[SchoolMatters] Biscuit Run info from planning staff

[Brian Wheeler]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This message is not an official communication of the Albemarle County School
Board. It is a private, e-mail-only newsletter written by Brian Wheeler,
At-Large Member of the Albemarle County School Board. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Want to share some public comments on this message?  See the weblog version
here: http://schoolmatters.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/biscuit_run.html ]

I have received a couple of e-mail responses to my last posting about the
Biscuit Run school site location discussion which comes before the School
Board this Thursday.  Please keep the comments coming.

Speaking as one School Board member, I believe new elementary schools,
particularly in a development this size, should be centrally located
neighborhood schools to promote walkability and bicycle access for nearby
residences.  Let's create safe routes to school in the beginning when we
have the opportunity.  I am also open to alternative school site designs
that would work best in a more urban location like a town center in Biscuit
Run.

See: ACCT's Safe Routes to School program:
<http://www.transportationchoice.org/saferoutes.html>
http://www.transportationchoice.org/saferoutes.html

Based on the questions and comments I have received by e-mail, I thought I
would also share some additional information [below] that has come before
the Planning Commission, prepared by planning staff, but which was not in
the packet of information received by the School Board.  These excerpts
related to the school site are pulled directly from the staff reports from
the March and April Planning Commission work sessions.

Brian Wheeler

ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 21 2006 Work Session

[Excerpts from staff report]

A majority of the site is located in the development area. Approximately 92
acres of the project area is located in the rural area, where the applicant
is proposing a school and park..

Staff believes the proposed plan is relatively consistent with the Land Use
Plan general guidance from the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the
school location..

Differences between the Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Rezoning Plan

Several differences are noted between the Comprehensive Plan and the ZMA
plan.  Staff requests that the Commission review these differences and
answer the questions below:

* The location of a school and park in the rural area or southern portion of
the site instead of locating these two items within the development area. 

The applicant shows a school and park located in the rural portion of this
site. The vast majority of the students attending the elementary school will
be from the Biscuit Run development. Located at the edge of the development
opportunities for students, teachers, and parents to walk to the school are
very limited. 

The Community Facilities Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan establishes
the following standards for schools:

OVERALL FACILITY OBJECTIVES

Objective: The location of new public facilities should be within the
County's Development Areas so as to support County land use policies.
Development Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as service
center locations for the Rural Areas.  Only in cases where it is not
possible to locate a new facility in the Development Area due to physical
constraints, or the nature of the facility, and/or service(s) provided, will
public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area.

The school and park are not proposed within the designated development area
and are not consistent with this objective.  Due to the characteristics of
some parks (size, intended use, impacts such as noise/lighting), it may be
appropriate to locate ball fields at the edges of development consistent
with this objective.  There does not appear to be a justification consistent
with this objective for locating the school in the Rural Area.
  
Additionally, the location of the school in the Rural Areas appears to be an
impediment to creating a pedestrian oriented development. Having the school
more centrally located will offer residents a variety of options in terms of
how they get to and from the school. Having the school site located at the
southern most portion of the site, begins to make it very difficult for the
residents who live in the northern portion of the site to easily access the
school without getting in their vehicle or a bus. It is important that the
school be accessible for pedestrians, bicycles, and other modes of
transportation for internal and external residents who will need to use the
school site. 

The Community Facility Plan standards also allow the provision of adequate
parks and recreational facilities through the utilization of school
facilities. In the past, elementary schools sites typically have provided
Community level parks. Since the adoption of the Neighborhood Model, the
Community Facilities Plan standards have been modified to provide for
greater flexibility in elementary school design by allowing for a smaller
school site (Neighborhood School) based on providing additional "community
park" facilities at other locations within the community and not at an
elementary school.  The school Division generally requests a minimum of 12
usable acres for a Neighborhood Elementary School or 15 usable acres for a
"Community Park" Elementary School.

In addition to issues related to the Community Facilities Plan, the location
of the site is problematic from a development standpoint. The quality of the
proposed school site is poor in many places due to steep terrain,
floodplains, and a stream buffer. Access to the school site requires a
stream crossing. The Commission will need to consider whether the stream
crossing is warranted for the school or a park.

The proposed park is also located in the rural area of the site adjacent to
the school and the ideal situation would be to also have the park located in
a central, more accessible place. This development could potentially have
12,000 residents, which would require a significantly large park of
approximately 50 acres with at least 25 acres that would be suitable for
development of active facilities.  Staff understands that it may be
difficult for the developer to give up prime developable land for the school
and the park. Therefore staff, is more supportive of the location of the
park in the rural areas as opposed to the school. It is anticipated that the
park would require less disturbance to the environmental resources on that
portion of the site. Having ball fields and other active recreational needs
might be noisy and need to have lighting. Parks and Recreation staff have
experienced fewer complaints relative to playing fields when they are in the
Rural Areas.    

Question for the Commission:  Is the location of the school and park
satisfactory and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan? Staff believes that
the school and park should be centrally located within the development and
not in the adjacent rural area portion of the site. Staff believes that
there may be justification for the park to be located in the Rural Areas
because it allows for greater density in the development areas and because
there are small park sites proposed within the development. If the
Commission supports the park outside of the development areas, access to the
park and the impacts of the stream crossing should also be considered.

The General Development Plan shows a boundary that is larger than the
proposed rezoning request. It is staff understands that the applicant
purchased several more acres in addition to the 920 acres for the proposed
rezoning. The additional acreage is located in the rural area (south of the
proposed rezoning boundary) and is not part of this rezoning request.  

ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 18, 2006 Work Session

[Excerpts from staff report]

Stream Crossings
The applicant has requested three stream crossings and applied for the
related special use permits for these crossings. The crossings are located
at the north, middle, and southern portions of the site as shown on
Attachment A. Two of the crossings interconnect streets within the
development.  The third connects the Development Areas property to the
school and park area in the Rural Areas..

The main crossing over Biscuit Run appears to be a culvert involving a large
amount of fill. Use of a culvert involves major disturbance of the stream
and stream buffer for construction and interrupts the aquatic habitat and
flow of the stream.  Some stream crossings in the Development Areas are more
amenable to culverts than others.  For the two internal crossings over
Biscuit Run,  span bridges with sufficient space beneath for water flow and
wildlife movement would be a preferable solution.   As staff does not
support the school site being in the Rural Areas, staff cannot support the
third stream crossing proposed by the applicant.    If the Commission
believes that a school or park site is appropriate at the location offered
by the applicant, staff believes that a span bridge would be appropriate at
this location as well.  Field determinations may still be needed to locate
the least environmentally damaging crossing location more specifically. 

How should ecosystems in the Rural Areas affect the decision on whether or
not the school and park area should be located in the Rural Areas?

The Open Space Plan and the Biodiversity Work Group have identified wooded
areas as an important resource on the site.  The woodlands that extend from
the site into the Rural Areas have been identified as important to habitat.
The development of a school and/or park in the rural area will result in
removal of woodlands.  A park, not necessarily developed with fields might
be less destructive to habitat than a large area graded for playing fields.
If a park is appropriate for this part of the Rural Areas, access would
still need to be considered and staff wonders if there is another area of
the property which would more appropriately be used for a district park.
Staff believes that protection of the Rural Areas is important and that a
school and park with playing fields will have a negative impact on the
ecosystems of the Rural Areas and should be avoided.

Should a different layout of the site be considered that would lessen the
impacts and level of grading proposed with the existing plan? 

Staff believes the applicant should propose a layout that lessens the impact
of grading on the site. Staff understands that grading will occur and that
some of the natural resources on the site will be disturbed, but to the
extent by which this can be lessened would be a more appropriate step in the
development of this site.  A plan that works more with the existing
topography would be more appropriate. 

______________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, just send me a message and
I will immediately unsubscribe you.  To view the archive of past
SchoolMatters messages, visit:
<http://listserv.bnsi.net/pipermail/schoolmatters/>
http://listserv.bnsi.net/pipermail/schoolmatters/
 
If someone forwarded you this message, you may visit this web page to
subscribe:  <http://listserv.bnsi.net/mailman/listinfo/schoolmatters>
http://listserv.bnsi.net/mailman/listinfo/schoolmatters
 
Brian Wheeler
 <mailto:bwheeler at albemarlematters.com> bwheeler at albemarlematters.com
 <http://www.wheeleronboard.com/> http://www.wheeleronboard.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.bnsi.net/pipermail/schoolmatters/attachments/20060425/a65da660/attachment.htm