Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900023 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-12-11From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Friday, 12/11/09 To: Kurt Keesecker Subject: Tabor Church Kurt, I've looked over your submittal. I agree that the revisions won't be visible from the EC and they don't constitute a substantial change in design. Therefore, additional ARB review won't be necessary for those revisions. As a reminder, the ARB approved the project with conditions on May 4, 2009.1 last provided comments on revisions meant to address those conditions on October 13 to Eugene Ryang and reviewed them with him in person on October 16. (These were site plan issues. I've copied the email I sent Eugene below.) I have not received a submittal since then, so conditions are still outstanding and final ARB approval has not been granted for this project. It would be good if you could include your updated architectural plans and elevations with the re- submittal when it is made. That will bring everything up to speed. Thanks. Margaret 10/13/09 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 From: Kurt Keesecker [mai Ito: kkeesecker@brucewardell.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:44 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Tabor Church in Crozet Good afternoon Margaret It's been sometime since our last correspondence, but as you may know our office has continued to work with Tabor Church in Crozet on the project that was previously approved by the ARB in the spring. The project is noted as "ARB- 2009 -23: Tabor Presbyterian Church — Fellowship Hall Addition." Since the ARB approval, we've been working with the Church on their Capital Campaign, coordination with the Library project, and to refine both their project budget and some small adjustments to their program. In doing so, we have been asked to modify some of the exterior elements of the building. These 'revised' elements are not visible from the Entrance Corridor, primarily because they are located very close to the existing historic Church and a shielded from view by the existing Church. We'd like to amend or resubmit the design changes to your attention in whatever method protocol requires ... but we're not sure if these changes (not visible from the Entrance Corridor) require a total resubmission to the Board, or if they warrant only staff review. Or a mix of the two... Attached for your reference, I have included the original designs /ARB submission sheets as well as the revised designs ... with areas that have been changed highlighted in pink. Could we ask you to review these changes and let me know if they require a full resubmission? If so, we will make every effort to provide the ARB with all the the required submissions prior to the Christmas holiday. If, in your opinion, these changes can be handled administratively, please let me know if we can provide additional information at this time. For reference... the highlighted 'pink' areas are the items we've revised, as follows: • added some additional floor area to the hallway to help clearances around the new bathroom • eliminated the brick details around the corridor entry area, made these details more similar to the rest of the connecting corridor • eliminated one bay (out of previously designed two bays) at the roof covering the ADA entry for the Fellowship Hall • eliminated the roof overhang at the kitchen 'back door' We appreciate your help. Thank you kurt keesecker, aia kkeesecker @brucewardell.com brw architects [p] 434 . 971 . 7160 www.brucewardell.com