HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700053 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2008-06-04 (2)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5823 Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Judy Wiegand
FROM:
Margaret Maliszewski
DATE:
June 4, 2008
RE:
St. Anne's Belfield New Academic Building: SP -2007-53
I have reviewed the "Work Session" plan (revised 5/19/08) and the site sections (undated) submitted for
the above -referenced project. I have the following comments:
Staff originally recommended that 20' -deep landscape buffers be provided along the proposed
playing fields and the parking lot near the bypass, and that the specific planting of the buffer could
be handled with the ARB review of the site plan. The applicant submitted a revised plan showing a
20' buffer all along the east side of the site, with some notes regarding plant types. A continuous
buffer is a positive feature; however, the most recent plan shows a conflict between the buffer and
utilities. (The plan is still somewhat difficult to read. It appears that water and telephone lines run
along and through large stretches of the buffer. Other conflicts could exist.) Furthermore, the
buffer overlaps the northeast corner of the northern playing field. I spoke with Kurt Gloeckner this
afternoon. He indicated that some of the parking could be moved and the northern playing field
could be shifted to resolve some of the conflicts. (We did not discuss shifting the southern playing
field, but shifting it 25' to the north/northwest would provide for a consistent 20' buffer.) Kurt
asked that the buffer simply be made a condition of approval, so that time would not be lost with
another plan revision. However, it would be best to have a plan the accurately corresponds to
conditions of approval. It would be best to have the plan revised to show exactly how much buffer
can actually be provided, free of existing utilities. A revised plan showing a workable 20' -buffer,
with parking and fields shifted as necessary, is recommended.
2. The notes regarding landscaping are inconsistent and confusing. It would be best to clean these up
before the application moves on to the Planning Commission. I reviewed these changes with Kurt
Gloeckner, and he agreed that he could make the changes.
a. The note reading "Minimum 20' deep landscape buffer between parking area and Ste. Rte
855 (Staggered Plantings) ...." that is located near the bottom of the Work Session plan
sheet, just to the right of the "TMP 60-24" identifier should be removed from the plan.
b. The note reading "Minimum 20' deep landscape buffer between parking area and Ste. Rte
855 (Staggered Plantings) ...." that is located to the left of the "Notes" should be revised
to read: "Minimum20' deep landscape buffer between parking area and Ste. Rte 855
subject to ARB review."
c. The second sentence of Note #1 should be deleted.
1
Trees are shown as staggered black dots in the buffer and along Faulconer Drive. Some of the dots
are shown in Faulconer Drive. Those dots should be moved to appropriate locations. Also, it
should be understood that the ARB will likely require a mixed planting with a less formal
appearance than would result from the consistent double -staggered row of trees shown in the
buffer. Consequently, the "tree dots" are considered to be a general representation of landscaping,
and not a specific approved pattern of landscaping.
4. These are the recommended conditions of approval:
a. A row of 2'/z" caliper shade trees shall be provided along the east side of the relocated
portion of SR 855.
b. 20' -deep landscape buffers shall be provided, free of utilities, to screen the proposed
playing fields and the parking lot located southeast of the existing football field from the
bypass.
c. Landscaping may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of ARB
guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual impact of the
playing fields and parking on the Entrance Corridor.
2