HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800167 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2008-12-03Page 1 of 2
Brent Nelson
From: Brent Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:19 PM
To: 'JSHIMP @DDRVA.COM'
Cc: 'JON @STUDIOASSOCIATES.COM'
Subject: ARB 2008 -167, Tip Top Restaurant Amendment, Administrative Review
Importance: High
Justin - As you will recall, I presented the above referenced proposal to the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) on December 1, 2008 to see if they thought the review could be handled administratively by
staff. Below you should find the action taken by the Board. As you will note, they have indicated that
an administrative review by staff would be acceptable if you can revise the application according to the
conditions listed in their action below. Should you feel that you can not meet all of the listed
conditions, you other choice would be for a full review by the ARB at their 1/5/09 regularly scheduled
meeting. The staff report for that review would then be based upon the application as it currently exists.
Please let me know by 12/5/08 which alternative you would like to pursue.
Brent
Brent W. Nelson
Landscape Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
434 - 296 -5832, ext 3272
434 - 972 -4012 (fax)
ARB Web Page:
http: / /albemarle.org/ department. asp ?department = planning &relpage =2464
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO
Date: 12 -1 -08
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room 241
Members:
Charles T. Lebo: Present
Fred Missel, Vice Chair: Present
Paul M. Wright, Chairman: Present
Bill Daggett: Absent
12/3/2008
Page 2 of 2
Staff:
Margaret Maliszewski: Present
Brent Nelson: Present
Other Business:
Tip Top: Pergola addition:
Motion: Regarding the ARB- 2008 -167: Tip Top Pergola addition, Mr.. Missel moved that the applicant can have
the current submittal reviewed by the ARB on its current schedule, or can make a resubmittal to staff that
addresses the following comments, and staff can administratively review and approve it.
1. Reconsider the proportions of the beam; the main beam should be larger in size than the joists,
proportionally.
2. The main support beam should extend beyond the joists and the ends should be detailed to match the joist
elements.
3. Resolve the fact that the joists are drawn as 2" material but are labeled as 3" or 4" material.
4. The posts should be proportional to the dimension of the beam and joist material. For example, 8 x 8 or 12
x 12 may be more appropriate than the metal pipe.
5. Exposed metal pipe is not acceptable.
6. The span of the beam extending between the building fagade and the southwest building corner is out of
proportion and should be broken up with a third column.
Second: Mr.. Lebo.
Vote: The motion carried by a vote of 3:0.
12/3/2008