The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201500010 Review Comments 2015-03-19 $ hrittopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:41 PM To: Craig Kotarski Subject: SDP2015-10 Cale Elementary School Additions and Renovations—minor amendment Attachments: Site_Plan_Amendment_Policy.pdf; Cale Resubmittal Form.doc Craig, SDP2015-10 Cale Elementary School Additions and Renovations—minor amendment The review of the above referenced plan has been completed. Once the required changes occur,please submit a minimum of four(4)signed/sealed hard copies of the plans. Comments are provided below. Planning 1)On sheet 1 of the site plan please provide the SDP#for the project next to the title: "SDP2015-10". Also,please be advised that this is the 3rd Minor Amendment for the school site. Site plans are limited to 3 minor amendments before a Major Amendment is required. This minor amendment is permitted 3 Letters of Revisions(LORs). If another site plan amendment other than a LOR is proposed it shall be a Major Amendment (see attached County policy on Site Plan Amendments). Also,please be advised that this minor amendment cannot be approved until ARB has approved the plans/to include ARB submittal. Engineering 1)no objection or comments Building inspections 1)no objection or comments ACSA 1)no objection or comments ARB 1)County ARB staff had one comment on the site plan submittal which required a revision: 5. Add the standard equipment note to both the site drawings and the architectural elevations: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." Below are all of ARB's comments,which apply to the ARB submittal. Please direct all ARB related comments to Margaret M. Maliszewski,Principal Planner 434-296-5832 x3276 (attached is the resubmittal form for the ARB submittal) I asked the ARB about the rooftop equipment and screen today and the Board gave the following direction: 1. The mechanical equipment should be centered over a(window) opening. 2. The screen should match the color of the roof. 3. The screen walls can be either straight or canted. Based on my review of the submittal and the ARB's direction,the following revisions are requested to make the proposal consistent with the design criteria that apply to the county-wide Certificate. I can approve the proposal when the following changes are made: 1 1. Add notes to the elevation dr 1'wrhgs indicating the existing and proposed in rials and colors for the gables,the trim dnd the roof 2. Indicate on the plan the proposed color of the light poles and fixtures and indicate that the color will match the existing poles and fixtures. 3. Revise the design to show the mechanical equipment/screen centered over a(window)opening. 4. Revise the mechanical equipment screen color to match the roof color. Indicate the roof color on the drawings and include a note indicating that the mechanical screen will match the roof color. 5. Add the standard equipment note to both the site drawings and the architectural elevations: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." Within 15 days of the date of this message,please send me a return message indicating whether you will or will not proceed with these revisions. If you choose not to proceed with these revisions, staff will be unable to approve your application. If you choose to proceed with the revisions,please forward me one set of revised drawings addressing these comments together with the attached resubmittal form.Your decision to make the revisions suspends the 60-day review period associated with your original submittal. However, I expect to complete the review of your revised proposal shortly after receiving your re-submittal. If you have any questions about this action,please contact me as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving your revisions and completing this review with an approval letter. Christopher P. 1'a°r Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville.VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:53 AM To: 'Craig Kotarski' Cc: Jack Clark Subject: RE: Cale ES ARB Review Craig, see my comments below in red. Christopher P. Perez J Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road i Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Craig Kotarski [mailto:Craig.KotarskiCa>timmons.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:26 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Jack Clark Subject: RE: Cale ES ARB Review Chris, We'll submit an additional 3 copies and provide a cover letter. Ok. Additionally,to make it easier on you all if you have the other copies available we'll adjust the sheet that showed the add alternate and remove it...is it possible for you to leave those at the front desk for us to swap out this afternoon? Ok, I will put them downstairs for you by noon.Thanks Craig Kotarski, P.E., LEED AP Project Manager TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com 919 2nd Street S.E. I Charlottesville, VA 22902 Office: 434.327.1688 I Fax: 434.295.8317 Mobile: 434.964.7148 I craig.kotarskiatimmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files greater than 20MB click here. From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:15 AM To: Craig Kotarski Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Jack Clark Subject: RE: Cale ES ARB Review Craig, SDP2015-10 Cale Elementary School Additions and Renovations—minor amendment I have received the four(4) final copies of the site plans for signature; however, upon my review of the plan I noticed this is not the plan the County initially reviewed. Please note the resubmittal response letter states that the only change from the initial version to this version is that the SDP number was added. However, there are additional items taking place on this plan vs. the initial version we reviewed (ie. A change in area of disturbance to nearly double that which we saw last time, the addition of traffic calming speed bumps to the bus loop, Open Air Pavilion layout(what exactly is an open air pavilion?), an addition of a mobile class room, and two designs for the initially proposed building modifications (with the 1St being "a base bid"and 2nd being "an alternate bid'). The only item I see being as being a problem is having two designs for the initially proposed building modifications (with the 1St being "a base bid"and 2" being "an alternate bid". The site plan needs to only show one version of the proposal. I'd advise you to depict the alternative bid being its larger, and if the money issue came up and you are only able to build the smaller version, then you could come back in with an Letter of Revision(LOR) for a$100 fee and a quick review. Other than this,the other items do not strike me as being a red flag problem. But the other plan reviewers need to have a look at the revisions and give their sign off before I can approve this plan. Also, please elaborate on what an Open Air Pavilion is, and what it will be used for...etc. As it stands we can go one of two ways: A) submit four copies of the version we previously discussed as being ready for approval and we can approve that now. OR B) Submit 3 additional copies of the plans which you submitted on April 14th for a total of 7, to which I'll distribute these to the reviewers for another round of review. If you choose this option please provide a cover letter which accurately reflects all items being proposed on this plan. Thanks. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2