HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201800011 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2018-08-31COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 31, 2018
Regents School of Charlottesville, Inc. c/o Courtney Palumbo
3045 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
cpalumbogregents-school.org / (434)-293-0633
Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen
321 East Main Street, Suite 400, Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlonggwilliamsmullen.com / (434)-951-5709
RE: Review Comment Letter #1 for SP-2018-00011 (Regents School — Reservoir Road)
Ms. Palumbo and Ms. Long:
Your request for Special Use Permit SP-2017-00011 (Regents School — Reservoir Road) has been reviewed
by members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Currently, more
information (such as the Traffic Impact Analysis) is required before Staff can complete the evaluation of
this proposal. Additionally, other questions and issues have been identified which Staff believe should be
addressed through revisions and resubmittal prior to advertising a public hearing.
However, as applicants you have the right to proceed with any of the possible next steps contained in the
"Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" document attached to this review comment letter; please review
that document for detailed information about your options.
As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, and any other
aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Please contact me with any questions and/or requests for
assistance you may have. I can be reached at tpadalinogalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3088.
Sincerely,
Tim Pa alino, AICP I Senior Planner I Planning Services Division
enc: Action After Receipt of Comment Letter
Resubmittal Form
Resubmittal Schedule
Page 1 of 15
Planning
In consultation with County staff and partner agencies, Planning staff has identified issues and questions
that you should be aware of; we remain available to assist you in addressing and resolving these issues,
which include the following:
Transportation and Traffic Impacts:
o A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be submitted before staff can evaluate potential impacts to
Reservoir Road, Fontaine Avenue Extended, and the intersections associated with the Fontaine
Avenue "interchange" for the US 29 Bypass.
■ Staff are particularly concerned about the performance and safety of the Fontaine Avenue
"interchange." The results of the pending TIA will be a major part of the analysis and
evaluation of this proposed development. That TIA is a crucial piece of information.
■ If the TIA does not demonstrate that the proposed development will not negatively impact
the mobility, safety, or level of service for that interchange, then it may be difficult for
Staff to recommend approval of this proposal.
o Planned transportation improvements at the Fontaine Avenue "interchange" for the US 29
Bypass would significantly increase the roadway capacity and Level of Service (LOS). Funding
for these planned improvements is not currently in place, but Smart Scale application(s) to
provide funding for the planned improvements at the Fontaine Avenue "interchange" have been
submitted to VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).
■ These Smart Scale applications are pending, and funding decisions will not be made until
Summer 2019. This creates a significant amount of uncertainty with regards to the
capacity of existing (or planned) infrastructure to accommodate the proposed
development.
■ It is not clear how Staff will be able to accurately evaluate the potential impacts of this
proposal prior to the CTB announcing which Smart Scale applications have been
awarded/funded.
o Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the proposed level of development on the
subject property, with regards to the existing transportation infrastructure (capacity and level of
service).
■ The project narrative states that an additional 1,161 VDT would be added to the current
400 VDT. Staff are concerned about that potential increase, given the current LOS for the
intersections associated with the Fontaine Avenue "interchange" for the US 29 Bypass,
and considering the current capacity is already in need of improvement.
■ Due to concerns about the adequacy of Reservoir Road, Reservoir Road would need to be
upgraded to VDOT standards (subject to input and approval by VDOT, the County
Engineer, and the Director of Planning).
■ Staff may also recommend that the owner dedicate ROW to accommodate future bicycle
and pedestrian mobility (multi -use path).
o VDOT indicated on August 14 that their traffic report data can be used as background / baseline
data for the TIA.
■ Please submit the TIA for review by the County and by VDOT.
• Entrance Corridor:
o Site visibility and project visibility need to be more fully determined, including from 29, 64, at
interchange 118, and from 64 west approaching the 118 interchange.
o The proposed athletic field creates questions and concerns about outdoor athletic lighting,
including the height of light poles, the type of luminaire, and the frequency and duration of the
use of outdoor athletic lighting.
Page 2 of 15
■ Preventing glare and spillover (beyond a set level/location) are Code requirements.
■ Screening of outdoor athletic lighting may need to be considered.
o See review comments (below) from Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning — Resource
Management.
• Architectural Review Board staff in CDD-Planning Services Division:
o From Margaret Maliszewski (see attached review comments dated 08/15/2018):
o The applicant correctly notes that some buildings in the proposed development will be visible
from the Entrance Corridors and, consequently, the site plan and architectural design will
require ARB review and approval. Although wooded area on preserved slopes is expected to
limit some visibility, note that screening the development from the EC is not the goal. Instead,
appropriately designed buildings organized in an orderly and integrated layout, and enhanced
by landscaping are desired. Note the following potential areas of concern:
■ 1. The Illustrative Plan suggests that significant grading, 2-1 slopes, and retaining walls
are necessary to develop the school as desired by the applicant. This intense level of
grading is inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines.
■ 2. The lighted ball field could have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors. Details
on the anticipated type of fixtures proposed for the ball field would help determine
impacts: number of poles, pole height, fixture type (full cutoff?), lamp type, intensity of
illumination, etc.
• School Operations:
o A Parking Study must be prepared and submitted for evaluation by the Zoning Administrator, in
order to determine parking requirements (per Z.O. 4.12.6). See Zoning comments (page 9).
o The applicants need to provide the proposed hours of operation (for school as well as for other
activities at the theater, gymnasium and/or athletic field, including after school hours and/or
weekends).
o More information about the school bus operations should be provided, including whether one bus
parking space will be adequate (and if so, for how long).
o The amount, location, and type of outdoor lighting for areas other than athletic field is a question
which should be addressed (at least conceptually) during the SP review process.
o The athletic field may need to include net fencing to help contain sports equipment on site and
within the intended area (not in stormwater management facilities, not in preserved steep slopes
or tributary to Moore's Creek, etc.).
• Terrain / Topography:
o Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the proposed amount and configuration of
development on the subject property, with regards to the existing topography, and as shown on
the conceptual grading plan shown on the illustrative plan.
■ For example, the reliance on extensive 2:1 slopes and numerous retaining walls
(sometimes in very close proximity to preserved steep slopes) as shown on the illustrative
plan are a concern. This appears to represent a level of development that pushes the limits
of what this site can appropriately accommodate while still meeting Neighborhood Model
Principles.
■ 2:1 slopes should be minimized; 3:1 slopes are strongly encouraged.
■ See "Development Areas" chapter of Comp Plan — Strategy 2p and Strategy 2q.
o Staff has a significant amount of overall concern about the amount, extent, and type of grading in
proximity to preserved steep slopes and stream buffer.
Page 3 of 15
■ Grading and development may need to be subject to "enhanced" erosion and
sedimentation control measures to protect the tributary to Moore's Creek and steep slopes,
subject to decision by County Engineer.
■ Grading and retaining walls may need to be subject to Steep Slopes Standards, subject to
decision by County Engineer.
■ County Engineer may recommend that the stormwater facilities shall not discharge waters
over or across steep slopes (and must be piped or otherwise conveyed to an appropriate
destination).
• Natural Resources:
o The site's adjacency to a designated Stream Conservation Unit along the tributary to Moore's
Creek is a concern, due to possible erosion and sedimentation associated with extensive clearing,
grading, and creation of managed steep slopes.
o The site's proximity to an "Important Site" on (Fox Haven Farm) identified by Albemarle
County Natural Heritage Committee is also a concern, as this designation highlights the overall
environmental sensitivity and biological importance of this area at the edge of the Ragged
Mountains.
o Please see the attached review comments from David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager for
Albemarle County, dated 8/8/2018.
• Conceptual Plan:
o Identify proposed "use envelopes" within proposed "limits of school campus" area identified as
13.2 acres.
■ Staff acknowledge the level of (conceptual) details contained in the "Illustrative Plan of
Development Exhibit" that was provided with this submittal, but that is described as being
for illustrative purposes only. In contrast, the Concept Plan (Sheet C3 of 4) does not
indicate proposed (conceptual) locations, areas, or envelopes for structures; parking;
athletic fields; or other improvements.
■ The "limits of school campus" appear to be analogous to a "limits of disturbance" exhibit;
more information about the proposed uses should be included in this Concept Plan sheet.
• Cumulative Effect of Anticipated Impacts:
o Staff have concerns about the overall appropriateness of this proposed use at these specific
subject properties and location?
■ Can the existing transportation infrastructure accommodate this type and intensity of
development? If not, how will infrastructure improvements be realized — and when?
■ Is there too much program for this site (relative to site -specific environmental
constraints)?
Community Meeting
Staff acknowledge that the required Community Meeting was conducted at the Regents School's current
location on Ivy Road on Thursday, August 30. A summary of the applicants' discussion with members of
the public during the community meeting include the following questions, issues, and concerns:
■ Project scale/intensity: questions and concerns about the proposed size of the school and
number/frequency of school activities (including rental of school properties/facilities to non -school
entities) at this constrained site, off of a relatively unsafe Reservoir Road, in this location with
significant existing traffic congestion issues.
■ Project phasing: questions about the general timeframe and sequence for constructing the various
improvements shown on the conceptual plan.
Page 4 of 15
o Applicant's response: This would not all be constructed at one time; this is a long-term
master plan intended to be constructed in phases. The "early phase," which has a general
time horizon of four years, tentatively includes the athletic field and either the gymnasium
building or one lower school building.
■ School operations: questions about school drop-off details; questions and concerns about frequency
and size of school activities and parking capacity during various activities; questions and concerns
about outdoor lighting.
■ Transportation impacts to Reservoir Road: concern about current road deficiencies and safety;
concerns about increased traffic volume; questions about proposed improvements to the roadway;
questions and concerns about the sight distances and safety of the two proposed entrance locations;
concerns about safety during University Montessori School operations (drop-off / pick-up when
parents and children park at Trinity Presbyterian Church and walk across Reservoir Road).
■ Transportation impacts to Fontaine Avenue / Fontaine Avenue Extended / US 29 Bypass: concerns
about current roadway and intersection deficiencies and level of service; concerns about impacts to
Buckingham Circle residents; questions about transportation improvement plans, funding, and
timing.
Comprehensive Plan
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) are provided below; additionally, comments regarding conformity with the Comp Plan will
be provided to the PC and BOS as part of the staff report.
The Comp Plan designates the majority of these subject properties for "Neighborhood Density Residential"
land use(s) in the Future Land Use Plan for the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan
(Master Plan). As noted in the "Land Use Categories and Guidelines" in the Master Plan (S+W. 34), this
designation represents "residential areas with a desired density of 3 — 6 residential dwelling units per acre."
Primary uses are residential uses; and private schools are included in the list of secondary uses "where they
are deemed compatible with nearby and adjoining land uses."
A portion of these properties is designated for "Parks and Green Systems" future land uses. This
designation corresponds with natural resources and environmental features, such as the tributary to
Moore's Creek, the floodplain around the tributary, and preserved steep slopes.
The Master Plan also provides additional information and recommendations regarding this area of Fontaine
Avenue Extended and the nearby US 29 / Interstate 64 interchange, as follows:
"Neighborhood Centers " —
• There are two designated Centers near the subject property:
o The "Morey Creek Center" (Center 4) is located near the intersection of Fontaine Avenue
Extended and Reservoir Road. The Master Plan states that "it will be a major employment
center which is affiliated with UVA" and recommends that "the uses be limited to office uses
and commercial uses in conjunction with those offices. The Plan highlights the importance of
providing pedestrian connectivity to uses and Centers on the other (eastern) side of US 29.
(S+W 36)
o The other Center is the "southwest quadrant of the Route 29 and I-64 interchange" (Center 6).
This is designated for "Regional Mixed Use," to include Industrial uses and Parks and Green
Systems uses. However, despite the proximity to the subject properties, this Center has very
little land use relationship with the subject property due to the separating presence of Interstate
64, and the lack of vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle connectivity. (S+W 37)
Page 5 of 15
"Other Areas of Importance " —
• Foxhaven Farm, located across Reservoir Road from the subject properties, is identified as an "Other
Area of Importance" for its potential to accommodate future "educational uses, including but not
limited to, a research station." (S+W 46)
o However, considering the ownership of Foxhaven Farm (The UVA Foundation), the future
"educational uses" appropriate for this area likely refer to University -affiliated education and
research, and not necessarily a private school unaffiliated with the University.
"Plan for Future Parks and Green Systems " —
• Natural Resource Protection Recommendations (S+W 53):
o "The stream buffers, systems of steep slopes, floodplain, and wetlands adjacent to ... Moore's
Creek ... should be preserved."
o "Minimize stream impacts and improve the health/quality of Moore's Creek..."
• Cultural and Scenic Resources Protection Recommendations (S+W 53):
o "Preserve and maintain the vegetation that exists along Entrance Corridors and especially I-64
... to protect the quality and character of these roads and help to provide a visual and sound
buffer to developments."
• Trails Recommendations (S+W 54):
o "Provide a greenway trail to the Ragged Mountain Natural Area."
"Plan for Future Transportation Network" —
• Transportation Plan for Western Urban Neighborhoods (S+W 57):
o Figure 37 identifies the US 29 / Fontaine Avenue interchange as one of two targeted
Intersection Improvement projects.
• Transit Recommendations (S+W 63):
o "Provide transit service on Fontaine Ave. Extended to connect Morey Creek Office Park to
other University -related uses."
In summary, the proposal to develop these subject properties for use as a private school are potentially
partially consistent with the Master Plan. A private school might be an appropriate secondary use, if it is
developed and operated in a way that is "compatible with nearby and adjoining land uses."
However, as noted throughout this review comment letter, the compatibility and appropriateness of this
development proposal has not been determined. That evaluation depends on outstanding issues and details,
including but not limited to: operational details of the private school and its facilities; the preparation and
submission of the required Traffic Impact Analysis, and the findings and conclusions contained therein;
and the funding and construction of planned transportation improvements, among other things (such as the
conceptual grading plan, potential impacts to natural resources, and potential impacts to the Entrance
Corridor).
Additionally, the "Limits of School Campus" shown on the Illustrative Plan and Concept Plan appear to
leave approximately 31 % of the subject properties out of the school campus, and presumably in open
space; but the limits of the development extend to the very edge of areas designated as Parks and Green
Systems, such as the preserved steep slopes. It would be appropriate for the Illustrative Plan and the
Concept Plan to minimize potential impacts to preserved steep slopes and other natural resources within
areas designated as Parks and Green Systems on the future land use plan.
Neighborhood Model:
In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model was developed to guide
Page 6 of 15
the "form" of development. The Neighborhood Model recommends that the Development Areas and new
development have twelve characteristics. General comments on how well the proposed development meets
the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided below. More detailed comments may be
provided at a later date if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
Principle met:
Orientation
• Sidewalks and crosswalks are shown within the proposed private school campus.
• Street trees are shown along the improved edge of Reservoir Road along the majority of
the front property line.
Principle Not Met:
• Street trees and other landscaping should be provided between the front property line and
the curb/front drive aisle.
• The applicant has discussed potentially providing a low architectural wall or knee wall
along a portion of the property's frontage, to contribute to a sense of spatial enclosure
and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the development (without bringing the
primary structure any closer to the ROW). However, no such feature is proposed or
provided on the application plan.
Mixture of Uses
The proposed use is a private school. The future land use designation is Neighborhood
Density Residential, which primarily calls for Residential uses (at a density of 3-6
units/acre), and which supports private schools as a secondary use. The future land use plan
does not call for mixed uses in this location.
Principle is not met, but this principle is not fully applicable to this location.
Neighborhood
The proposed project is a private school, which does not appear to have any direct
Centers
association with, or impact (positive or negative) on, the recommended future Centers.
The applicants stated during the community meeting (8/30/2018) that they intend to rent the
gymnasium, athletic field, and/or possibly other facilities to community groups or other
organizations, potentially to include providing use of facilities at reduced costs or for no cost.
If such rental/use is allowed, the private school would serve some community purpose
beyond its primary intended use (private school). But even this extended use would not
establish the private school as a "neighborhood center" as defined in the Master Plan.
Principle is not immediately applicable.
Mixture of Housing
This principle is not immediately applicable — the proposed project is a private school.
Types and
Principle is not applicable.
Affordability
Interconnected
The applicants stated during the community meeting (8/30/2018) their intention to provide a
Streets and
future interparcel pedestrian connection to Trinity Presbyterian Church which adjoins the
Transportation
subject properties to the cast.
Networks
Principle is partially met.
Multi -modal
This private school proposal includes school bus services. Bicycle racks on the site could
Transportation
support and advance the use of alternative transportation modes.
Opportunities
Principle is partially met.
Page 7 of 15
Parks, Recreational
The "Limits of School Campus" shown on the Illustrative Plan and Concept Plan appear to
Amenities, and Open
leave approximately 31 % of the subject properties out of the school campus, and presumably
Space
in open space; but the limits of the development extend to the very edge of areas designated
as Parks and Green Systems, such as the preserved steep slopes.
Principle is partially met.
Buildings and Space
Per discussion at the community meeting (8/30/2018), the proposed buildings would be sited
of Human Scale
at an elevation below Reservoir Road, and would be low in height (potentially one story).
This concept would likely lead to a setting where travelers in the Reservoir Road right of
way would be looking down onto the roofs (and mechanical equipment) of the school
buildings, and would produce a public right of way with no spatial enclosure or any other
architectural/structural presence along Reservoir Road.
Principle is not met.
Relegated Parking
The Illustrative Plan and Concept Plan do not show any parking between primary buildings
and the public right of way.
Principle is met.
Redevelopment
The subject properties are currently undeveloped.
Principle is not applicable.
Respecting Terrain
The proposed amount and configuration of development on the subject property, with regards
and Careful Grading
to the existing topography, and as shown on the conceptual grading plan and illustrative plan,
and Re -grading of
create concerns among staff. It appears that extensive cut and fill operations are being
Terrain
proposed to create an unnaturally large plateau of relatively flat ground (or "pad"), instead of
utilizing any terracing or similar practices to better situate this campus into a site with
significant existing topography. Staff have specific concerns about the amount, extent, and
type of proposed grading activity in proximity to preserved steep slopes, floodplain, and
stream buffer.
Principle is not met.
Clear Boundaries
The subject properties are not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary.
with the Rural Area
principle is not applicable.
Zoning
The following written review comments were provided by Zoning staff on 8/21/2018 regarding the above
noted application. These comments are also attached as a memo.
1. Please submit a parking study to address required parking for the proposed use. Please include
information as to number of faculty and staff in your submittal. The study should include any
existing data from the schools current locations.
From Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.6:
Schools: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the school
division (public schools) or the school (private schools). The number of required spaces shall be
determined by the zoning administrator. In making the determination, the administrator shall
consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the
industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers peak parking demands, and other
relevant information. (Amended 2-5-03).
Page 8 of 15
There are concerns that what has been shown on the application plan will be adequate to support
peak parking demand, such as times when the school will have multiple after school events
including sporting events, theater events, and gymnasium uses.
2. There are also concerns about the amount of lighting shown on the plan. Parking lot lighting as
well as the "Lighted Ball Field" were major concerns. Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance
outlines standard outdoor lighting regulations this development must abide by. More information
on the height of poles, lighting used, direction of illumination, etc. shall be provided to allow us to
confirm that this application plan is abiding by this section of the ordinance.
3. There are additional concerns about the width of lanes and site lines along Reservoir Road as many
other departments have mentioned.
4. Lastly, there are concerns about the amount of preserved slopes on the site and how close some of
the retaining walls come to these preserved slopes. It should be noted that retaining wall footers are
often much wider than the wall themselves, so be aware how close these retaining walls are built to
preserved slopes because even in the wall isn't impacting the slope, the construction and footers
could be. Section 30.7 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the regulations for steep slopes.
Endneerins!
No written review comments have been received from Engineering Division staff. Engineering review
comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Please note that the Planning comments (above) were
composed in collaboration with County Engineer Frank Pohl, PE, CFM.
VDOT
Mr. Adam J. Moore, PE, Area Land Use Engineer, provided the following review comments on
8/30/2018 (below). These comments are also attached as a memo.
1. The provided narrative proposes to make improvements to Reservoir Road including widening the
shoulder and clearing vegetation; however, those improvement details were not found in the
received plans.
2. Previous discussions included the need for crest grading to achieve stopping sight distance along
Reservoir Road; details for those improvements were not found.
The Department understands that the County will require a TIA for this project in order to better
understand how the proposed development will impact surrounding roads and future
improvements projects. The Department will provide comments on the TIA once it is received.
4. Note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
The following comments related to ACSA have been provided by Richard Nelson on 8/15/2018 (below).
These comments are also attached as a memo.
There are no objections for this SP. The following "red flags" regarding service provision do need to be
addressed prior to site plan approval: Call out RWSA raw water main. Show ACSA water main along
Reservoir Road. Show sewer connection proposed sewer connection to existing sewer. Approval of church
and DEQ will be required if connection to private pump station is proposed. Demonstrate how required
fire flow will be met.
Page 9 of 15
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
RWSA has reviewed the special use permit application for the Regents School at Reservoir Road (TMP
76-17) and the associated exhibit entitled "Illustrative Plan of Development" as prepared by Shimp
Engineering and dated 7/16/2018 and recommends approval of the special use permit. With this approval,
RWSA offers the following general comments for the applicant:
1. RWSA has concerns regarding the proposed grading over the existing 18" raw water main (built in
approximately 1908) for the proposed exit driveway. Depending on the timing of construction,
RWSA may request that a portion of the raw water main be replaced with ductile iron prior to
placing fill over this area. Coordination between the property owner and RWSA will be necessary
during construction to minimize other impacts to the existing raw water main.
2. No trees will be allowed within the existing RWSA water line easement.
3. Per VA Waterworks Regulations, horizontal separation of 10' is required between water lines and
sewer lines. The proposed sanitary sewer line is shown approximately 7-8 feet from the existing
raw water line.
4. RWSA is currently in the preliminary phases of design for a new raw water main to replace the
existing 1908 cast iron raw water main. The project will also include a new raw water pump station
for which a site has not yet been selected. TMP 76-17 has been identified as a possible location for
the raw water pump station, therefore RWSA may be interested in obtaining easements and/or a
small piece of property on TMP 76-17 for construction of the water main and pump station. We are
currently targeting construction in 2022-2023.
Albemarle Fire -Rescue
No written review comments have been received from Fire Rescue staff. Fire Rescue comments will be
forwarded upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter," which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form(s). There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The
resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling public hearings with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is
necessary:
$336.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement for Planning Commission public hearing
$215.00 = Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$551.00 = Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing for SP201800011
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing is needed, as follows:
$336.00 = Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing for SP201800011
Page 10 of 15
$887.00 = Total amount for all notifications for SP201800011 Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for
both the PC and BOSpublic hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be
required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date.
Page 11 of 15
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date
as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at
www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the
resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each
subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an
indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the
deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the
Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not
advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be
addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing,
staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning
Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and
recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or
resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date.
Page 12 of 15
By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper
advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule)
Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper
advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing.
These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only
exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project
proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the
applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission
meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you
will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request
deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c)
request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these
choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the
information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal
date.
Fee Payment
Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks
payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Fees may
also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Page 13 of 15
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck4 Bv:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
is
Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: - Ut s — uon O PROJECT NAME: Llnoo� RG i( �.2cI
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ), Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Trk FUILIv
Community Development Project Coordinator
00
Signature Date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$538
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,075
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,881
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'I notice fees will be required
$194
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBF.MARI.E/PAVMF.NT AT MMMIFVITv nGvcr nvt-6,rrwv r rn
i Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
i Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
1/24/17 Page I or I
Page 14 of 15
Albemarle County, Virginia
2018 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal
Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to applicant
for decision on whether to
proceed to Public Hearing
Payment Due for Public
Hearing Legal Ad
Planning Commission Public
Hearing Date*
No sooner than
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 18 2017
Jan 17
Jan 26
Feb 20
Wednesday, Jan 3
Jan 31
Feb 9
Mar 6
Tuesday, Jan 16
Feb 14
Feb 23
Mar 20
Jan 29
Feb 28
Mar 16
Apr 10
Feb 05
Mar 7
Mar 16
Apr 10
Tuesday Feb 20
Mar 21
Mar 30
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 6
May 1
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 27
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
May 18
Jun 12
Apr 16
May 16
Jun 1
Jun 26
Apr 30
May 30
Jun 1
Jun 26
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 15
Jul 10
May 21
Jun 20
Jun 29
Jul 24
Jun 4
Jul
Jul 13
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 27
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 10
Sep 4
Jul 16
Aug 15
Aug 31
Sep 25
Jul 30
Aug 29
Aug 31
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 14
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Sep 28
Oct 23
Tuesday Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 5
Oct 30
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 19
Nov13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 9
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 20**
Dec 18
Oct 29
Nov 28
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 19
Dec 19
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Dec 3
Jan 2 2019
Jan 4 2019
Jan 29 2019
Dec 17
Jan 16 2019
Jan 25 2019
Feb 19 2019
Jan 72019
Feb 62019
Feb 82019
Mar 52019
2019 Dates are tentative; shading indicates a different year
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen circumstances the
Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to the closest available agenda
date.
**Off -date to accommodate holidays.
Dates in bold Italics fall on a Tuesday due to a holiday.
Page 15 of 15
Review Comments for SP201800011 INew Special Use Permit 1-1
Project Name: REGENTS SCHOOL - RESERVOIR ROAD
Date Completed: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski _ El CBBARB Requested Changes
The applicant correctly notes that some buildings in the proposed development will be visible from the Entrance Corridors and, }
consequently, the site plan and architectural design will require ARB review and approval_ Although wooded area on preserved
slopes is expected to limit some visibility, note that screening the development from the EC is not the goal_ Instead,
appropriately designed buildings organized in an orderly and integrated layout, and enhanced by landscaping are desired_ Note
the following potential areas of concern:
1 _ The Illustrative Plan suggests that significant grading, 2-1 slopes, and retaining walls are necessary to develop the school as
desired by the applicant_ This intense level of grading is inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines-
_ The lighted ball field could have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors_ Details on the anticipated type of fixtures
proposed for the ball field would help determine impacts: number of poles, pole height, fixture type (full cutoff?), lamp type,
intensity of illumination, etc_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0813-V20'18
Review Comments for SP201800011 lNew Special Use Permit 1-1
Project Name: REGENTS SCHOOL - RESERVOIR ROAD
Date Completed: Wednesday, August 09, 2018 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Dad Hannah 91 No Division Selected See Recommendations
David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager -Albemarle County, 8181018:
Here are some initial thoughts I have regarding the two parcels that are part of the SP application_ The smaller, western parcel
is 75-66 and the larger, eastern parcel is 76-1i_ I wanted to bring these to your attention_ Please let me know if you have
questions or want to discuss this_
I have some concerns about development on this property Some general concerns include its proximity to an Important Site
identified by the Natural Heritage Committee, Ragged Mountains and Reservoir_ A potentially valuable biological site has been
identified to the east of the Ragged Mountains site, though a distance up slope from this property_ The new site helps highlight
the biological importance of the area in general_ The sloping topography of the property also seems to make development very
challenging and potentially harmful for erosion, sedimentation, and water quality_ As a passing thought, I am curious about
visibility of the proposed school from 1-64 and Route 29_
My more serious concerns revolve around the perennial stream that is on or near the southern boundary of both parcels_ More
than half of the stream on parcel 76-17 has been identified as a Stream Conservation Unit by the Natural Heritage Division of VA
DCR_ This means that a rare fresh water mussel has been located within two miles downstream, in Moores Creek_ (I don't
know the date of the occurrence or any other details_) Ironically, Moores Creek is probably the most unhealthy stream in the
area, as it is designated as impaired by VA DEQ for both recreation (due to coliform bacteria levels) and aquatic life (based on
poor results from benthic macroinvertebrate sampling)_ Given its poor water quality, we should always strive to protect water
quality in the tributaries of Moores Creek_ According to the flag layer and aerial imagery, the perennial stream has a wide
wooded buffer on its north side, much wider than the 100' required by the PO_ There are also several areas of steep slope
along the stream_ Protecting the existing wooded buffer, and keeping it as wide as possible (up to 300' if possible) would help
protect the stream and water quality_
An intermittent stream occurs near the boundary between the two parcels_ emptying into the perennial stream_ It also has a
wide wooded buffer which, if kept intact, would help protect stream health and }, ater quality
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0813 182 18
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tim Padalino, Senior Planner
From: Kevin McCollum, Bart Svoboda
Division: Zoning
Date: August 21, 2018
Subject: Initial Review Comments for SP201800011 Regents School Project
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above
noted application.
Please submit a parking study to address required parking for the proposed use. Please
include information as to number of faculty and staff in your submittal. The study should
include any existing data from the schools current locations.
From Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.6:
Schools: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted
by the school division (public schools) or the school (private schools). The number of
required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator. In making the
determination, the administrator shall consider the recommendations in the parking
study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers peak parking demands, and other relevant information.
(Amended 2-5-03).
There are concerns that what has been shown on the application plan will be adequate
to support peak parking demand, such as times when the school will have multiple after
school events including sporting events, theater events, and gymnasium uses.
2. There are also concerns about the amount of lighting shown on the plan. Parking lot
lighting as well as the "Lighted Ball Field" were major concerns. Section 4.17 of the
Zoning Ordinance outlines standard outdoor lighting regulations this development must
abide by. More information on the height of poles, lighting used, direction of illumination,
Zoning Review Comments for SP201800011
etc. shall be provided to allow us to confirm that this application plan is abiding by this
section of the ordinance.
3. There are additional concerns about the width of lanes and site lines along Reservoir
Road as many other departments have mentioned.
4. Lastly, there are concerns about the amount of preserved slopes on the site and how
close some of the retaining walls come to these preserved slopes. It should be noted
that retaining wall footers are often much wider than the wall themselves, so be aware
how close these retaining walls are built to preserved slopes because even in the wall
isn't impacting the slope, the construction and footers could be. Section 30.7 of the
Zoning Ordinance outlines the regulations for steep slopes.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1801 Orange Road
CuoeAer Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
August 30, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Tim Padalino
Re: Regents School Reservoir Road — Special Use Permit
SP-2018-00011
Review #1
Dear Mr. Padalino:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 16
July 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. The provided narrative proposes to make improvements to Reservoir Road including
widening the shoulder and clearing vegetation; however, those improvement details were
not found in the received plans.
2. Previous discussions included the need for crest grading to achieve stopping sight
distance along Reservoir Road; details for those improvements were not found.
3. The Department understands that the County will require a TIA for this project in order
to better understand how the proposed development will impact surrounding roads and
future improvements projects. The Department will provide comments on the TIA once it
is received.
4. Note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or
other requirements.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response Ietter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
l pal r
Adam J. 1� ore, E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's
Site is in jurisdictional area for _✓ water _✓ sewer water to existing structures only
not in jurisdictional area.
Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is _on Reservoir Road feet.
Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi.
Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is _Private pump station on the next parcel
feet.
Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal
Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification Yes No
Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal
7.
Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary)
Call out RWSA raw water main. Show ACSA water main along Reservoir Road. Show sewer connection
proposed sewer connection to existing sewer. Approval of church and DEQ will be required if connection
to private pump station is proposed. Demonstrate how required fire flow will be met.
Review Comments for SP201800011 lNew Special Use Permit 1-1
Project Name: REGENTS SCHOOL - RESERVOIR ROAD
Date Completed: Fnday, August 24, 2019 DepartmentlDi+vision/Agency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Victoria Fort RWSA See Recommendations
RW A has reviewed the special use permit application for the Regents School at Reservoir Road JMP 76-17) and the
associated exhibit entitled 'Illustrative Plan of Development" as prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated 7/16/2018 and
recommends approval of the special use permit_ With this approval, RW A offers the following general comments for the
applicant:
1 _ RW A has concerns regarding the proposed grading over the existing 18" raw water main (built in approximately 1908) for the
proposed exit driveway_ Depending on the timing of construction, RWA may request that a portion of the raw water main be
replaced with ductile iron prior to placing fill over this area_ Coordination between the property owner and RW A will be
necessary during construction to minimize other impacts to the existing raw water
main-
_ No trees will be allowed within the existing RWAwater line easement-
3- Per VA Wateprvorks Regulations, horizontal separation of 10' is required between water lines and sewer lines_ The proposed
sanitary sewer line is shown approximately 7-8 feet from the existing raw water line-
4- RWA is currently in the preliminary phases of design for a new raw water main to replace the existing 1908 cast iron raw
water main_ The project will also include a new raw water pump station for which a site has not yet been selected_ TMP 76-17
has been identified as a possible location for the raw water pump station, therefore RWA may be interested in obtaining
easements and/or a small piece of property on TMP 76-17 for construction of the water main and pump station_ We are
currently targeting construction in 2022-2023_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0813 18 lK 18