HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800006 Correspondence Letter of Revision 2 2021-03-080000 •
0
TIMMONS GROUP
March 8, 2021
Paty Saternye
Senior Planner
Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
RE: Letter of Revision (#2)
Monticello Visitor Center & Smith History Center
SDP-2008-006
Dear Mrs. Saternye,
608 Preston Avenue P 434.295.5624
Suite 200 F 434.295.1800
Charlottesville, VA22903 www.timmor&com
Planning — Paty Saternye:
1. [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.
Detail 8 on sheet C1.1 has been updated to show the 8' width for van accessibility.
b. Dimension the width of the revised drive aisles.
The revised drive aisles have been dimensioned.
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.
Thank you for finding and providing the parking tabulations from the previously
approved 2008 minor amendment. The spaces being removed from this plan are
visitor spaces and the net decrease is 6 spaces. The 2008 minor amendment
proposed 33 spaces beyond the minimum required. The reduction of the 6 visitor
spaces will keep the parking provided on site well above the minimum required.
This tabulation and the net reduction of six spaces has been added to the plan on
sheet C4.0.
2. [32.5.2(e) & 32.6.2(j)] 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.
The Chart has been updated as requested. We have provided two additional
diagrams that demonstrate that: 1) the 13 required parking trees from SDP2008-6
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
are still present. And 2) Identify any changes to the 2008 "existing' trees within
the project site that we have noted. The overall site canopy coverage is
unchanged.
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.
A comprehensive survey of all plantings on site is beyond the scope of our work.
We have provided a complete planting plan for the area in question and added
sheet L6.01 to capture the current condition of the existing trees in the vicinity of
the project scope of work.
c. Ensure that the impact of the grading, trail relocation and trail expansion is
considered on the existing, and previously approved (SPD2008-6) landscaping. All
areas of disturbance should be considered.
The project has been carefully designed to minimize impact on adjacent existing
landscape. As such, planting is largely small understory trees, shrubs, and
groundcovers. Grading and paving have been designed to minimize excavation. As
you might anticipate —this is sensitive, sacred ground near the cemetery, and
every intention and precaution to avoid damage to the ground and existing trees
has been taken.
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.
The team had a conference call with Paty Saternye on 2/3/2021 to review how
best to document the project. It was understood on the call that there are two
elements to demonstrate on the revised plans and exhibits. The first element to
illustrate is that at least 11 of the previously proposed 13 trees exist today to
provide the required landscape tree cover for the 113 spaces added with the
minor amendment approved in 2008. This is demonstrated on sheet L6.02. The
second element is to update the existing trees within the scope of work to best
represent the current condition. This is captured on sheet L6.01. However, it
should be noted as it was also discussed on the call, the overall canopy
calculations for the site are not dependent on any of these trees and in the
approved 2008 minor amendment the overall canopy was wholly met by
preserved forest area that vastly exceeds the minimum requirements. The revised
proposal reflects the approach determined during that call. The new sheets should
clearly demonstrate that the site continues to vastly exceed ordinance
requirements and the previous parking related trees exist today. A net reduction
in parking spaces with this LOR has no new trees required to support the scope of
work in this LOR.
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.
An updated photometric plan have been provided showing the equivalent information as
was provided in LOR#1 with updates made per as -built documentation of the lights and
the removal of the one light with this LOR.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. Address the following:
a. Provide a detail of the proposed fence.
Detail of the proposed fence is provided on sheet A403.
b. Show the gate location into the burial ground.
Gate location has been labeled on C4.0 and is detailed on A404.
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.
Details for the proposed benches are provided on sheets A401 and A402. It is
understood the signage is not approved with the site plan and we are only
showing their locations.
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.
The removal of two lights shown on the previously approved LOR#1 have been noted in
the bulleted list. One light was not installed with the prior plan and one light that was
installed is proposed to be removed with this LOR. It is also noted that the photometric
plan has been updated to reflect the changes from the previously approved LOR#1.
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 no objections. Inspections comments will be forwarded
to you when they are available.
Per follow up email inspections had no comments.
CDD Engineering —John Anderson:
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
alignment/s, 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 pedestrian path
width. 5' width is needed to allow 2-way circulation, to accommodate a range of
walking speeds, crowd volume, and wheel -chair use. Monticello, prior to 2020, drew
on average, 440,000 visitors per year. (google search).
Five-foot paths are provided to the two visitation areas and have been labeled as
such to demonstrate the five-foot width from the parking spaces to the reflection
areas. It is understood the county Class B minimum width requirement is 5 feet
which is typically thought of as a minimum for ADA accessibility given the S'XS'
minimum loading and landing widths. However, the minimum width of an
accessible path is three feet in private area and four feet in a public right of way
(2010 ADA 403.5). Wherever accessible paths are less than five feet then a S'XS'
landing must be provided every 200 feet along the path for passing areas (2010
ADA 403.5.3). All that being said it is our intent to provide five feet widths to the
two reflection areas however the final 13 feet of the path to the descendant
seating area does narrow to 54 inches. This space is only intended for descendants
and will have significantly less pedestrian traffic visiting the space and will have
5'x5' landings spaced about 15 feet apart. It is our opinion that the access withs
provided are sufficient.
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.
Safety Fence has been added around the burial grounds for protection. This safety
fence is shown on both phases of E&S controls.
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]:
i. Alignment A: No portion of this alignment exceeds 10% (Class B trail
maximum grade = 10%).
Limits of accessibility has been noted on the grading plan sheet C5.0 to
illustrate the accessible routes of the project. A general note has been
added to the path profile sheet C7.0 to reference back to sheet CS.0 for
accessible routes to clarify intent. The path profiles have been provided as
construction baselines given the sensitive constraints of the site so the
contractor may be as accurate and delicate as possible in the grading
activities.
ii. Burial Ground for Enslaved People is ADA-accessible along Alignment A.
Please see response to comment 1.c.i.
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.
Please see response to comment 1.6.
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.
Please see response to comment 1.6.
v. Alignment D: Steepest grade is 4.88%, is ADA-compliant, 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.
Please see response to comment 1.6.
Sincer ly,
ryan Cichocki, PE
Project Manager