HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201700057 Review Comments 2019-05-30 Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:58 PM
To: Erin Root
Cc: Tim Miller; Christopher Perez;Wesley Carter
Subject: RE:ARB-2017-57:Albemarle Countertop; SDP-2018-63: Hydraulic Road LLC Minor
Amendment
Erin,
I'm confused by your questions.The plant schedule identifies the required planting size and quantity.The schedule must
correspond to the drawing. If the drawing size or scale do not allow you to illustrate each individual plant,you could
employ a drawing convention that uses one symbol to indicate a particular quantity of one plant in a particular location.
Since the plan limits you to a required planting size,the quantity represented by the symbol would not need to change.
If you use a symbol to indicate more than one plant(for example, one cross-hatched circle represents 20 sedge together
in one location)then you will need to identify on the plan the quantity that each symbol represents (in this example, 20
sedge).
Margaret
From: Erin Root<erinintrevado@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:37 AM
To: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Cc:Tim Miller<meridianwbe@gmail.com>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Wesley Carter
<wescarterbob@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:ARB-2017-57:Albemarle Countertop; SDP-2018-63: Hydraulic Road LLC Minor Amendment
Hi Margaret,
Regarding#2.Yes,the symbols are intended to depict several plants, as the amount depends on current sourcing size.
Can the note say this or does it need to say something specific?
Best,
Erin
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:45 AM Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>wrote:
Tim,
I have reviewed the site plan submitted by Meridian Planning Group with revision date of 5/7/19. I have the following
comments:
1. My emailed comments from May 3 requested that a note be added to the plan indicating that the new
monument sign and sign lighting are shown only for information and are not approved with the site plan; a
separate sign application is required.This note was not added to the plan, but it is needed.
2. The plant quantities in the plant schedule do not appear to correspond directly with the plant symbols drawn on
the plan. Please explain these discrepancies/revise the landscape plan accordingly. (The rendering of the
landscape plan makes it difficult to read and to distinguish the various plant symbols. I realize this may be
1
contributing to the apparent inaccuracies.Also, if a single symbol is intended to represent multiple plants,this
will need to be noted on the plan/in the schedule.)
a. 60 white heath aster noted in schedule; 13 drawn on plan
b. 10 poppy mallow noted in schedule; 23 drawn on plan
c. 100 Pennsylvania sedge noted in schedule; 16 drawn on plan
d. 26 Big bluestem noted in schedule; 31 drawn on plan
e. 63 Little bluestem noted in schedule; 36 drawn on plan
f. 1-1 switchgrass noted in schedule; 14 drawn on plan
g. 6 Ginkgo noted in schedule; 8 drawn on plan
Thanks.
Margaret
Margaret Maliszewski,Chief of Planning/Resource Management
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
mmaliszewski@albemarle.org
•
Erin Intrevado Root
WHIL Innovations Post-doctoral Fellow 2014
Master of Landscape Architecture 2013
Master of Architecture 2011
University of Virginia
2