HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201900015 Review Comments Architectural Review Board Approval 2019-02-26 (2)Heather McMahon
From: Heather McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 201912:46 PM
To: 'kevin.thorstad@littleonline.com'
Cc: 'Lourdes Cruzhidalgo'
Subject: RE: LOR #3 application to SDP-1996-35: Bank of America at Rio Road
Attachments: ARB2019-15 cw cofa requested changes_pdf, ARB2019-15 Resubmittal Form.pdf
Hello Kevin and Lourdes,
Please find attached the ARB review comments which will also inform the changes that are requested to the Letter of
Revision application. After you have reviewed these letters carefully, we may wish to speak on the telephone.
I want to identify three main issues with your submissions:
1) Accuracy and illustration. The site plans you have submitted should be streamlined to make review as easy as
possible. In the attached letter, I have suggested that you provide the following three site plan sheets in addition
to the building elevations you provided previously that exhibit wall -mounted lighting:
a. A Current Conditions and Demolition Plan;
b. A Landscape Plan;
c. A Lighting Plan;
Note that everything that currently exists and is proposed for removal should be noted on the first plan. The
second should show proposed/new landscaping in conjunction with the placement of existing and proposed
lights as well as provide a landscape schedule. The third should show existing and proposed/new lights as well as
provide a luminaire schedule. More detail can be found in the letter.
This leads me to the issue of accuracy. Your site plans do not appear to include all of the vegetation and site
features (such as the small concrete island with shrubbery at the northwest corner of the site, where the
property has an entrance from Putt Putt Place —or the trees that line the west end of the property, fronting Putt
Putt Place) that currently exist on the site. This must be rectified, and may require you to visit the site.
Furthermore, the illustrations of the site in your site plan show property boundaries that do not align with the
right-of-ways, which you did not include on the site plan illustrations.
2) Compliance. The 1996 approved site plan that I provided previously and sent another, cleaner copy via email
yesterday is the base line from which you should be working. If there is landscaping missing (such as in the
southeast corner of the site) from the approved site plan from the actual ground conditions, this landscaping
must be provided in order for your site to be in compliance with the approved site plan. If that vegetation has
been removed and no longer exists in the ground, that should be reflected in your amended 1996 site plan that
you submitted with your LOR. Again, this is going to require knowing and comparing a) what was approved in
1996; b) what is on the ground today; and c) how the differences should be addressed. If your client does not
wish to replace the missing vegetation in the southeast corner, for instance, then an application for that needs
to be made on the same LOR which you are using to address the removal of one ornamental evergreen (and its
replacement) in the northeast corner of the site.
My recommendation is that you utilize the 1996 plan I scanned and sent to you yesterday to create two
amended plans: one that shows how the ground conditions differ from the approved plan and another that
shows your present propositions, including lights and trees/shrubs to be removed, replaced, and added.
3) The dumpster. This is a continuation of the "compliance" issue I raised above. I have had some confusion about
how or why the dumpster should be reviewed here. Apparently, in my absence, you had a conversation with
Margaret Maliszewski in which she informed you that
a. A dumpster was approved by the ARB in 2013 (see document for ARB-2013-5 here);
b. The placement/location of the dumpster was not approved by a Letter of Revision in 2013 and the
applicant was informed in 2013 that an accompanying Letter of Revision for the dumpster would be
necessary;
c. You all would need to include the dumpster as a part of your LOR application because it had not been
done yet.
Neither your ARB nor LOR applications mentioned the dumpster, and so I was confused about where this
process lay. I believe I have my bearings now. To include the location of the dumpster in this LOR, you will need
to further revise the site plan drawings to show and label:
a. The dumpster (concrete) pad and dimensions
b. The dumpster's footprint and dimensions
c. A detail (elevation) of the dumpster enclosure as visible from the Entrance Corridor (specify the material and
color, as well, please).
There are a lot of moving parts here, and I understand any confusion, so I encourage your to telephone me for
clarifications. Please note that I will require four revised versions of the 1996 site plan in addition to four copies of the
site plans that are meant to accompany the application for the LOR; as well as two revised copies of revised site plans
for the ARB application. I have attached the resubmittal form here, and I have added it to the letters that I am mailing in
today's post.
Thanks,
Heather McMahon, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3278
hmcmahon@albemarle.or.g
From: Heather McMahon
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:43 PM
To: kevin.thorstad@littleonline.com
Cc: Lourdes Cruzhidalgo<lourdes.cruzhidaIgo@littleonline.com>
Subject: RE: LOR #3 application to SDP-1996-35: Bank of America at Rio Road
Hello again, Kevin,
When I sent you review comments on Friday afternoon, I forgot to attach this scanned site/landscape plan from the
1996 approved site plan —this is a cleaner version than the previous one we provided to you because it doesn't have all
of the alterations to parking and sidewalk pavement made in the second Letter of Revision in 2014. You may find this
original site plan helpful as a reference when ascertaining what has been planted on the site/what exists currently and
what has been removed/what does not currently exist.
I'll be following up with your ARB review comments later today.
Thanks,