Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201900015 Review Comments Architectural Review Board Approval 2019-06-06 (2)Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3278 hmcmahon@albemarle.ore From: Ryan McGrath<11yan.McGrath@littleonIine.com> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 2:37 PM To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org>; Kevin Thorstad<kevin.thorstad@iittleonline.com> Subject: RE: Ban of America - Rio Road Heather, I spoke to the Bank vendor who ran these light calculations. The individual who ran the light study on site shows that light is coming from what you were referring to as a vent. He is apparently no longer working for them, but one person looked through his night time photos and confirmed that it is actually a vent and that there is no light coming from that point on the building. As I mentioned on the conference call yesterday, I showed that light because they were informing me that at night they saw light coming from that location. Our survey was during the day and even though it appeared as a vent there were photometrics saying otherwise. I will update our elevation sheet to show that there is no existing light, but a new light will be placed there. Thank you. Ryan McGrath, AIA Retail Associate Little 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 650 Arlington, VA 22203 703.908.4535 (t) 215.205.7243 (m) 703.908.4502 (f) Littleonline.com I Littlespeakeasy.com I Facebook I Twitter Please consider the environment before printing this page or its attachments. From: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 10:56 AM To: Kevin Thorstad <kevin.thorstad littleonline.com> Cc: Ryan McGrath < Ryan. McGrath@littleonline.com> Subject: RE: Ban of America - Rio Road Hi Kevin, Thanks for these updated sheets. I. In regard to the shrubbery that now surrounds the building: no, I do not believe the three absent crapemyrtles (two on the south facade and one on the east elevation, at the southeast corner) greatly detract from the appearance of the site/building and should be replaced. The shrubbery that exists today suffices. Please revise C1.20 to remove the proposed crapemyrtle and show the shrubbery that is in their places; differentiate on the same plan what is existing as of today and what is proposed. 2. There is a discrepancy between the parking on the site as it exists today and what was approved. I have amended C1.10 (see attached) and also provided two of my photographs of the site (see IMG 4560 and _4572). The first is of the three parking spaces in the northeast corner of the site, for which the approved plan shows four. Please delete this space and show this area as having three parking spaces and additional landscaping area. Secondly, the parking on the west property line has been enlarged from 5 spaces to 7 spaces. Show these on the plan. Again, this plan needs to show all of the site changes since it was approved in 1996 + proposed changes now. 3. There are two shrubs (see annotated C1.10 and IMG_4561) on the east property line, south of the three parking spaces in the NE corner; I do not believe they are hemlocks, and so this needs to be revised on C1.10. 4. On C1.10, you pint to a tree on the east property line, just south of the two hemlocks I mentioned above that are now small shrubs of some variety; while this tree is gone, yes, a small shrub is in its place that you have no identified and placed (see IMG_4562). You call out on C1.20 that a Green Giant arborvitae is supposed to go there; is that arborvitae already there? Is the small shrub in IMG_4562 the "proposed" arborvitae? 5. The site has lost three canopy trees with the removal of the three crapemyrtles around the building. While I believe the building is better served by shrubbery, the site requires a certain amount of canopy. None of the parking on the eastern half of the site provides any shade. Please provide three shade trees in addition to the hemlocks that you propose to replace; I don't know what the small shrubs are between the three parking spaces in the northeast corner and the 8 spaces to the south, but depending on their species and their mature heights and spans, there may be room here to provide a shade tree or two. 6. To further save paper, please take detail 1 (Pole Base Detail) and the luminaire schedule from E0.01 and add them to E2.01; these are the only data on that page that is relevant to my review. 7. Sheet E2.01 is still showing, on the illustration, models R1 through R3, yet these are not named in the luminaire schedule. If we have previously decided that no alterations are happening to these fixtures and they are outside of the scope of work — and if they have been therefore been removed from the luminaire schedule — remove them from the plan as well. 8. Your lighting/photometric plan on E3.01 still shows footcandles in excess of 20 although previous comments informed the applicant that values less than 20 are the standard in the EC and asked you to reduce them. If you are proposing new and replacement fixtures in the canopy, I believe you can reduce the footcandles down to 20 and below. Please revise. I am afraid this is only a partial review and I have to pick this up next week; I'll be out of town as of noon today until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 12 and I have to go to a meeting now. Please begin to respond to these requested changes and do not submit a resubmission until I am able to fully review this application. Thanks, Heather McMahon, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3278 hmcmahonPalbemarle.org From: Kevin Thorstad<kevin.thorstad@littleonline.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 4:22 PM To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@aibemarle.org> Cc: Ryan McGrath <Ryan.McGrath@littleonline.com> Subject: RE: Ban of America - Rio Road