Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700027 Correspondence 2007-08-22 Joan McDowell From: Mark Lieberth [Mark@lpda.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:21 PM To: Joan McDowell Cc: W. Douglas Gilpin; ESCHVJ©aol.com Subject: Emmanuel Episcopal Church Joan: I have received the county' s letter of August 17, 2007 notifying us of the public hearings associated with Special Use Permit SP2007-00027, Emmanuel Episcopal Church. I want to notify you that we would like to defer the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting in order to respond to the comments of the ARB. I would appreciate if the project is rescheduled at the earliest possible date upon our response to the ARB comments. In addition, I am be asking formally that the drawings we submit be considered preliminary site plans, and that this requirement is waived in the future. Thank you. Mark Lieberth Mark Lieberth, ASLA, LEED AP Associate Land Planning & Design Associates, Inc. 310 E. Main Street Suite 200 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 tel 434-296-2108 toll free 888-781-5732 fax 434- 296-2109 www. lpda.net 1 Page 1 of 2 Joan McDowell From: Mark Lieberth [Mark@lpda.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:36 PM To: Joan McDowell Subject: RE: {Spam?}comments Thanks Joan, I recived the comments. Mark From: Joan McDowell [mailto:jmcdowell©albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:31 PM To: Mark Lieberth Subject: {Spam?} comments r<`c .�r g,r-:47-re, ,,!..Vigwe. 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: August 21, 2007 I have reviewed the Conceptual Site Plan for the above-referenced project, latest revision date August 16, 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: The Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07, does not contain a proposed grading plan and does not distinguish between existing and proposed trees. 2. Terrace the eastern parking lot to reduce the disruption to the natural slopes. Issue: The Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07, does not contain a proposed grading plan. Note: the underground stormwater management facility,previously shown adjacent to the eastern edge of the easternmost parking lot, is shown 50'southwest of the existing Religious Education Building and 80' southeast of the Route 250W EC in this latest plan. Annotation on the plan indicates that the facility could be either an underground or at-grade facility. Details of the at-grade facility would need to be reviewed by the ARB. 3. Show grading in the parking lot west of the cemetery. Show which trees will be salvaged. Issue: This comment has not been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07. 11/1/2007 Page 2 of 2 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: This comment has not been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07. 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: This comment has not been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07. 6. Provide a photometric plan. Issue: This comment has not been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07. 7. Clarify the direction of travel in the proposed parking lot. Issue: This comment has been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07; however, the applicant's letter accompanying this submission states that removing the existing two-way entry drive in favor of a one-way drive is being studied. The impacts created by this proposal would need to be reviewed by the ARB. 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 not been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07. 9. Clarify existing conditions on the contours. Issue: This comment has not been addressed in the Conceptual Site Plan, latest revision date 8/16/07. cc: file 11/1/2007