HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201500080 Review Comments 2015-08-10Short Review Comments Report for:
ARB201500080
SubApplication Type:
Federal Express & Retail Office Buildings - Riverside Medical
Major Amendment
Date Completed:08/10/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:see staff report
Division:
Date Completed:08/17/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:See 8/26/15 action letter
Division:
Date Completed:10/08/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. A sample of the spandrel glass was not submitted. Please submit a sample for review. (Reference
#1 in our August 26, 2015 letter.)
2. A cut sheet was provided for the up-lights, but the fixtures were not included in the luminaire
schedule. Update the luminaire schedule to include the up-lights. (Reference #3 in our August 26,
2015 letter.)
3. The intensity of illumination on the building walls was not clarified. (Reference #7 in our August 26,
2015 letter.) The comment response letter states that the intent is for minimal light intensity, but the
photometric diagram provided on the down light cut sheets suggests that the illumination will be
excessive. Also, the intensity of the up-lights on the columns isn’t clear. Please clarify.
4. Provide documentation that VDOT has approved all proposed work in the right-of-way. (Reference
#8 in our August 26, 2015.)
5. It does not appear that landscaping has been revised to avoid all easements and utilities.
(Reference #9 in our August 26, 2015 letter.) At least one tree appears in the Virginia Power
easement, trees are located under overhead utility lines, and trees are located very close to
underground telephone and fiber optic lines. Indicate the height of overhead utility lines. Choose tree
species and locations that will not conflict with the overhead lines. Provide documentation that
easement holders do not object to the proposed planting in the easements.
6. In the note regarding replacement of plants in the right-of-way on sheet L1, change “client” to
“property owner”.
7. Note that an updated Comprehensive Sign Plan will be required for this site. Once proposed
revisions are received, the review will take at least 6 weeks. Consequently, the applicant is advised
to not wait until such time as tenants are ready to apply for individual signs to address the
Comprehensive Sign Plan issue.
8. The revised plan shows one existing boulder in the right-of-way and 4 new boulders in the vicinity
of the concrete terrace. Please confirm that this is the quantity proposed. If additional boulders are
proposed, please make their locations on the plan more easily readable. A note reading “new
boulders>.” remains on sheet C3, but the arrow points to nothing. Please correct.
Division:
Date Completed:11/02/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:I have reviewed your recent submittal (plans with revision dates of 10/12/2015 and 10/13/2015) and I
have the following comments.
1. As previously discussed, documentation that VDOT has approved all proposed work in the
right-of-way is required.
2. It appears that there are still tree/utility/easement conflicts. For example, trees are located over or
Division:
Page:1of2 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:February 01, 2016
very close to underground telephone and fiber optic lines. Easements associated with these lines,
and all other easements, should be shown on the plan. Provide documentation that all easement
holders do not object to the proposed planting in the easements.
3. In a recent conversation you indicated that the new entrance structure for the building conflicted
with the water line easement. If the architectural design is changing as a result of this conflict, please
forward the revised drawings for review.
Date Completed:11/18/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. Uplights are noted on the landscape plan at 2000 lumens. The luminaire schedule and cut-sheet
indicate they are 3850 lumens. Eliminate the lumen note from the landscape plan and revise the
lighting plan information to specify the 2000 lumen lamp.
2. Final ARB approval is subject to VDOT sign-off of the proposed trees in the right-of-way.
3. A tree is shown very close to a storm line near the northern corner of the site. Revise the plan to
show a minimum of 5’ between the tree and the line.
4. Make all utility lines legible on the landscape plan so it is obvious that you are avoiding them with
proposed planting.
5. Without reducing the quantity of trees, maintain 5’ between trees and the fiber optic line.
Division:
Date Completed:12/17/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: VDOT sign-off of the proposed trees in the right-of-way is the only outstanding item for ARB
approval (unless additional, unrequested changes are made). Please forward VDOT approval once it
is received.
Division:
Date Completed:01/29/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:VDOT approval received.
Division:
Page:2of2 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:February 01, 2016
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: 'David Timmerman'
Subject: Riverside Center comments
David,
This message is to provide you with comments on your recent re-submittal. I have a few items I still need to coordinate
with other reviewers on. If additional comments result from those conversations, I'll let you know as soon as possible. I
will be out of the office tomorrow, but will be available to answer questions early next week.
1. A sample of the spandrel glass was not submitted. Please submit a sample for review. (Reference#1 in our
August 26,2015 letter.)
2. A cut sheet was provided for the up-lights, but the fixtures were not included in the luminaire schedule. Update
the luminaire schedule to include the up-lights. (Reference#3 in our August 26, 2015 letter.)
3. The intensity of illumination on the building walls was not clarified. (Reference#7 in our August 26, 2015 letter.)
The comment response letter states that the intent is for minimal light intensity, but the photometric diagram
provided on the down light cut sheets suggests that the illumination will be excessive.Also, the intensity of the
up-lights on the columns isn't clear. Please clarify.
4. Provide documentation that VDOT has approved all proposed work in the right-of-way. (Reference#8 in our
August 26, 2015.)
5. It does not appear that landscaping has been revised to avoid all easements and utilities. (Reference#9 in our
August 26, 2015 letter.)At least one tree appears in the Virginia Power easement, trees are located under
overhead utility lines, and trees are located very close to underground telephone and fiber optic lines. Indicate
the height of overhead utility lines. Choose tree species and locations that will not conflict with the overhead
lines. Provide documentation that easement holders do not object to the proposed planting in the easements.
6. In the note regarding replacement of plants in the right-of-way on sheet L1, change "client"to "property
owner".
7. Note that an updated Comprehensive Sign Plan will be required for this site. Once proposed revisions are
received,the review will take at least 6 weeks. Consequently, the applicant is advised to not wait until such time
as tenants are ready to apply for individual signs to address the Comprehensive Sign Plan issue.
8. The revised plan shows one existing boulder in the right-of-way and 4 new boulders in the vicinity of the
concrete terrace. Please confirm that this is the quantity proposed. If additional boulders are proposed, please
make their locations on the plan more easily readable. A note reading "new boulders...." remains on sheet C3,
but the arrow points to nothing. Please correct.
Margaret
Margaret M.Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
1
1 o/ '`r
1. Indicate the color of the spandrel glass proposed for the storefront facing the EC and
- 'provide a sample for review. 6{,/,f, ,_ y, ., _, ; ._ '- : ,F . , „ ,
Clarify on the plan that the existing ground-mounted mechanical units located adjacent to
the EC elevation will be removed. 2..-, , ,Ii , . , /r f _ . ;
CSubmit a photometric plan with all relate details for review. ._e e /--- r'- /
..._ Cat,.. ,4.,✓r t ,44.f .- 0/46--,.`t...'' r . t- �..•f `,y,, --'-'rf `'-.i • . ,'�1, 4' .k". .,j "�
evise the plan to show the locations of the proposed bollards, and identify the intensity of
their metal halide lamps. i'.2 ,. f / , 0
I. £> 111( / ,;''',7 ci , h,,e xx sr `,..{2... ,4 G, . e,
Identify on the plan the quantity of seat wall fixtures proposed. „‹.--1---( / / `''
V
Vlude the LED downlight cut sheet on the site plan. Identify on the plan options regarding
wattage and intensity. c: I , t
(,t":- p A., ,.,..f., , „b. ,,,.,),(...„,,,,/,
„.--7., 1,-) .."
O.JTs
,
M f
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:35 PM
To: 'David Timmerman'
Subject: Riverside Center-additional ARB comments on recent resubmittal
David,
When I sent you comments on your recent resubmittal for the Riverside Center project last Thursday, I mentioned that I
had a few additional items I needed to coordinate.This message is to follow up on those items.The outstanding issue
for me was the ARB's request for additional information on the plant materials and boulders. My sense is that the
landscape proposal will have an appropriate appearance, but I'd like a little more information to confirm this for the
ARB.To that end:
1. Please provide more information (a verbal description may be sufficient) on the proposed boulders to explain how
they will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. Characteristics that might be addressed could include size,
scale, color, logic regarding placement, intended uniformity, etc. (Incorporating this information with the response
to comment#8 in my last email would be useful.)
2. Please provide more information (a verbal description may be sufficient) to show that the proposed medicinal
garden, meadow, and other landscape features will have an appropriate appearance in the winter. I believe the
ARB's concern was about avoiding an overly bare, stark landscape. So, some descriptive text indicating that the
plants have some presence, texture, color, movement, etc. in winter,that the plan incorporates interesting plant
materials with year-round aesthetic value,would be helpful.
Feel free to contact me if you have questions.
Margaret
Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
1
I 913j/1C-
NOY NW.
Please provide more information (a verbal description may be sufficient) on the proposed boulders
to explain how they will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. Characteristics that might be
addressed could include size, scale, color, logic regarding placement, intended uniformity, etc.
(Incorporating this information with the response to comment#8 in my last email would be useful.)r
_ .§ .x. . � f f _ •' 3.l'- t " v ,k .�J .. �, ,
7 y,_.._r 7 : r,�.°„. C� f . d3+ +b..., f 1(4)2„,,4,,,,,,,,1;-/ 1:,„ ' _°.4
Please provide more information (a verbal description may be sufficient) to show that the proposed
medicinal garden, meadow, and other landscape features will have an appropriate appearance in
the winter. I believe the ARB's concern was about avoiding an overly bare, stark landscape. So, some
descriptive text indicating that the plants have some presence, texture, color, movement, etc. in
winter, that the plan incorporates interesting plant materials with year-round aesthetic value, would
be helpful.
A sample of the spandrel glass was not submitted. Please submit a sample for review. (Reference#1
in our August 26, 2015 letter.)
f :. + M
'
1 � �" P_ / 1 r;. ,, t s/f t..r � ¢1f tF'„ e
V1'7--
. A cut sheet was provided for the up-lights, but the fixtures were not included in the luminaire
schedule. Update the luminaire schedule to include the up-lights. (Reference#3 in our August 26,
2015 letter.) C4.
ult.-Q.
The intensity of illumination on the building walls was not clarified. (Reference#7 in our August 26,
2015 letter.)The comment response letter states that the intent is for minimal light intensity, but
the photometric diagram provided on the down light cut sheets suggests that the illumination will
be)excessive. Also,the intensity of the up-lights on the columns isn't clear. Please clarify. {/
Cli 1.'A''D`1 ):::2-4,:11:;.a/ / ,,,¢"'•.+f�'"�,!''-'1t .".C_a,(1 It {'�+// rr.'�'k .- ',+ .. 'x./g'' a`.a i -..,p
(,= i 1 ,r t✓.., '4'1 "'r`g $ ,. ., d i 4-1—A.11 A ,•rF.t_. �"/�p./`� $ d";,%,(.C-?..
4,-i e,,,,, V' 1..4«.Y^. .,,,,,X ,,tJ V (.)1 c,. f)£%-r o'.b+ .�Vf /1-1:2 v_, e: e ,..ii,.+'
C)4. Provide documentation that VDOT has approved all proposed work in the right-of-way. (Reference
#8 in our August 26, 2015.)
0 does not appear that landscaping has been revised to avoid all easements and utilities. (Reference
#9 in our August 26, 2015 letter.)At least one tree appears in the Virginia Power easement, trees
are located under overhead utility lines, and trees are located very close to underground telephone
and fiber optic lines. Indicate the height of overhead utility lines. Choose tree species and locations
that will not conflict with the overhead lines. Provide documentation that easement holders do not
object to the proposefl planting in the easements.
de 4 •i
— ' 'eV'/ - ,k ,:"' :. 21'.
n the note regarding rep cement of plants in the right-of-way on sheet L1, change "client" to
"property owner".
L -7 Note that an updated Comprehensive Sign Plan will be required for this site. Once proposed
revisions are received, the review will take at least 6 weeks.Consequently, the applicant is advised
to not wait until such time as tenants are ready to apply for individual signs to address the
Comprehensive Sign Plan issue.
``)72.--eik. 7%.t-.r ,°n,.-,. , >/ fil /C.wr.;' A�/ iw�s'., :, ..,}�" .�
The revised plan shows one existing boulder in the right-of-way and 4 new boulders in the vicinity
of the concrete terrace. Please confirm that this is the quantity proposed. If additional boulders are
proposed, please make their locations on the plan more easily readable.A note reading "new
boulders...." remains o sheet C3, but the arrow points to nothing. Please correct.
• .- , "%t-''
;r; -d ,,r "
� µ � 4 j ci
- � " . N .�a � E-
e,e9 /V^26Zx - g ti ,/ 0. /j ,: /r , `
s„, t 4
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:19 PM
To: 'David Timmerman'
Subject: Riverside Center comments on ARB resubmittal
Attachments: Resubmittal Form blank.doc
David,
I have reviewed your recent resubmittal (plans with revision dates of 10/12/2015 and 10/13/2015) and I have the
following comments.
1. As discussed previously, documentation that VDOT has approved all proposed work in the right-of-way is required.
2. It appears that there are still tree/utility/easement conflicts. For example,trees are located over or very close to
underground telephone and fiber optic lines. Easements associated with these lines, and all other easements, should
be shown on the plan. Provide documentation that all easement holders do not object to the proposed planting in
the easements.
3. In a recent conversation you indicated that the new entrance structure for the building conflicted with the water
line easement. If the architectural design is changing as a result of this conflict, please forward the revised drawings
for review.
Please submit one set of revised drawings addressing these comments with a memo indicating how the comments have
been addressed. Please include the attached resubmittal form with your revisions. If you have questions, feel free to
contact me.
Margaret
Margaret M. Maliszewski,Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
1
vrrr 'rte
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 2:46 PM
To: Fred Missel
Subject: Riverside Center landscape plan revision
Fred,
I've received a revised plan for the Riverside Center amendment(Bruce's renovation of the building on the east side of
Rt. 29,just south of the river). It incorporates a change that I'd like to make sure you're OK with. Due to the owner's
schedule,they want to move forward with the building changes as quickly as possible, but it is going to take some time to
resolve all of the other site plan issues. So, they'd like to move forward with the building renovation and a scaled-down
landscape plan, then come back later with the full healing garden proposal. The scaled-down landscape plan adds street
trees that meet the EC spacing requirement, and adds a significant amount of planting at the entrance into the site from Rt.
29. This is definitely an improvement over the existing condition. Are you OK with me moving forward with this revised,
scaled-down plan now, without it coming back to the ARB for review?
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
1
NINNY 'gale
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:49 PM
To: 'David Timmerman'; 'Chris Norvelle'
Subject: Riverside Medical Center comments
Attachments: Resubmittal Form.doc
Chris and David,
I've reviewed the 11/3/15 revised site plan for the Riverside Medical Center and my comments are listed below. Please
provide 1 copy of a revised plan addressing each item, together with the attached resubmittal form.
1. Uplights are noted on the landscape plan at 2000 lumens.The luminaire schedule and cut-sheet indicate they are
3850 lumens. Eliminate the lumen note from the landscape plan and revise the lighting plan information to specify
the 2000 lumen lamp.
2. Final ARB approval is subject to VDOT sign-off of the proposed trees in the right-of-way.
3. A tree is shown very close to a storm line near the northern corner of the site. Revise the plan to show a minimum of
5' between the tree and the line.
4. Make all utility lines legible on the landscape plan so it is obvious that you are avoiding them with proposed
planting.
5. Without reducing the quantity of trees, maintain 5' between trees and the fiber optic line.
If you have questions, feel free to contact me.Thanks.
Margaret
Margaret M. Maliszewski,Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE '
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has
indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional
information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff All plans must be collated and folded to
fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: DATE:
PROJECT NAME: ARB-2015-80: Riverside Medical Center
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions( indicates Submittal Code County Project Number # Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E&S)
Mitigation Plan (MP)
Waiver Request(WR)
Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private/public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request—Development Area(PRR-DA)
Preliminary Site Plan(PSP)
Final Site Plan(or amendment)(FSP)
Final Plat(FP)
Preliminary Plat(PP)
Easement Plat(EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat(BAP)
Rezoning Plan(REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP-CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R-CP)
Proffers(P)
Bond Estimate Request(BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D-GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F-GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan(ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report(GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB) ARB 2015-80 1
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code #Copies Distribute To:
ARB 1 M. Maliszewski
it
*Unassigned(in County Project Column)—Intake to assign a new Application Number
NOW 4.11400 ms/-
tr .. Uplights are noted on the landscape plan at 2000 lumens. The luminaire schedule and cut-sheet
indicate they are 3850 lumens. Eliminate the lumen note from the landscape plan and revise the
lighting plan information to specify the 2000 lumen lamp.
, P t /
/ 2.} Final ARB approval is subject to VDOT sign-off of the proposed trees in the right-of-way.
D
0
V `'' A tree is shown very close to a storm line near the northern corner of the site. Revise the plan to
show a minimum of 5' between the tree and the line.
j, , /
Lc 'i .
i
Make all utility lines legible on the landscape plan so it is obvious that you are avoiding them with
proposed planting.
J\i,,,,k
Without reducing the quantity of trees, maintain 5' between trees and the fiber optic line.
1 '
'fir ter/
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 4:58 PM
To: 'David Timmerman'; 'Chris Norvelle'
Subject: RE: Riverside Medical Center comments
Chris and David,
I've reviewed the 12/10/15 revised plan for the Riverside Medical Center. Comments 1, 3,4, and 5 from my November
18 message (below) have been satisfactorily addressed.That leaves VDOT sign-off of the proposed trees in the right-of-
way as the outstanding item for ARB approval (unless additional, unrequested changes are made). I know you are
working with VDOT toward approval. Please keep me posted on your progress.
Thanks.
Margaret
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:49 PM
To: 'David Timmerman' <dtimmerman @brucewardell.com>; 'Chris Norvelle' <chris @shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Riverside Medical Center comments
Chris and David,
I've reviewed the 11/3/15 revised site plan for the Riverside Medical Center and my comments are listed below. Please
provide 1 copy of a revised plan addressing each item, together with the attached resubmittal form.
1. Uplights are noted on the landscape plan at 2000 lumens. The luminaire schedule and cut-sheet indicate they are
3850 lumens. Eliminate the lumen note from the landscape plan and revise the lighting plan information to specify
the 2000 lumen lamp.
2. Final ARB approval is subject to VDOT sign-off of the proposed trees in the right-of-way.
3. A tree is shown very close to a storm line near the northern corner of the site. Revise the plan to show a minimum of
5' between the tree and the line.
4. Make all utility lines legible on the landscape plan so it is obvious that you are avoiding them with proposed
planting.
5. Without reducing the quantity of trees, maintain 5' between trees and the fiber optic line.
If you have questions, feel free to contact me.Thanks.
Margaret
Margaret M. Maliszewski,Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
1