HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800006 Review Comments Letter of Revision 2 2020-12-23.�� OF A4
eF1
A
-1-
"i:.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 23, 2020
Bryan Cichocki, PE
608 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22903
brvan. cichocki(atimmons. com
RE: LOR #2 SDP2008-6 Monticello Visitor Center and Smith History Center — Letter of
Revision
Dear Bryan Cichocki:
Your Letter of Revision application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
[32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(i)] Streets, easements and travelways; Parking and loading areas.
Address the following:
a) Revise the detail of the accessible parking spaces on page 3 to include a
hatched area 8' in width for the van accessible spaces.
b) Dimension the width of the revised drive aisles.
c) Provide the revised parking calculations, showing the number of spaces now
provided (decreased by the number removed) and that the County's parking
requirements are still being met.
2. [32.5.2(e) & 32.6.20)] Landscaping features; Landscaping plan. Address the following:
a) Provide an updated Landscaping Requirements chart (from sheet 32 in
SDP2008-6), and ensure all minimum requirements are still met.
b) Provide updated Plant Schedules (from sheet 32 in SDP2008-6) that include
everything shown in SDP2008-6 but updated for the new plantings. The plant
schedule provided appears to only show the additions being made and does not
appear to revise the previously provided landscaping plantings.
c) Ensure that the impact of the grading, trail relocation and trail expansion is
considered on the existing, and previously approved (SDP2008-6) landscaping.
All areas of disturbance should be considered.
d) The existing landscaping shown does not appear to match either the "existing"
prior to approval of SDP2008-6 (sheet 30) or what was the combined existing
and proposed plantings that should have been the outcome of SDP2008-6.
Please discuss how to represent this with the planning reviewer prior to adjusting
the landscaping plan for resubmission. Please note, except where this LOR
shows changes (and will be the approval for the changes) all of the plantings
previously approved with SDP2008-6 are required and should be shown as being
provided.
3. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. Include a Photometric Plan that shows the
equivalent information that was provided in LOR #1 and shows any and all modifications
to the lighting and lighting locations from what was shown on the LOR #1.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. Address the following:
a) Provide a detail of the proposed fence.
b) Show the gate location into the burial ground.
c) Provide a detail for the proposed benches. Please note that signage is not
approved with the site plan. Although it is appropriate to show the monument
sign location on the site plan please note that a full review of the location,
dimensions, and details of any signage is reviewed separately from the site plan.
5. [Comment] Revise and resubmit the LOR request letter to include the revisions to the
lighting. Even if the light fixtures are just being relocated that should be included in the
bulleted list.
6. [Comment] The LOR submission has also been reviewed by Engineering, ARB and Fire
Rescue. Inspections comments are still pending. Attached please see the Engineering
comments. ARB and Fire Rescue had not objections. Inspections comments will be
forwarded to you when they are available.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails
to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after
the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the
developer.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me at
psaternve(Walbemarle.oro or at 434-296-5832 ext. 3250.
Sincerely,
Paty Saternye
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Review Comments for SDP200800006 MinorAmendment
Project Name Monticello Visitor R Smith History Ctr - Minor
Date Completed: Friday. December 11, 2020 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: John Anderson CDD Engineering Requested Changes
1. Engineering has made every effort to minimize comments in deference to this (Thomas Jefferson Foundation) world
heritage site, given physical constraints that limit possible path alignments, and given sanctity of burial sites, and this site in
particular. Design provides an ADA-accessible path to viewing /contemplation /reflection areas. Given this:
a. C5.0: Revise new pathway width to 5.0' Min. 5' width is minimum required Class B — type 2 high -maintenance
pedestrian path width. 5' width is needed to allow 2-way circulation, to accommodate a range of walking speeds, crowd
volume, and wheelchair use. Monticello, prior to 2020, drew, on average, 440,000 visitors per year. ( google search).
b. With revised WPO plan (WPO202000054, under review), please provide safety fence (SAF) around burial site to limit
intrusion within areas within site deemed off-limits to construction personnel, to clearly delineate limits beyond which trespass
is forbidden.
C. C7.0: Recommend one or more Notes to alleviate any concerns relative to proposed path Max. grade, for example [
please see ACDSM, p. 20 — link: https://www.abemarle.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=270 ]:
i. Alignment A: No portion of this alignment exceeds 10% (Class B trail maximum grade =10%).
ii. Burial Ground for Enslaved People is ADA-accessible along Alignment A.
III. Alignment B: From northmost end, 23.46' of path is 12%, 14.83' is 11.00%, and neither section is required to be
ADA-accessible. After these short intervals of grade that exceed 10%, visitors to the burial site may access an additional
seating area.
Iv. Alignment C: Proposes steeper grades and is not the preferred path for those needing gentler grade. Alignment C is
not designed or designated for ADA use, nor does it connect with HC-parking areas.
V. Alignment D: Steepest grade is 4.88%, is ADAcompliant, and connects with proposed new HC-parking spaces.
Note: Note/s (item c., above) are recommended to counter any doubt that Alignments A.-D. were (or were not) reviewed by
Engineering. Engineering accepts proposed burial site path grades.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 12723/2020