HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900023 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-10-13From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:50 PM
To: 'eryang @waterstreetstudio.net'
Cc: Summer Frederick
Subject: Tabor Presbyterian
Eugene,
I've reviewed your ARB re- submittal for the Tabor Presbyterian church. Most of the comments
from the ARB review are related to the existing evergreen and magnolia at the front of
the property, and protecting them during construction. Although you included a memo with your
submittal, I'm having trouble understanding how you've addressed some of the ARB conditions.
1. The existing trees to remain were supposed to be shown at actual size. This was to ensure
coordination with proposed grading and construction. I see that the evergreen and magnolia tree
symbols were enlarged slightly and your memo indicates that they have been depicted "closer to
actual size ". My notes from my site visit indicate that the evergreen actually occupies most of the
space between the church and the concrete walk - much larger than your current depiction. (I
didn't note the actual canopy of the magnolia.) The evergreen isn't shown at actual size, right?
Can you show it at actual size? What about the magnolia?
2. The proposed grading was supposed to be revised to avoid the drip lines of trees to remain.
Proposed grading is still shown inside the drip line of the magnolia. Can you shift the grading to
avoid the magnolia (the magnolia drawn at actual size)?
3. Not only is grading shown within the drip line of the magnolia, but water and sewer lines are
now shown running within the drip line, as well. The point of the comment was to avoid the tree.
Can you re -route the water and sewer lines to avoid the magnolia?
4. The route of the east -west sidewalk (extending from the stone walk at the church) was
supposed to be revised to avoid the drip line of the evergreen to the greatest extent possible.
Your memo says "Sidewalk to avoid dripline of evergreen ". The meaning of that comment isn't
clear and it doesn't look like any change was made. Without the actual canopy of the tree shown,
it doesn't seem like this comment can be fully addressed.
5. Arborist recommendations were provided, but the plan doesn't actually say that the
recommendations will be carried out and the plan doesn't specify which trees the
recommendations apply to.
6. I'm confused by your plant list. The tree quantities don't seem to match the drawing, and the
trees drawn on the plan aren't labeled as to type.
Eugene, can you help me understand how the current set of revisions addresses the ARB
issues?
Thanks for your help.
Margaret
Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 x3276