HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700027 Review Comments 2007-11-14 4
C�pF AL
�
�® I illy
`IRG1N'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
FROM: Brent W. Nelson, Landscape Planner
RE: SP 2007-27, Emmanuel Episcopal Church
DATE: November 14, 2007
I have reviewed the Conceptual Site Plan for the above-referenced project, plan date October 31, 2007.
Outstanding issues that will need to be further addressed are shown in italics after the original comment
from the Architectural Review Board Action Letter of August 20, 2007.
1. Remove the front 16 parking spaces on the north side of the parking. Encourage a more rural
landform through terracing. Show how the grading will be resolved at the front.Add additional trees
along the ridge line.
Issue: Sheets L 1.2 "Site Improvements" and L 1.4 "Landscape Plan" show proposed grading
contours within the drip line of many of the existing trees designated to remain along the ridge line.
Proposed grading contours along the ridge line are inadequately labeled for review. Some of the
proposed grading between the sanctuary and the Marston House is drawn incorrectly with contours
overlapping.
2. Terrace the eastern parking lot to reduce the disruption to the natural slopes.
Issue: Proposed grading contours in the eastern terraced parking lot are inadequately labeled for
review.
3. Show grading in the parking lot west of the cemetery. Show which trees will be salvaged.
Issue: This comment has not been addressed.
4. Clarify the plantings that will be visible from the Entrance Corridor for both existing and proposed
trees and shrubbery. Provide a rural landscaping design with trees possibly clustered,not necessarily a
tree spaced every 10 spaces, allowing Entrance Corridor views of the parking lot to appear more
natural and less structured.
Issue: Sheet L1.4 "Landscape Plan"should be revised to show how the interior parking area tree
requirement of 1 tree/10 parking spaces has been met.
5. Revise the application plan to show an accurate representation of the drip line for all existing trees
shown. Provide for replacement trees for trees lost due to work within the drip line. Minimize the
number of trees to be lost. Revise the application plan to show all proposed trees visible from the EC,
even those not acting as replacement installed using the minimum 3"caliper, but subject to change.
Issue: Sheets L 1.2 "Site Improvements"and L 1.4 "Landscape Plan"show proposed grading
contours within the drip line of many of the existing trees designated to remain along the ridge
line. Proposed gradir.o .,..ntours along the ridge line are inadequa._., .abeled for review. Some of
the proposed grading between the sanctuary and the Marston House is drawn incorrectly with
contours overlapping. The plan should be revised to state that all proposed trees shall be a 3"
caliper minimum.
6. Provide a photometric plan.
Issue:Annotation on Sheet L 1.5 "Site Improvements"refers to the proposed pole fixture as a 70 watt
metal halide "cut off'fixture.A cutofffixture is not a full cut offfixture. Lighting in excess of 3,000
lumens must be a FULL cut off f'style fixture.A lighting cut sheet and schedule was not provided with
this submission; therefore, it could not be determined if the proposed fixture is possibly a full cut off
style fixture. Sheet L1.5 should be revised to include a cutsheet of all proposed exterior lighting along
with a lighingt schedule indicating all lighting options chosen.
7. Clarify the direction of travel in the proposed parking lot.
Issue: This comment has been addressed.
8. If the future new building is visible from the Entrance Corridor it needs to have exterior materials
harmonious with the present structure, e.g. a slate roof, and moldings painted white with classical
Virginia detailing. Provide site sections from the Entrance Corridor demonstrating visibility of
proposed building.
Issue: This comment has been addressed.
9. Clarify existing conditions on the contours.
Issue: This comment was made due to stray drafting lines shown on the hillside in front(north) of
the existing parish hall. Those errant lines are still on the drawing. They appear to be surveying
line work whose layer was not "turned off'when the sheet was finalized.
cc: file