Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700027 Review Comments 2007-07-13 (2) �$ I-I i,lllllll a�/it_ �'IRGI131P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax(434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Arnold FROM: Brent Nelson RE: Design Planning comments on: SP 2007-27: Emmanuel Episcopal Church DATE: July 13, 2007 I have reviewed the Special Use Permit application dated May 29, 2007 and have the following comments: Issue: Disruption of existing vistas and views/Proposed parking and grading Comments: The bucolic setting of the historic church complex along the prominent ridge line is a primary feature in the site's scenic quality. The setting of the church contributes significantly to the character of the rural corridor. The Architectural Review Board is charged with approving only those proposals reflecting designs which are compatible with historically significant architecture of Albemarle County. This charge takes on special relevance and meaning given the site's aforementioned qualities, and the church's place on the Virginia Landmarks Register, and the National Register of Historic Places. The application plan calls for the reorganization of existing parking currently located in the northwest corner of the site, adjacent to the entrance corridor, and around the church complex and Marston/LaRue House. The random unregulated nature of the existing parking precludes the gathering of accurate existing parking totals. Total parking proposed with this application plan(excluding spaces in front of the Religious Education Center)would be 142 spaces with the majority(121)to occur along the prominent ridge line occupied by the church complex and Marston/LaRue House. This proposed parking layout would replace the rolling form of the ridge line with the more structured urban landform associated with parking lot design. A 140' long, 6' tall retaining wall is shown along the front(north) edge of the project area, northeast of the Marston/LaRue House. This wall would be one of the more visible site elements from the EC and is needed to support parking that is proposed on the steep hillside. The proposed landform would be contrary to the EC guideline that requires grading that does not change the basic relationship of the site to the surrounding conditions, grading that should instead blend into the surrounding topo creating a continuous landscape. In addition,the proposed parking layout encroaches upon the setting of the historic Marston/LaRue house, leaving little open space between its walls and the rows of parking just 20' away. Views of these historic structures from the Route 250W entrance corridor would be significantly hampered by the close proximity of parked vehicles. A hard surface parking area/travelway currently exists from the rear(south end)of the Parish Hall eastward behind the church to an area behind(south of)the Marston/LaRue House. Relocating parking proposed along the ridge line to that area, with expansion southward along the hillside behind, would preserve and respect the integrity of the church setting as seen from the EC and adjacent properties. The drop-off area proposed in front of the church, combined with additional handicap spaces in a location strategic to the church entrance, could meet the needs of those with accessibility issues. Recommendation: Relocate parking proposed along the ridgeline to the area directly behind the church complex and Marston/LaRue House. Issue: Loss of significant trees Comments: The application plan proposes the retention of a number of mature trees around the church complex,which is a positive reflection of ARB guidelines. Accurate representations of the drip line for these trees are not shown;therefore, impacts on these trees by proposed site improvements cannot be adequately assessed. Given the size of the trees to remain, it would appear that proposed grading will likely occur within the drip line of most, if not all, of these trees. It has been Planning/Community Development and ARB policy not to approve work within the drip line of trees to remain. It has been shown that trees are ultimately lost when development occurs within such close proximity, particularly when the trees are in the late stage of their life as so many of these are. For this reason, it will be difficult for the ARB to 'prove a site plan that reflects the site and grading improvements as outlined in this application plan. should an alternate parking layout not be feasible,the application plan should be revised to provide for replacement trees (large deciduous trees 3 %2"caliper minimum and evergreen trees 10'— 12' tall minimum)for trees lost due to work within the drip line. Due to the high visibility of this site from the EC, this same standard should apply to all proposed trees visible from the EC, even when not acting as replacements. For many decades, vehicles have parked in an unregulated fashion beneath the grove of mature oaks located between the entrance corridor and the north end of the cemetery. The application plan shows this area being reorganized with parking spaces and travelways of a standard size with a gravel surface. Because proposed grading contours are not shown in this area, it cannot be determined from the information provided what, if any, disturbance would occur to the root area of these trees. Additional details are needed regarding installation and maintenance of the gravel surface to clarify this impact. The application plan also calls for the removal of a 24"caliper Spruce on the west side, and a 30"caliper Hemlock on the east side, of the entrance from Route 250W. Both trees are quite large and appear to be in relatively good health. Site improvements requiring their removal are not apparent. Due to their size and location,these trees contribute significantly to the vernacular landscape of the Route 250 corridor and should be retained. Recommendations: Revise the application plan to show an accurate representation of the drip line for all existing trees shown. Should an alternate parking layout not be feasible,revise the application plan to ovide for replacement trees(large deciduous trees 3 ''Y2"caliper minimum and evergreen trees 10' — 12' Gall minimum)for trees lost due to work within the drip line. Revise the application plan to show all proposed trees visible from the EC, even those not acting as replacements, installed using these same minimum sizes. Provide additional information regarding the installation and maintenance of the gravel parking surface at the north end of the cemetery, clarifying the degree to which disturbance would occur within the drip line of the existing trees. Issue: Proposed building/Need for an interconnection/relationship with the existing church Comments: The application plan calls for a future structure, one-story at the front(north elevation),two or three stories at the rear(south elevation), located 90' behind(south of)the existing church,with a double stacked parking lot in between. The building would have a 50' x 120' footprint(6,000 sf) and represents a significant contrast to the 2,500 sf footprint of the sanctuary. Expansion on this site is constrained by the significant change in relief of the landform,the historic setting, and the proximity and size of the existing cemetery. As a result,the careful design and placement of building forms is even more critical if a unified and coherent building and site design is to be achieved. Entrance Corridor guidelines encourage the use of arcades, colonnades or other architectural connecting devices to unify groups of,buildings within a development. The previous addition at Emmanuel Church was designed in this way. A carefully designed arcade successfully ties the 20th century parish hall to the 19th century sanctuary. Completing the next addition in a similar form and character would not only meet the ARB guidelines, but could present a logical, balanced site layout that maintains the integrity of the original resource and enhances the overall corridor. The applicant has indicated that the location of the future building was chosen largely out of a desire to reduce its visibility from the entrance corridor. Entrance Corridor guidelines, however, do not necessitate this approach. Showing the proposed structure as a visible addition to the church complex could enhance Entrance Corridor views, while in turn allowing parking to occupy the less visible portion of the site currently reserved for the proposed building. Recommendations: Revise the application plan to group building elements together and use buildings and existing landforms to screen views of site improvements. Show the proposed building expansion as an addition to the existing church complex,using arcades, colonnades or other architectural connecting devices to tie the proposed structure with the existing complex. The design should reflect a balance of existing and proposed building mass that respects the integrity of the original church complex.