, staff has asked the applicant to provide some additional information on
impacts to the intersection of Barracks and Georgetown. We expect to provide this information
to the Board of Supervisors in March when the public hearing occurs.
While staff has made its opinion that the school will not create a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots, the Board of Supervisors will ultimately have to decide on the appropriateness of
this use at the proposed location. The proposed use will be more intensive that the current
passive use of the property and more intensive than two single-family residents. However, there
are other by -right uses that could be much more intensive including agricultural uses and farm
wineries, breweries, and distilleries, especially those with events. Staff has worked closely with
the applicant to help mitigate visual and sound impacts at the borders of the property. Staff
acknowledges that your property is much higher than the proposed playing fields and totally
screening it from your view may not be possible. Buffering using additional plantings is
proposed to help mitigate impacts.
Please plan to come to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing on March 8 and make your
concerns known to the Board. As always, they will weigh all factors and make their decisions for
the greatest community good.
Sincerely,
wllc
Jlr LIU,
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
C: Diantha McKeel
Elaine Echols
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) <Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 11:43 AM
To: Mark Graham; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Cc: Elaine Echols
Subject: RE: Field School
Thanks for the information Mark, Diantha asked that I attend the BOS meeting next week so I will have some
information ready to discuss about school speed zones.
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Resident Engineer
VDOT Charlottesville Residenc
434-422-9373
Joel.denunzio@vdot.viroinia.gov
From: Mark Graham [mailto:mgraham@albemarle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:54 AM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT); Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Cc: Elaine Echols
Subject: Field School
Adam and Joel,
Sounds like the Field School is working through the concerns with Barracks Road capacity, but giving you a heads up that
I anticipate a push to have VDOT create a School Zone on Barracks as part of the entrance construction. (Signs, lower
speeds, flashing light)
I assume this would start with a request by the Board to have VDOT evaluate this entrance, but if there is something else
we should be aware of, please let me know. Ideally, if this is going to happen, I believe the Board would like to see it
done as part of the entrance construction.
Thanks,
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
Elaine Echols
From:
Francis MacCall
Sent:
Monday, February 27, 2017 8:38 AM
To:
Elaine Echols; John Blair; Mark Graham
Subject:
RE: Field School
Works for me.
Francis
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 2:53 PM
To: Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; John Blair <jblair@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Field School
Missed one explanation: I've thought about it more and think it is just overkill to give an end time, since the reason for
the "after 6" condition is traffic.
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; John Blair <jblair@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Field School
So, it would look like this:
Non -sporting school -related events with more than fifty (50) attendees shall not occur on site more than twelve
(12) times per calendar year. Attendance at up to four (4) of the aforementioned events shall not exceed three
hundred (300) attendees and attendance at the remaining eight (8) aforementioned events shall not exceed two
hundred (200) attendees. The facility may also enl�-be used for community events attcr between six o'clock
p.m. (6:00 p.m.) and ten Weleek p.m. (10:00 p.m.) on Mondays through Fridays and at any hours on Saturdays
and Sundays. Any e-Community events exceeding fifty (50) attendees shall be treated as one of the school's
twelve (12) non -sporting school -related events for the applicable calendar year.
From: Francis MacCall
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 2:43 PM
To: John Blair <iblair@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Field School
One issue is with the 3d sentence
The facility may only be used for community events between six o'clock p.m. (6:00 p.m.) and ten o'clock p.m.
(10:00 p.m.) on Mondays through Fridays and at any hours on Saturdays and Sundays.
Instead of "only" can it or should it be "also"
With this condition we are stating two specific uses of the facility, the non -sporting school -related events and the
community events, so saying "also" allows for the first and second use of the facility and there is no confusion or
interpretation needed as to the intent of the condition.
I spoke to Elaine about this and she can confirm making a change.
Francis
From: John Blair
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:49 PM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.or>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham
<mgraham@albemarle.or>
Subject: Field School
All,
Please find some proposed language for the Field
School's Special Use Permit Condition 4. I did add in
10 o'clock as an ending time for Mondays through Fridays
(if you all want to take it out, please let me
know). Please let me know if you have suggestions for
wording. I hope you all have a great evening.
John C. Blair, II
Deputy County Attorney
Albemarle County, Virginia
This message and its attachments are confidential and may be protected by the
attorney/client privilege. If you are not the named addressee or if this message has been
addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute,
disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail
and delete and destroy this message and its attachments
2
Elaine Echols
From:
Elaine Echols
Sent:
Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:12 AM
To:
Mark Graham
Subject:
RE: Please call Thursday to discuss
He, John, and I are meeting at 11:30.
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:29 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Please call Thursday to discuss
Tried to catch you but you were in meeting. Have you talked to Francis, who reviewed this for Zoning?
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:25 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Please call Thursday to discuss
Any suggested word changes at this point are appreciated! There is a chance that Zoning will consider the "community
meetings" incidental and not count them toward the events. If so, can you suggest how you would add the 4 — 6
restriction into the mix such that if parents are coming to after school events and staying late they wouldn't be affected
by this? I'm assuming that if parents are coming after school for an event, they are not leaving and coming back, so it
wouldn't be an additional trip.
if you want to meet with John Blair, Francis, and me, we will be in 214 at 11:30.
Elaine
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:20 AM
To: 'Todd Barnett' <toddhbarnett@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; dsrooker@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Please call Thursday to discuss
You are absolutely right about the after school things that parents would come to. I've been trying to deal with your
requests for the "non -school related" things. Since I didn't hear from you yesterday (I am sure you were busy), I needed
to let you know what we were thinking. The wording was just a start on how to keep more traffic from happening
between 4 and 6. 1 am meeting with Zoning and the Co. Atty's office today to work on wording for the condition, which I
will send to you to discuss after we've working on it a little more.
Elaine
From: Todd Barnett [mailto:toddhbarnett@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:13 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <iustin@shimp-engineering.com>; dsrooker@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Please call Thursday to discuss
Elaine,
One of the problems with this is that it would double traffic on the afternoons that we had events. If, for
example, we held our music performances or some other events after school as we do now, parents who would
typically be coming to school to pick up their kid(s) would come at 4 or 4:30 and then leave at about 6 or later
(we often have dinner and the traffic tends to disperse gradually as a result). If we held it at 6, however, they
would pick up at 4, go home (or maybe to Barracks Road or somewhere to eat) and then return at 6. It would
just put twice as much traffic on those roads during those hours. I assure you that we try to make everything we
do as efficient and considerate as possible, and that includes our impact on area roads and traffic.
Todd Barnett
On Feb 22, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS a,albemarle.org> wrote:
"Non -sporting; sskreel-Feaated events with more than 50 attendees shall not occur on site more than 12
times per calendar year nor occur between the hours of 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. weekdays. Attendance at
up to 4 events shall not exceed 300 people and attendance at the remaining 8 events shall not exceed
200 persons. The facility shall not be used for events not —unrelated to the school use, but may be used
for community meetings."
(obviously a little more wordsmithing is needed. Diantha suggested the time restrictions to help avoid
more traffic congestion.)
Elaine K. Echols, Farce
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
Elaine Echols
From:
Elaine Echols
Sent:
Monday, February 13, 2017 10:32 AM
To:
'Kelly Strickland'
Cc:
Justin Shimp, P.E.; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Todd Barnett
Subject:
RE: Field School Community Meeting
Late last week, Diantha told Lee that we need to take this project to the Hydraulic CAC meeting which is on Feb. 27.
Mark Graham will represent staff. You aren't required to go, but if you did it might be helpful. I'll will send you time and
location.
Elaine
From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Todd Barnett
<toddhbarnett@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Field School Community Meeting
Sounds good, thanks Elaine!
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:47 AM
To: Kelly Strickland
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E.; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Todd Barnett
Subject: RE: Field School Community Meeting
Sorry for the multiple emails. I didn't mean to imply that a CAC meeting was required. I'm just trying to find out whether
or not Rachel talked to you about meeting with the closest CAC. You've provided great information to answer the
questions I've received.
Elaine
From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:26 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <iustin@shimp-engineering.com>; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Todd Barnett
<toddhbarnett@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Field School Community Meeting
Good morning Elaine,
Todd's notes are below. Just to be clear, a CAC meeting was never suggested.
I think everyone assumed the two neighborhood meetings at the next door church would be a more valuable resource
for the community.
-Kelly
From: Todd Barnett [mailto:toddhbarnett@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 7:08 PM
To: Kelly Strickland
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E.; Dennis Rooker
Subject: Re: Field School Community Meeting
Kelly,
Here's what I've got on the meetings.
There were 32 people at the June 8, 2015 Field School Neighbors Meeting at St. David's Anglican Church
including Colthurst Farms residents Elly Tucker, Saunders and Shirley Midyette, Jason Johnson, Jessica
Simons, Gerald Ritter, Jim and Elizabeth Currie, Paula Newcome, Bob Humphris, Genevieve FRaiman,
Stephanie Housdan, Jerry and Ann Sole, Matt Wolf, Eric Macalllan, Bill Espinosa; Montvue residents Karen
Chester, Judy Bushkin, Denny King, Nicholas Kuhn, Laney ad Winston Kaminer; and Barracks Road residents
Missy and Jack Sanford, Tom and Elizabeth Allan, Peggy McLean; Scott Clark and Diantha McKeel from
Albemarle County. The second meeting took place and August 24, 2015 and was not as well attended with only
19 present including the following neighbors from Colthurst (Shirley Midyette, Jessica Simons, Bob Humphris,
Ha Ly, and Greg Jurick), Cathy Newman from Barracks Road, and 5 members/administrators at St. David's
Anglican Church. I have not been the primary contact on this and have not generally gotten emails from Rachel
unless you forwarded them, but I know nothing about being required to do a CAC meeting.
Todd
On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Kelly Strickland <kellygshimp-en ing eeriti = com> wrote:
Hello Elaine,
Todd Barnett hosted two neighborhood meetings at St. David's Anglican Church, adjacent to the site.
My recollection is that one was hosted in late April or early May of 2015, prior to our 1st application submittal and the
second was hosted in July or August of the same year, after receiving the first round of County comments. I'll see if I can
find the exact dates if you need them. The meetings were very well attended by the neighbors, with probably 30-40
attendees at the first meeting.
I don't recall that Rachel (or any County representative) ever requested for us to meet with the closest Community
Advisory Council.
-Kelly
From: Elaine Echols [ma ilto:EECHOLS@albemarle.or ]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:59 PM
To: Kelly Strickland
Subject: Field School Community Meeting
Hi Kelly,
I have taken over the Field School for Rachel since she is on maternity leave. I have been the recipient of several emails
from a BOS member and CAC chair regarding the community meeting that did not go to the closest CAC. I am trying to
find info on the date of the community meeting. I can't seem to locate it in the file. I am also wondering whether or not
Rachel suggested that you go to a meeting of the nearest CAC to discuss the project.
Any additional info would be greatly appreciated!
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
Elaine Echols
From:
Elaine Echols
Sent:
Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:54 AM
To:
Mark Graham
Subject:
RE: Field School
I reached out to the applicant for additional information on community meetings. Todd Barnett said that he hosted two
neighborhood meetings at St. David's Anglican Church, adjacent to the site -- June 8, 2015 and August 24, 2015.
According to the applicant, there were 32 people at the June 8, 2015 Field School Neighbors Meeting at St. David's
Anglican Church including Colthurst Farms residents Elly Tucker, Saunders and Shirley Midyette, Jason Johnson, Jessica
Simons, Gerald Ritter, Jim and Elizabeth Currie, Paula Newcome, Bob Humphris, Genevieve Fraiman, Stephanie Housdan,
Jerry and Ann Sole, Matt Wolf, Eric Macalllan, Bill Espinosa; Montvue residents Karen Chester, Judy Bushkin, Denny King,
Nicholas Kuhn, Laney and Winston Kaminer; and Barracks Road residents Missy and Jack Sanford, Tom and Elizabeth
Allan, Peggy McLean; Scott Clark and Diantha McKeel from Albemarle County. The second meeting took place and
August 24, 2015 and was not as well attended with only 19 present including the following neighbors from Colthurst
(Shirley Midyette, Jessica Simons, Bob Humphris, Ha Ly, and Greg Jurick), Cathy Newman from Barracks Road, and 5
members/administrators at St. David's Anglican Church.
Rachel never asked them to meet with the CAC. The application was deferred several times and when they resubmitted
for the PC's public hearing, no additional community meeting was viewed as needed. I'm passing this information in, just
in case you need it.
(I have also saved their email to the folder on the I:drive.)
Elaine
-----Original Message -----
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Field School
FYI
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
-----Original Message -----
From: Cynthia [mailto:cynthianeff@gmail.com)
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 7:29 AM
To: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
Cc: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Catherine Newman <cathynewman614@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Field School
I don't remember seeing it either and I think this goes to some of Vito's concerns about getting many notices that aren't
relevant and then missing one or not getting one that is. I think several of the CAC members feel this Field School
project should have had way more visibility and imput. Didn't someone suggest that even though it's in Jouett, that it
wasn't in the Hydraulic footprint and that's why we hadn't been involved?
Cynthia Neff
100 Roslyn Forest Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434-978-4432 (h) 434-825-1622 (c)
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org> wrote:
> Thank Mark. I have not seen the notice for the Field School. When was it sent?
> The one you attached is not applicable.
> I admit I may have completely overlooked it but I have been watching........
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Mark Graham
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 4:52 PM
> To: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
> Cc: Catherine Newman <cathynewman614@aol.com>; Cynthia Neff
> <cynthianeff@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Field School
> Sorry if I missed the CAC question. The CACs should be receiving notice of the applications received. I've attached the
email for the January rezoning and special use permit submissions to illustrate, noting the CAC mailing lists are
embedded in this distribution.
> While the County Code does not establish a role for the CACs in the review of rezonings and special use permits, staff
is trying to assure they are aware of the applications by including them in this mailing list. The CAC then has the
opportunity to let the planner know if they'd like to be more involved with any application. Some CACs like to take an
active role in reviewing applications by incorporating the community meetings into their committee meetings, but
others have preferred to keep the applications away from their committee meetings. Going forward, I'll encourage any
CAC to contact the listed planner if there is interest in getting more information on a listed project or getting more
involved in the review process.
> Thanks,
> Mark B Graham, P.E.
> Director of Community Development
> Albemarle County, Virginia
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Diantha McKeel
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 4:12 PM
> To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
> Cc: Catherine Newman <cathynewman614@aol.com>; Cynthia Neff
> <cynthianeff@gmail.com>; Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
> Subject: Re: Field School
> Thanks Mark.
> Still have the question of review by my CAC as they have requested.
> Diantha
> Diantha McKeel
> Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Jack Jouett Magisterial
> District
> Sent from my iPhone! Please excuse typos and brevity.
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org> wrote:
>> Sorry for the delay in responding to this but it has taken some back and forth with the applicant's engineer and VDOT
to get a handle on the traffic analysis.
>> We actually have a good intersection analysis for Georgetown and Barracks from when the Out of Bounds signal
improvements were done. What we don't have at this point is an analysis that includes newer traffic data following
completion of 1) the new Out of Bounds signal and 2) the 29/250 improvements. That type of analysis is above and
beyond County's requirements for the Field School application, but we believe we can get a good estimate of the current
situation by using the old analysis with some estimates of new traffic numbers. A word of caution with this, I strongly
suspect we'll find that the Field School has a negligible impact on the Level of Service for this intersection whe
considered by itself. Does it have any impact? Yes. Does it make a noticeable contribution by itself? No. This is the
proverbial death by a thousand cuts. No single project causes the Level of Service to appreciably change but the
aggregate impact of all the projects is significant. More to come if the appicant's consultant is authorized to update the
intersection analysis.
>> With respect to the Field School meetings, staff notes that the school had a meeting before an application was
submitted. Not sure how the invitation list for that meeting was developed. That might explain why some people
believe there have been 2 meetings and some believe there have been 3 meetings.
>> Mark B Graham, P.E.
>> Director of Community Development
>> Albemarle County, Virginia
>> -----Original Message -----
>> From: Diantha McKeel
>> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:03 PM
>> To: Catherine Newman <cathynewman614@aol.com>; Mark Graham
>> <mgraham@albemarle.org>
>> Cc: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>; Cynthia Neff
>> <cynthianeff@gmail.com>
>> Subject: RE: Field School
>> Hi Catherine! Thanks for your nice words.
>> I personally know of 2 Field School meetings. I attended the first and, because Todd and I had a communication
hiccup, I missed the second one. It is possible I missed knowing about another.
>> Of note, the Hydraulic CAC has questioned why the project did not come before them for comments. I hope they
would have an opportunity to hear the presentation from Todd as they expected and requested. I added Cynthia Neff,
the Hydraulic CAC Chair, to this email so she is in the information loop!
>> I spoke to Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, about 10 days ago regarding a traffic analysis of the
impact on the Georgetown/Barracks Road intersection as well as Barracks and Georgetown Roads. That analysis was not
required or completed but I considered it extremely important.
>> I know for sure the proposal is not coming to us in January or February.
>> As you know, I have residents in Ivy Farms and Montvue who are also very concerned about this project. I am waiting
on answers to these questions before contacting them.
>> Mark, will you please update both Catherine, Cynthia and myself on where we are with this proposal.
>> THANKS!
>> Diantha
>> -----Original Message -----
>> From: Catherine Newman [mailto:cathynewman614@aol.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:39 AM
>> To: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
>> Subject: Field School
>> Dear Diantha,
>> I was happy to read that you are now Chair of the Board of Supervisors. I know you will do a great job.
>> I also read the recent article in the "Crozet Gazette" regarding the Field School relocating to Barracks Road. The
article mentions a third meeting with the "neighborhood" that was held at the Episcopal church. Did you attend that
meeting? Do you know when it was held? I, obviously, received no notification of a third meeting. I was also wondering
if you have spoken to VDOT about the traffic study? The article also mentions that the school will appear before the BOS
in January or February. Is this true? Of course there are also several "alternative facts" in the article that I challenge the
school to prove. I will address these falsehoods in my letter to the BOS when the meeting to discuss the school is
scheduled. It is ridiculous for anyone to think that this location is safe and appropriate for a school. Only if they make the
proper provisions to greatly lower the speed limit on Barracks Road and manage the traffic flow in and out of the school,
can it possibly be considered safe. Even then, the burden of the traffic the school will generate is a lot for this area to
absorb, especially at the times the school traffic will be at its height.
>> I look forward to hearing from you.
>> Sincerely,
>> Catherine Newman
>> 434-409-8147
>> PS: Has a meeting with Ivy Farms been set? No word from Montvue about this issue, btw.
>> Sent from my Wad
Elaine Echols
From:
Elaine Echols
Sent:
Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:44 AM
To:
'Kelly Strickland'
Cc:
Justin Shimp, P.E.; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Todd Barnett
Subject:
RE: Field School Community Meeting
Thanks, again. I will pass
this information on.
Elaine
From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:26 AM
To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Todd Barnett
<toddhbarnett@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Field School Community Meeting
Good morning Elaine,
Todd's notes are below. Just to be clear, a CAC meeting was never suggested.
I think everyone assumed the two neighborhood meetings at the next door church would be a more valuable resource
for the community.
-Kelly
From: Todd Barnett [mailto:toddhbarnett@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 7:08 PM
To: Kelly Strickland
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E.; Dennis Rooker
Subject: Re: Field School Community Meeting
Kelly,
Here's what I've got on the meetings.
There were 32 people at the June 8, 2015 Field School Neighbors Meeting at St. David's Anglican Church
including Colthurst Farms residents Elly Tucker, Saunders and Shirley Midyette, Jason Johnson, Jessica
Simons, Gerald Ritter, Jim and Elizabeth Currie, Paula Newcome, Bob Humphris, Genevieve FRaiman,
Stephanie Housdan, Jerry and Ann Sole, Matt Wolf, Eric Macalllan, Bill Espinosa; Montvue residents Karen
Chester, Judy Bushkin, Denny King, Nicholas Kuhn, Laney ad Winston Kaminer; and Barracks Road residents
Missy and Jack Sanford, Tom and Elizabeth Allan, Peggy McLean; Scott Clark and Diantha McKeel from
Albemarle County. The second meeting took place and August 24, 2015 and was not as well attended with only
19 present including the following neighbors from Colthurst (Shirley Midyette, Jessica Simons, Bob Humphris,
Ha Ly, and Greg Jurick), Cathy Newman from Barracks Road, and 5 members/administrators at St. David's
Anglican Church. I have not been the primary contact on this and have not generally gotten emails from Rachel
unless you forwarded them, but I know nothing about being required to do a CAC meeting.
Todd
On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Kelly Strickland <kelly0shiinp-en 7in� eerieg com> wrote:
Hello Elaine,
Todd Barnett hosted two neighborhood meetings at St. David's Anglican Church, adjacent to the site.
My recollection is that one was hosted in late April or early May of 2015, prior to our 1" application submittal and the
second was hosted in July or August of the same year, after receiving the first round of County comments. I'll see if I can
find the exact dates if you need them. The meetings were very well attended by the neighbors, with probably 30-40
attendees at the first meeting.
I don't recall that Rachel (or any County representative) ever requested for us to meet with the closest Community
Advisory Council.
-Kelly
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS a albemarleorg]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:59 PM
To: Kelly Strickland
Subject: Field School Community Meeting
Hi Kelly,
I have taken over the Field School for Rachel since she is on maternity leave. I have been the recipient of several emails
from a BOS member and CAC chair regarding the community meeting that did not go to the closest CAC. I am trying to
find info on the date of the community meeting. I can't seem to locate it in the file. I am also wondering whether or not
Rachel suggested that you go to a meeting of the nearest CAC to discuss the project.
Any additional info would be greatly appreciated!
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3252
Febuary 3, 2107
• County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
401 McIntire Rd, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Rachel,
I would like to address a number of issues and questions I have with
SP201500024 Field School Of Charlottesville. I feel that this SUP is not
being scrutinized by staff in the manner a SUP application that is outside
of the growth area should be scrutinized. I will use the staff report
dated, December 13, 2016 to outline my issues and questions.
Factors Favorable
-Favorable Factors # 1 notes the defined building envelopes restrict
land disturbance to mostly areas that were previously disturbed for the
fill/waste use on site and leave the majority of the site undeveloped.
IS This is simply not accurate. On Google Earth you can clearly see the fill
activity as well as preservation of trees that took place by the previous
owner in and around year's 2006- 2009, the building envelopes are
outside of that activity. The Google images that clearly show the fill
activity with the building envelopes outlined are attached. Also, if the
building envelopes are on a fill/waste area, how would they build on
unsuitable fill? Can staff ask applicant if borings have been done in those
areas to determine if the fill was compacted and placed in a manner that
will support the proposed buildings? Are the _proposed building
envelopes locations a condition of a potential approval? They should be
required -to keep buildings where proposed.
-Favorable Factor #2 notes that the site offers adequate infrastructure
for the proposed use, including access to public water. It is my
understanding that this property is not in the jurisdictional area/ C�w
boundary of the ACSA. To be included in the ACSA jurisdictional area ba-
would require board action. The site does not have public water or r
public sewer. How can staff say the site has adequate infrastructure'
p Y q
when access to public water is not guaranteed and when the applicant is� �(`
proposing a central sewage system which staff has said is an
• unfavorable factor?
-Favorable factor # 3 notes the proposal will provide an additional
school option for residents of the County. Yet the Field School is already
open at another County location, so this cannot be another additional �`}
school option.
-Therefore there are not any favorable factors to support this
application.
Specific Question/ Comments
1.Staff notes that in 2013, the school applied for a SUP at a location on
Polo Grounds Rd. The SUP was not approved amidst concerns about
traffic on Polo Grounds Rd and at the intersection of RT. 29 & Polo
Grounds Rd. The RT.29 & Polo Grounds Rd intersection is signaled and
Rt.29 is designed for moving massive amounts of vehicles. How can
dumping 419 daily trips per day onto Barracks Rd be a better/safer
• option than RT.29 and Polo Grounds Rd? Did staff visit the Barrack Rd
location at morning & evening peak traffic flow and observe the traffic?
Why was VDOT not asked to install traffic counting tubes in this location
and get a true sense of the traffic on the road?
2.Staff notes that the proposal will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots. By right development of this site can be no more than two
residential lots. Can you please explain how 32,120SF of building, ball
fields, parking lots and 150 students generating 419 trips per day is not
detrimental to adjacent lots and will not have more of an impact than
two homes that generate 20 trips per day?
V
#3.Staff notes that according to applicant, 80% of the critical slopes to
be graded if requested waiver is granted are man made. Does staff not
verify information submitted by applicants? Can staff ask applicant to
provide evidence detailing which slopes to be graded are man made?
Attached are Google images and contour map showing the critical slopes
needing grading to allow for the right hand turn lane. The Google
images are outlined with the critical slope in question. The Google
• images are from year's 1994, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2016.
The Google images show no grading activity on this slope as far back as I
• can find images for. In fact, all the attached pictures show trees on most
of these slopes and due to their size I would expect they have been there
for a much longer time than the recent grading work on the property.
So how was this slope created by the existing entrance or the
abandoned waste area for construction debris in 2006-2009? The
contour map clearly shows a swale extending through the site in the
area of the critical slopes in question. Also, note that Barracks Rd is in a
fill section at this location. The evidence that I have provided supports
the fact that this slope in question is not man made.
L�
U
#4. VDOT is requiring two turn lanes to be built onto Barracks Rd. With
the posted speed of 50mph, the building of the left turn lane will require
a lane shift with a 500' taper in each direction of the entrance plus left
turn lane itself. In addition the right turn lane will be needed, doubling
the width of the current road. Does applicant have the Right of Way to
accomplish this? Does applicant need private off site grading/ drainage
easements for the left turn lane? If the lanes are a
requirement/condition from VDOT, doesn't applicant need to
demonstrate that they have ability to build the turn lane before SUP is
approved?
I would sincerely appreciate a timely response with answers to the
question and concerns I have raised and that this information is shared
with the Supervisors. I feel that the Planning Commission was poorly
informed with misleading information from the applicant and County
planning staff.
Sincerely,
Greg Jurick
96 Colthurst
Charlottesville
CC:
Diantha McKeel
Albemarle County Supervisor, Board Chair
Mark Graham
Albemarle County Director of Community Development
Ray Burkholder
Balzer & Associates
Angela V. Whitesell
Vellines, Glick & Whitesell, P.C.
•
Googte ea
y
• r
i"
g,t
Nro
44.
qq Y
Google earth
*P-
k, r23
Google-earth
f'
yyl '( '
d
► S
�J ••f
M
7 �" • 'r
.,r{
y R�41Coo8le earth
j.
Google-eart
C- V ,. A- G C.U.
2003
•
•
•
r
IWVIs
� f
CtooSl, Fart
Elaine Echols
From: Elaine Echols
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:09 AM
To: Mark Graham; Andrew Gast -Bray
Subject: RE: Field School
Attachments: Traffic Info 6-6-16.pdf; VDOT letter 9-2-16.pdf, Rachel Notes 12-13-16.pdf
Hi Mark and Andrew,
I am handling this project for Rachel.
Regarding meetings, the project is in the Rural Area and the community meeting was held before the application was
made. While we generally only take things to a CAC that has a master plan covering the area, if something is close to
that DA, we encourage applicants to use the CAC as a venue. I don't know if it went to a CAC meeting, but I've asked
Emily for some help since I can't find anything in the file and the on-line minutes are giving me error messages.
Regarding traffic, we know that there have been concerns about traffic. The information provided to date and VDOT's
letter are attached, along with something that looks like notes from the PC meeting.
This is going to the BOS on March 8.
Hope this helps.
Elaine
-----Original Message -----
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:18 PM
To: Andrew Gast -Bray <agastbray@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos
<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Field School
Who is handling SP2015-024 in Rachel's absence? I don't have a problem stepping in if I can help, but don't want to get
crosswise to things underway. Also, I need to discuss traffic with someone involved with this project.
Thanks,
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County, Virginia
-----Original Message -----
From: Diantha McKeel
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Catherine Newman <cathynewman614@aol.com>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>; Cynthia Neff <cynthianeff@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Field School
Hi Catherine! Thanks for your nice words.
I personally know of 2 Field School meetings. I attended the first and, because Todd and I had a communication hiccup, I
missed the second one. It is possible I missed knowing about another.
Of note, the Hydraulic CAC has questioned why the project did not come before them for comments. I hope they would
have an opportunity to hear the presentation from Todd as they expected and requested. I added Cynthia Neff, the
Hydraulic CAC Chair, to this email so she is in the information loop!
I spoke to Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, about 10 days ago regarding a traffic analysis of the
impact on the Georgetown/Barracks Road intersection as well as Barracks and Georgetown Roads. That analysis was not
required or completed but I considered it extremely important.
I know for sure the proposal is not coming to us in January or February.
As you know, I have residents in Ivy Farms and Montvue who are also very concerned about this project. I am waiting on
answers to these questions before contacting them.
Mark, will you please update both Catherine, Cynthia and myself on where we are with this proposal.
THANKS!
Diantha
-----Original Message -----
From: Catherine Newman [mailto:cathynewman614@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Diantha McKeel <dmckeel@albemarle.org>
Subject: Field School
Dear Diantha,
I was happy to read that you are now Chair of the Board of Supervisors. I know you will do a great job.
I also read the recent article in the "Crozet Gazette" regarding the Field School relocating to Barracks Road. The article
mentions a third meeting with the "neighborhood" that was held at the Episcopal church. Did you attend that meeting?
Do you know when it was held? I, obviously, received no notification of a third meeting. I was also wondering if you have
spoken to VDOT about the traffic study? The article also mentions that the school will appear before the BOS in January
or February. Is this true? Of course there are also several "alternative facts" in the article that I challenge the school to
prove. I will address these falsehoods in my letter to the BOS when the meeting to discuss the school is scheduled. It is
ridiculous for anyone to think that this location is safe and appropriate for a school. Only if they make the proper
provisions to greatly lower the speed limit on Barracks Road and manage the traffic flow in and out of the school, can it
possibly be considered safe. Even then, the burden of the traffic the school will generate is a lot for this area to absorb,
especially at the times the school traffic will be at its height.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Catherine Newman
434-409-8147
PS: Has a meeting with Ivy Farms been set? No word from Montvue about this issue, btw.
Sent from my Wad
`Fej J- !S- d� 0 1
/-0 0 _some rl 0 �c s ?—CA Clk (2
FrIg kv
Y-O 09 c P. u a 2- .�- ��
372 b 1,05 gcrierzti, act
VDOI
Q� C
V()Z)T
ec,
L;/7UrJP,d- VDIrd
C) n
on
Mul
A �-OA (S61
am")
Elaine Echols
From: currieje10 <curriejel0@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: Albemarle Zoning Plan Hearing on Proposed Fields School on December 13 2016
Good Morning Ms. Echols,
I am Jim Currie, the president of the Colthurst Farm Property Owners Association (CPOA). We are a neighborhood of
about 60 home off Barracks Road, about a mile west of the Colonnades.
Yesterday my predecessor as president, Saunders Midyette, wrote me that he had received word regarding an
"Albemarle Zoning Plan Hearing on [the] proposed Fields School building plans for next Tuesday, December 13th."
This was the first I had heard of the meeting. It's likely that some of my neighbors might be interested in attending (if
the meeting is open to the public) as the proposed school would be built adjacent to our neighborhood off Barracks
Road. In fact, Mr. Todd Burnett, principal of the Fields School, has been nice enough to speak to our neighborhood on
several occasions about the school's plans to build near us.
Could you tell me the purpose and time and place of the meeting? Is there an agenda?
Thank you very much for your help.
Regards,
Jim Currie
President, CPOA
995-5254
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SHIMPCIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
December 2, 2016
Ms, Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Regarding: SP 2015-00024 — The Field School of Charlottesville
Request for Central Sewerage System
Dear Rachel,
In conjunction with SP 2015-00024 (The Field School of Charlottesville), which would allow a private school on a 25-acre site on
Barracks Road; the Applicant is also requesting permission to construct a central sewerage system for the school use. The
central sewerage system would consist of a sewer lateral system, collecting waste from three buildings, along with a distribution
box and drain field.
Without approval of a central sewer system, the Applicant would have a couple of alternatives: (1) create two or three separate
drain fields (possibly one for the dining hall and one for the gym and academic building), each with its own distribution box,
drainfield, construction permitting, and maintenance; or (2) limit the school infrastructure to two buildings, which will not require
approval of a central sewerage system (a central sewerage system by definition is three (3) or more building connections).
In the case of alternative (1): the usage and capacity of the sewerage system would not change from that of a central sewerage
system; the infrastructure/construction costs would be greater than that of a central system; the land disturbance necessary for
the three individual systems would be greater than that of a central system; and the maintenance requirements and failure
potential of the two or three individual systems would be greater than it would be for a central system.
In the case of alternative (2), the Applicant wishes to provide a campus setting, with three separate buildings (an academic
building, a gymnasium, and a dining hall). Three separate buildings provide a unique opportunity for students to "transport"
themselves (through the weather) from one setting to another (academics, athletics, lunch). This is an integral piece of the Field
School approach to education. Without approval of a central sewerage system (which allows a third building connection to the
proposed septic system), the dining hall could be located within the academic building or within the gymnasium. This would
eliminate one building connection (and thus the need for a central sewerage system), but reducing the number of buildings
would not affect the usage, capacity, or design of the proposed sewerage system.
Granting permission of a central sewerage system will allow The Field School to meet a significant goal for their school campus
vision and will reduce environmental and aesthetic impacts of the school use. If you have any questions please do not hesitate
to contact me at your earliest opportunity. Justin may be reached at: Tustin a0shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-227-
5140.
Best Regards,
Kelly Strickland
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
434.981.6029
Rachel Falkenstein
From: Todd Barnett <toddhbarnett@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 7:54 AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein
Cc: Kelly Strickland; Justin Shimp, P.E.
Subject: Fwd: I will be out today
Rachel,
I'm sorry this has come up at the last minute. I noticed this when I read the staff report last week. We have two
parents' visiting days that we do, each of which adds about 50% to the student body number. If we have 150
students and 20 staff, then another 75 parents will push us over our allowed limit here of 200 up by 50 people
are so. Also, we have our graduation during the school day. In addition to students and staff, probably 60 - 75
parents attend. So that pushes us up to 250. We had two play performances last year, one of which was on
school time and probably would draw a similar number. I can't imagine that having events exceed 200 on
school time would be much noticed. If an additional condition read that we could have 6 school -related events
that had up to 300 people (and cut the events allowing up to 200 down from 20 to 12 to compensate), that would
suffice. I would be happy to call you today to discuss. Thanks so much for the work you are doing on this,
Todd Barnett
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelly Strickland <kelly(a)-shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: I will be out today
Date: December 13, 2016 at 5:05:38 AM EST
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein(d,)albemarle.org>, "Justin Shimp, P.E."
<justin(a.shimp-engineerinq.com>
Cc: Todd Barnett <toddhbarnetta-gmail.com>
Rachel,
If you need anything further from our office, please contact Justin directly. Several months ago, I
planned a Chesapeake Bay fishing trip for my son (who is intellectually disabled and loves fishing).
Today is our rockfish day and unfortunately, I will not be in the office and probably won't make it home
in time to attend the Planning Commission meeting this evening.
Thanks for all you hard work on this project!
Kelly Strickland
Shimp Engineering PC
434.981.6029
The Field School of Charlottesville Application
(SP201500024)
Critical Slopes Waiver Request
SP Application Attachment
TM P: 06000-00-00-06800
Date: June 6, 2016
Revised: October 27, 2016
Request:
In conjunction with SP2015-00024, a Special Use Permit request to allow a Private School Use in the rural
areas, and an associated Boundary Line Adjustment request to create a 25.01 acre parcel 06000-00-00-068;
and in accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance; the Applicant requests a waiver of Section 4.2
(Critical Slopes) of the Albemarle County to allow disturbance of slopes greater than 25%.
Specifics of Request:
• The area of critical slopes proposed for disturbance is approximately 29,-1.38 36,856 square feet
(04-7 0.85 acres) and represents approximately 32 21% of the existing critical slopes (4.03 acres)
on the 25 acre parcel.
• Approximately.75 80% of the slopes in question are man-made slopes created by the construction of
on existing entrance to the site and on abandoned waste area for construction debris.
• The proposed slope disturbances establish a new turn lane on Barracks Road, commercial
entrance road onto Barracks Road, a ballfield area between the proposed school site, entrance,
and existing pond; and an area for overflow parking near the school.
The primary concerns with development on critical slopes are addressed as follows:
• Rapid or Large Scale Movements of Rock and Soil: Construction will consist of compacted fill
and erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance with the water protection
ordinance to prevent large scale erosion.
• Excessive Storm Water Runoff: The proposed construction will require a site pion approval with
new water quality measures and new or upgraded stormwater conveyance structures and
facilities. Additional verifications of downstream channels will be provided in conjunction with
site pion approval. The water quality treatment; detention, infiltration, and conveyance system
represent on improvement to the current conditions at the site. These measures will protect
against any increase in runoff.
• Siltation of Natural or Man Made Bodies of Water: As outlined above, all development shall be
subject to the current standards of the County Water Protection Ordinance and erosion and
sediment control measures shall be installed to prevent siltation of water bodies.
• Loss of Aesthetic Resource: This proposal is to provide reasonable access to and development of
a site that meets the objectives for school sites as delineated within the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within an ARB entrance corridor and subject to additional
ARB approval.
• This development is not served by public sewer; however, a private septic system is planned for the
development. The areas delineated for onsite septic treatment are not downstream from any
proposed for critical disturbance.
Analysis of Request (Section 4.2.5 (a)-3 of the Zoning Ordinance):
• An approved site plan for a private school use in accordance with the SP Application Plan would
satisfy the intent and purposes of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree as by -right
development of the property.
• Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by the strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
In summary, the reasons for the request are to allow disturbance of manmade slopes of 25`Yo or greater
for the purposes of constructing a private school and associated improvements along S.R. 654 (Barracks
Road) in accordance with the proposed application plan for SP2015-00024 (The Field School of
Charlottesville).
Prepared and submitted on behalf of the Applicant by:
J. Kelly Strickland
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
201 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 981-6029
•
•
Rachel Falkenstein
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) <Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 10:22 AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein
Subject: RE: SP2015-24 Field School
Good morning, Rachel. It was good talking to you earlier.
At this point in the special use review phase, the applicant has submitted a feasibility assessment from Old
Dominion Engineering for the proposed use. As such, it appears that it is feasible to have an onsite sewage
disposal system to serve the intended use.
Please note that this is not a guarantee that a sewage disposal construction permit will be issued, as there are
many additional requirements to obtain the final VDH permit. I would expect the applicant and his engineer
to contact me to work through the site plan phase.
Also, if the property will not be served by public water, then they will need to have a well. This water supply
will be permitted and regulated by the VDH Office of Drinking Water in Lexington. I will relay this information
to the applicant and engineer when we meet.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Josh
From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:56 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2015-24 Field School
Hi Josh. Sorry I wasn't able to call you yesterday. The day got away from me quickly.
I am around this morning and will be working on the Field School comment letter. I will try to call you again in a bit, but
if you get this, please give me a call.
296-5832 x3272
Thanks!
Rachel
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virRinia.Rov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.orR>
Subject: RE: SP2015-24 Field School
Good morning, Rachel. Thanks for your email.
Can you please give me a call to discuss the project listed above. (434) 972-6288
Thanks,
Josh
From: Rachel Falkenstein [maiIto: rfaIkenstein@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:42 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2015-24 Field School
Hi Josh,
I am in the middle of my review of the Field School's resubmitted plans and I noticed stuck to the bottom of the stack of
plans was information regarding wastewater disposal on site (attached). I apologize that I missed this before and did not
send it to you earlier.
Do you need a hard copy of this? They only provided one copy with their resubmittal so I figured it would be just as easy
to scan and email.
Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns about the information they provided.
Thanks,
Rachel
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:50 PM
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SP2015-24 Field School
I haven't reviewed it yet, Rachel, but I'm pretty sure I saw it floating around here.
That's interesting that they mention adequate drainfield areas as I haven't spoke to a consultant regarding this
project. I'll take a look at it and follow up with you tomorrow at some point.
Hope that you're doing well,
Josh
Josh Kirtley
Environmental Health Technical Consultant
Onsite Sewage and Water Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Office (434) 972-6288
From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein(o)albemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: SP2015-24 Field School
Hi Josh,
11
We received a special use permit request for the Field School to build a new site on Barracks Road (TMP 60-68 & 60-
68E). The applicant has indicated that they have located adequate drainfield areas on the site. I wanted to check in with
you to see if they have submitted anything for VDH approval regarding the drainfield site. Also, hopefully you received a
distribution of the plan from us and I wanted to check in if you have any comments.
Thanks.
Rachel Falkenstein, AICP
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3272
of A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
10/22/2015
Teresa Batten
Virginia Department of Health
l 138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: SP201500024 Field School
Dear Ms. Batten:
The County of Albemarle has received a special use permit application to construct a private school on TMP 60-68
and 60-68E. The applicant has not submitted soils work to our offices as of yet, but we have recommended the
applicant work with the health department to receive approval for onsite well and septic for this use prior to
proceeding with the request. I have provided an updated concept plan and narrative for your information submitted by
the applicant on 10/19/2015. Should you have any comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
0 WA;::)
Rachel Falkenstein
Planner/Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
Voice: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3272
Fax: (434)972-4035
— COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Al Department Community Development
Planning Services Division
401 McIntire Road North Wing - Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone: (434) 296-5823 - Fax: (434) 972-4035
Transmittal
From: Rachel Falkenstein Date: 10/22/2015
To: OJohn Anderson- Engineering
0
ORobbie Gilmer -Fire and Rescue
0
OMar aret Maliszewski - ARB
0
OTroy Austin- VDOT
0
Zoning
0
JOB #/FILE NAME: SP-2015-24 The Field School of Charlottesville
We are sending you the following items: Z Attached or ❑ Under separate cover
® Copy of Letter ❑ Prints ® Plans
❑ Plats ❑ Specifications ❑ Other
# of Copies
Date
Description
1
10/19/15
Concept plan and written proposal
These are transmitted as checked below:
For review and comments I I For
Remarks:
Comments are due in City View or email by: 11/I1/15
Other
: Rachel Falkenstein
�J
•
Old Dominion Engineering
January 1, 2015
Field School
Ann. Todd Barnett
P.O. Box 4234
Charlottesville, Va. 22905
SUBJECT: ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPERSAL
FEASIBILTY OF PARCEL TM 60-68
Property Owner: Realty IX LLC 4501 Cox Rd Glen Allen N'a, 23060
Property Location: TM 60-68; Charlottesville, Virginia
Property Size: 21.81 acres
Feasibility
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the feasibility of the parcel supporting the onsite
dispersal of wastewater for two 5 bedroom residential lots if a Special Use Permit cannot be
obtained for a private middle school. A secondary purpose of the analysis is to ascertain the
preliminary feasibility of the parcel supporting onsite dispersal of wastewater for a private middle
school with 150'students (with estimated staff of 2 and 10 teachers). Parcel TM 60-68 was checked.
Parcel 60-68e was not checked.
Soils and Landscape
The soil on the parcel is mapped as a convergence point of three soil series - Hayesville, Ashe, and
Chester. Generally speaking both Hayesville and Chester are suitable for onsite dispersal of
wastewater in deeper conventional drainfields for residential systems. Ashe soils are shallower and
require both treatment and drip dispersal for all system types. The soil map series delineation
boundaries are not accurate for this parcel.
The parcel is split into an east section and west section by parcel 60-68e forming two distinct and
separate areas. There is no common boundary between the east and west sections of the property.
The landscape on the property has areas that are unsuitable for onsite dispersal use (see attached site
map for approximate locations):
• Some areas appear to have been reworked and are either in cut/fill or have been heavily
manipulated
• A large pond is designated by Albemarle County with a 100 foot water shed buffer
• There are two drainage swales.
• There are areas of critical slope
It appears that some of the designated critical slope areas are not accurately mapped in the
Albemarle County GIS.
— 2 — January 1, 2015
Feasibility of Onsite Wastewater Dispersal for Two 5 Bedroom Residences
The parcel can support two 5 bedroom residences; one on the east section and one on the west
section.
The east section soils are shallower and are predominately Ashe soils. Five borings in the area
indicated that Cr (rock) horizons are present from 20" to 33" deep and that the estimated pert rate is
85 mpi at 8". Because of the shallowness of the soils, Virginia Department of Health (VDH) will
require either a TL2 or TL3 treatment system with Nitrogen reduction and drip dispersal. ODE
identified an area approximately 12,450 sgft for primary and reserve drip dispersal use (general
location is identified on the attached site map). There is potential for additional drip dispersal area in
the immediate general vicinity. House locations and driveway locations will have to accommodate
the drip dispersal and treatment components with appropriate setbacks.
An area on the west section of the property was identified as suitable to be used for a conventional
gravity septic system for a 5 bedroom home. Five borings in the area indicated that the soils were
Hayesville with an estimated pert rate of 45 mpi at 60". The dispersal area is approximately 103 feet
to 144 feet by 100 feet (general location is identified on the attached site map).
Preliminary Feasibility of Onsite Wastewater Dispersal for 150 Student Middle School
The west section for the property has excellent potential for onsite dispersal of wastewater for a 150
student middle school. The previously identified 5 bedroom drainfield area can be used for the
primary area (with TL2/TL3 treatment and Nitrogen reduction AND pending mounding analysis
and VDH approval). This area also appears to be out of the prime site development zone and
should be a fill area only. Other areas on the property have good potential for use as additional
reserve area (see attached site map).
The east section of the property cannot support the onsite wastewater dispersal requirements for a
150 student middle school. However if the dividing parcel (60-68e) is purchased, the east parcel can
serve to alleviate potential crowding issues that may arise between buildings, parking, and onsite
dispersal areas and be used as additional reserve area.
At this point in the development of a 150 student private middle school, a few issues need to be
considered concerning onsite dispersal of wastewater on the parcel:
1. Because the estimated water usage will be over 1000 gpd, VDH will require treatment of the
wastewater to TL2/TL3 standards with Nitrogen reduction. VDH will also have additional
requirements for site evaluation which can include deep borings, saturated hydraulic
conductivity testing, mounding analysis, and underlying geologic investigations. This will
increase the overall cost of the septic system and lengthen the VDH review and approval
time.
2. The onsite wastewater dispersal areas will have to be integrated with the site plan. Areas of
extreme cut or fill may not be suitable for onsite dispersal and may affect mounding analysis.
Separation distances to buildings and other site improvements will have to be maintained.
Drainfield areas cannot be placed in overhead utility easements.
3. Albemarle does not allow septic components in the designated 100 foot watershed buffer
areas. The swale directly flowing into the pond HAS NOT been designated for watershed
protection, but the pond HAS BEEN designated. One identified drainfield area is within
100 feet of this swale.
0
•
— 3 — January 1, 2015
4. Albemarle County does not allow septic components in critical slope areas. There are areas
designated on the GIS map as critical slope that appear not to be and vice versa. These areas
should have field shot topography by the surveyor to verify the actual slope.
Limitations
The information in this preliminary feasibility report is gathered from initial soil borings and
landscape position analysis. Additional investigations will need to be done which could include
additional soil borings, deeper borings, saturated hydraulic conductivity tests, underlying geology
investigation, and mounding analysis prior to knowing the exact capacity of the dispersal area in
gallons per day. The approval of the treatment and dispersal system lies with VDH and ultimately
the exact capacity of the dispersal will not be established until permit limits are set by VDH.
Sincerely,
OF VI*
r�ti
2 �P
� �
Michael Craun PE o Goo 0 v
Old Dominion Engineering
2036 Forest Drive • Waynesboro, VA 22980
PHONE (540) 942-5600 • FAX (540) 213-0297
Cl
•..or •. �• y r.� va vny ..c„w m,ayc�y nvm rrR uormnorrwesm —T.— U you January 1. 2015
0
FOR OFFICE LNE ONLY 81' w or ZMA A
*va krnotat 5 bme?diri Hy wfio? R:ceitrt� C;1oa Bin; •
-� "ResubmitW information for Special Use Permit or
�. Zoning Map Amendment.
FitoTEcTB1Mf13HP- <2 C,(,)00 :)7_zj FROJECTX,W: �� [c 1t (4 Cko f-
L Resubraitkal pee k Rcgmired — Per I.eoueat Ci67 fi�esnhnd tal Fee is Not Required
CornrunnyTDnreiopm t?'rafeeiCozAkm¢or Nd:uc OfApph".nc ?bane lXta 4er
:gttattr r la signature Nate
Resubmittal, tees for original Spada1, Lise Permk fee. of 5 ,000
_ First Tesub nis8ior,
_ Each zdditootl esubmissior
S500
W_a l y�Y �f �S I i Fir
T4e=umnittal fees for original Sped Use )Fermi: fee of 52-09V
—`r l<ast restt�ission
-, Ea:h addiaaa estsbtnlssit�
ENO �
Resubmittal Jives for ari oal Zaniag Map Amendment fec. o: Sr'.500
[� irs: s s tlrartissipr
1 FIB:
it I =apt acldi�.ia�a rem�bmr�iczl
5�.250'
Resubmittal feesfor origutal Zoaiug h'1ap rlu;eodmen: iet of.S5,54B
First rescbran"=_
FRM
S's,''50 .
f
Mk _
�r
,
Deferral of sdieduied pubii, luring sa al)1ilicant's request . Add'I notice fee; w M be required
1180
To ixI,t W *Nr sta fi' rr_view fo- INhhe tustice;
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Arrrendouota r"iteat Um'. Coe ptiUm hearing by the Pianning
Commission and one public }roaring by fist Hoard r. Supervisors, Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hiarings•be
mad: by publishing a legal advertisement in tht newspaper and by malling letters to adjacent property owners. Therffore, at ieast
tw•o fees for public notice are rerraircd before a Spctaal %,sF Permit or Zoning IVUP Amendment, mxy be heari by the Board of
Supervisors, The total•fee for public aoniee will be provided w the applicant after the final cost is derernuned and must be paid
befr rt the appHcwdan is beard by a public bVdy.
hLAKtr :4.Y''P41ENT AT COMILINITY DEVELOFhIENT COiL-P�"=
°; e�ariag ent` waiting o d�iwrmg cep fig frftY i5f1,i natiras 3206+ actual cast offan!--Jest tn'gt
? e'arag ssrd ateliiag or ae§ivarfng taeh:m5cc CST, S€.10 for eta na -I—bonai wti ct-+ actual cos; a: frrr clan poster -
I *gai sdverfiscr tr (pubbi he twice jot dw-wra;--- for each gublic hearing) Actael czst fminantup of 2X far total of 4publieetiors,
Cotmty of Albemarle 7)eparbtncat:ofCommunal,Development
401 ?' cbtireRoao Cnarlottesvtl1r.,T t 22902 Voice: (434) 296•3832 Fix (•934) 972-4126
tJ
0 •
2015 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest
Planning Commission Public Hearing-
Resubmittal
Dates
Comments to
applicant for
decision on whether
to proceed to Public
Hearing'
kecluest t0r PC
Public Hearing,
Legal Ad
Payment Due
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
No sooner than"
CUB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Ttlesda
Nciv 03
Dec 03
Dec 22
Jar1 13
Nov 17
Dec 17
Jan Ub
J1an -'t
Dec 01
Tue Dec 30
Jan 05
Jan 27
Dec 15
Jan 14
Feb 'J1
e " 24
Jan 05
Feb 04
Fete 0SI
Mar 03
ite Jaii 20
Feb i 8
Feb23
-Aar : t
Feb 132
Mar C14
tv:ar 15
Apr 07
ue Feb IT
Mar
vlar 30
=r r i d
.'ti'tar 02
,I; r CAI
Apr 13
PY1,av 05
ttilar 16
.' .r 5
Apr 27
rviav 19
.Apr
May 06
Mav 11
Jun 02
r 20
Nlav 20
t-Aav 25
Jun 15
w' LA
Jun 03
Jun 22
Jul 14
MaV 18
Jun 17
Jun 22
Jul 14
Un W
Jul
ul LY0
Jul 28
Jun 15
Jul 15
Jul 27
Aug 18
Jul 06
Aug ub
AugSe
I
Jul 20
ALIq 14
Tile Se 01
Sep :12
nuq i
tie 1
bep 14
Oct 06
Au 17
Se 16
Sep 20)ct
20
Ifte-Sepul
Sep 30
Uct i
ov 10
Se 14
C)ct � 4
L)ct 26
Nov 17
Oct Uc,
Nov
Nov 16
Dec LJb
Uct 1:1
Nov 18
Nov 23
-)ec 1
Nov 02
Dec 02
Dec 21
Jan 12 201€
Nov i6
Dec 16
Dec 21
Jan 12 2016
Dec 07
Jan 06
Jan 11 2£110
Feb 02 2015
Dec2l
Jan 20 2010+
Feb 01 2016
Fels 23 2O16
Jan 04 2016
Feb 03 201 F,
Feb O8 20'1 b
Mar 012016
Boid itafics = submittalyrneetinq days is 0ferent due to a hcriida y.
Dates roth s a y background are not l
2016 dates are tentative.
'The review g pla' w ctuct applicant tooscuss com"tems &I "e mem and atavise That changes that are rued a. -
-
significant erg, g; to warrant an additcrw subm ital cr adwse Mat the the project is ready for a public peg. I` changes neyeaed
are rrt?rtor, tine planner W11 advise that the project go to c hearing
—1he legal ad oeew rte is the last Cate at w`<ch an am cant can deco wr ether tc resin l cr go to public hearigV. V an
applicant decides to go to pubic -*3r ng aga -^.st the a. -vice of the reviewing ras , a recammeracaitior for demo. wi t� likely
result. 5enerally, the applica^,t will nrtl haV.- only one opportunity To oefer t,4e PC p: c taeanng forthe project onot: it has az
advertsed fcr public hearing. Additar a ae'ermis W; net be allewec except m, exaraordinary circurnstarres such as a major
change n the t omposal by t applicant or -tore rssues ant fted tyy staff`fiat nave rot prewAx-�sly been brought to the
applicants attention.
10
•
0
Rachel Falkenstein
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Rachel Falkenstein
Subject: FW: very preliminary Field School comments
I thought this one was assigned to Scott, so I sent him my preliminary comments. Now I'm forwarding them to you.
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:09 PM
To: Scott Clark
Subject: very preliminary Field School comments
1. Provide additional detail to more fully describe the intent and character of the 75' landscape buffer along
Barracks Road. The buffer is referred to as "maintaining vegetative screening" and "matching the frontage with
existing characteristics". Is the buffer meant to maintain existing landscaping, add new landscaping, or both? If
turn lanes are required, how will they impact the buffer? What activities are allowed within the buffer?
2. There are "proposed boundary line" notes and arrows on the application plan, but the arrows don't appear to
point to anything specific. Please clarify.
3. Can additional detail be provided on the type, quantity, size and character of buildings and structures planned
for the new campus?
Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
O'�,O�i A�6e�rie CoUnfy Pl��l%ng C�,��s5;��,
m Y n On�, i 5 S+ tA�4 On�
4e� Sckcoi T jc) -i-0 +} P, F'ielj 5Gk�cl.
L i KS� i�el red School CV)3 T
4� i n is +ke, F Ica Sb-loo � dekSEFVv ,S o- n�
r ove, -Kei f` sc aoj 4o itic--, ffop6+X 4ey
ZS nCoe IV
December 511, 2016
To Whom It May Concern:
We are sending this letter in support of Field School's
proposal for a SUP pertaining to the piece of land on
Barracks Road.
The school has, and will continue to impact well on the
broader community by offering another educational
choice for families. Quality schools a,e one of the main
draws for people relocating to Charlottesville. Field School
positively impacts the community with well-educated
graduates, sports teams that take part in local leagues,
service projects in the community, and by sponsoring
events that the public can take part in.
The school does not require county funds, and provides
financial assistance to students who demonstrate need so
1118111 that they may benefit from the opportunities the school
provides. In addition, Field School has shown that it can
work with the neighbors and the county, as seen by its
efforts so far to research the proposed site and
communicate with nearby land owners.
We believe that Field School is helping to set the bar for
r-11 11a!il+y edulcatioIn crrd mn-s-n imrnrtant!y, nffprS th;p nr)l\i rill -
boys opportunity for learning, addressing the specific
learning styles of boys, while creating an optimum physical
learning environment. A permanent home will allow the
school to even better serve the community.
From our first-hand experience with Field School (our son
graduated almost 4 years ago), we urge you to support this
project. We believe that Charlottesville will see significant
benefits academically, socially, economically, and even
10 environmentally, as Field School will be a great steward for
the land and area where it hopes to build.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ian and Carol -Ann Paget -Brown
1636 Milton Road, Ch-cfflottesville VA 22902
Cj1
1NP+N1d01? ^,30
AlIN(1WW00
9101 9 0 J30
a3n130M1
•
•
•
Dear Planning Commission members,
I am a Fifth Grader at Field School in Crozet.) am writing to explain why I think allowing our
school to build a new building is a great idea.
)ur school Provides Jobs for teachers. teacher's pay taxes helping the city to grow. Parents
and students spend money at area businesses like coffee shops. The school purchases food
and other products and services. I've been a student for 3 months now. In that time I have
experienced participating in the spirit walk where I learned some history about Crozet and
Virginia. I went on more field trips than my old school, making learning more, and I'm learning
Latin in a class I can't take at my old school.
The building we have now is very old, it's okay but the classrooms could be bigger. A new
school site would make my drive to school much shorter. More students could consider
attending too. These reasons are why i think Field School should be allowed to move into the
city of Charlottesville.
Thanks so much,
John Proulx
J
►n
sr,
A
x 4
AD
7 -
�Ar
54
IL Xj ow
APPX&MATE AVXA-0,F
J
OPOSE�`lAVVUIQNAL CRITICAL ,SLOPES O',
'
vlsrulSAJCE-FM-TU7W-L4 d
Z4
--------------
—
--------------- ----- — ----- -----------
---- —7—
---------------------------- T------- —7-
------ ---- -------- -
o PM -VC -Fff
------ 12
RPvw'A"q7' C�
N 0
LA LANDSCAR S
-----------
XAL
PiE !O.SlEp 130��NDA YZ)' -i< 'MiNT
S- LINE
—*nowemsAPPLJCA�76N)
ow
EXISTING i[ ., — - - -- 1, 7 (LIMITS 6F,
A
-,A --- -- " *1 -1/ — -- I I
--NEW OMMEVICIA1 +/ 2 ACRE TOR W
A7 _C
MANAamENr,.--
N
SLOPE ------- Cfi % % T
IT Sai L
%
- ---- ---- -- -.07- -14 j
EXISTING IZOAV/ENTIZANC
(TO REMAIN AS GA 7TI) o 7
ENTll FOR
MAINTENANCE PURPOSES)
+1-3.0ACT?E - ------
MULTI -PURPOSE
'BA�LFIELIO AREA
EXISTING TRFELINE
o EXISTING TREE BUFRIRZ
APPROXIMATE AREA OF -
APPROXIMATE AREA OF - - -----------
PROPOSED CRITICAL 'MoPoAv CRITICAL
T.M. 60-68H SLOPES viS-nnBANCE
-Y, H 70 OR YU HUA CHANG SLOPES V1.iT70?8ANCF ------ -- -- ------
2.03 ACRES
3-ACRE APPROXIMATT AREA OF --- - ---- ---
NFD RURAI AREAS
PROF9SEV CRITICAL D.B. 40031058 4.3 A(I?E
POND SCHOOL CAMPUS
LOPES VISrUjZ&4NCE I
LOCATION
EXISTING WOODED
VARIABLE SLCVE
TREE '13 7z
------ "A n (TO �aF'vjSCkBTv) (S)
EXISTING
BUFFER
0LLJ 6 F
-&XIMATI AREA Of
7 Pk PRESEIRVED 25-
- \ '-- - z
PROPOSED CRifICAL Fi3UFFER "C",
0
'6' U-i
PROPOSED _j >
15 LU
J TREFLINE
------ -z------
LU U-
0 ------------ LU
p
EXISrINa TREELINE
T.M' 60-688
PROPOSED TWINGROUPINC
TREELINE r - OUNDA?' Y LINE 14.79 ACRES
zl
--7i ZONED RURAL AREAS
t D.B. 7251441
'5 ------ rs C) F
P ---- - - (Llml �wr A PPUCAff6lill) V,
bmit5 of 5pecial Use Permit:
ac,c5olefincatcol on this sheet as Ti,s special so pern,,t limited to this 25 (,j <
INC, CRITIC
Pay ;;O-G6 (,oro-d) A boundary ... iary fire dj-tm1nt plat 15 1`61,16ed with this application to M -.OPdsrD At
SLOPES create the 25-acre contiguous parcel.• PICNIC PAVILION
z
---- (TO VE I-EEW; EXISTIN6PWOODED ------
Landscaping along Barracks Road Frontage shall Include the to SOPE(REEsO
-E IL
D. STING-
- LL
followin6j: EXISTYNQ WOODED -----------
Large 5h.Je L-etn 1.11 be planted parallel Lo Lhe E,it.ranc Corridor street. 5-h aec5 shall be
SO FT PRESERVE
SLOPES z 4 >
O
at east 3 1,12" plant species
13E PRESERVED) -R TREE 1314Fi ---------
lommo I to the area, 5uch trees, where not currently eat tn-S on the site. 5v a I be located at T FER "73
least 35 feet on center. b) flow -- -ring oniamental tritc,5 of a species common to the area shall be interspersed among the,
trees required by the preceding paragraph. The Ornamental trees need not alternate one for
z
one iv th the large shade trcc5. They may be planted amorl the ;rgtc shade t,CC5 in a lee,
r,gola' 5Fcmg pa"e-M.
T.M. 60-6613
A three or four board fence or a logy 5torc wall, typ cai of the area. may align the frontage of
C04 _�,IONWEALTH OF
r z
the E,t—sc Corridor street. T.M. 60 E-6 < .,VIRGINIA
9.73-ACRES 0 An a'ea of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing r1ant-35 and fencing shall be WILLIAMSON, 13 IR K
reserved parallel to 5a-rackti and e-i-ve. of t" -.al right -of. —way and utility a5ernemt, TRUST -AS
2.99 ACRES ZONEDFiURAIARF
T.K 6OC-OE-9 T,M1 60C.OF-14)
Sy
ZONED RURALAR S
HUMPHRIS, ROBERT R & CHARLOTTE Y R1 If fi(a� LU
dmm6NVVFAI TH OF k1l
.4
5uddin6j5: D.B. 33 37 3 ACRES 2.78 ACRES
a) Tie —imo �9ua,e fotaje (footprint) for the entire stew 30,000 -f ONED RURAL ARE
D.B. 1586/174 <
11) fri, ma mum �q.jto fc�otjqc (Iootf,rht) for any rdia—al bWolng 5 12-000 5f.
ZONED RURAL AREAS A
Max, nam b'ldmq 1 35 ft. mi ace.ui danacwith Section 10.4 of the Zonin-
.1 Ordinant.c.
a) T— prop- ed r,cn,c ja,loi shall no located af close to the trcoline (and —ay from the
c,,5tirig pc,,I) as possilb c. No fill shall be rlaced v thin t'.c I 00'etream bvffer.
Tree Buffer / Preservation Areas: a
a) Tic area labeled tree buffer area Vi` 51hz11 include wlplemcntjl plantings t, Fr. —de the
equivalent o' twc staggered ^owe of cJ .3tl.'C 1ACCIdo-5 and c--rcch lrccs planted at 25
feet an center along 'th inle'5rC'5td 51-ri'b5.
b) Existing trees ova 4" m damexr shall not be reniuved in Lh,, area e, trebuffer are. "B'. Dote
Any troo, c— G" in dl,.mcte, that m,,jht rcqo— removal for the ir5tollat,on of a dr-1,66 shall
,plent,b. , th� , at'. of two new trcc� per oic tree removed,in the same location to p—, 'le 06/15/2015
1—ii buffer for ad)ng land ow - , Scale
1) 1te Of 1110 staggered10's Of mixedI.tl%'e deciduous and evergreent'c'5 planted
—AS— �.-H2O.VVNJ
at 25"eci, On "enter to 0 Sheet No,
along w,ti interspersed shrubs -hall be rlartel in the area labeled as tree buffer area Scale. I File N o 4 0F 5 —
1 "— 032