HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800029 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2008-08-01 (2)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: Scott Clark
FROM: Brent Nelson
RE: Design Planning comments on: SP 2008-29: South Plains Presbyterian Church,
Construction of the Fellowship Hall, Sanctuary, and Parking
Lot
DATE: July 29, 2008
I have reviewed the Special Use Permit application for the above referenced proposal (Sheets A0, SPI and SP2
dated 6/13/08), and I have the following comments:
This submission did not contain any reference to either site/building lighting or stormwater water management.
It is anticipated that lighting of the parking area, at minimum, may be proposed. Illumination may be desired to
promote a safe environment, but over -illumination would have an adverse impact on the pastoral quality of this
setting. Entrance Corridor Guidelines encourage the design of surface runoff structures in such a manner as to
fit the natural topo avoiding the need for screening. The site/building lighting and stormwater management
system will be reviewed at the site plan review stage. All aspects of the design that would be visible from the
Route 22 Entrance Corridor shall meet EC guidelines and are subject to ARB review.
Issue: Grading/Construction/Loss of Significant Trees
Comments: The pastoral setting of the historic church and manse is a primary feature of 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 site and building proposals that reflect designs
which are compatible with historically significant architecture of Albemarle County. The location of the
proposed sanctuary (Phase 2), as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, appears to require the removal of a
number of large trees. The exact number could not be determined due to the quality of the drawing. These trees
are located in an area 50' to 120' southeast of the Entrance Corridor. They contribute significantly to the
vernacular landscape of Route 22, so their loss could significantly impact the Corridor. Existing trees are not
clearly drawn and labeled for size, type, and location of the canopy drip line; therefore, the full impact of this
proposal on those trees cannot be assessed. Given the large size of these trees, it would appear that proposed
grading will likely occur within the drip line of nearby trees situated just outside of the building footprint. It
appears that shifting the location of the sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward could avoid the removal of
a number of these existing trees. It has been ARB policy not to approve work within the drip line of trees
designated to remain. It has been shown that trees are ultimately lost when development occurs within close
proximity, particularly when the trees are in the late stage of their life as so many of these are. Staff cannot
support a proposal that would remove significant trees when alternate building locations are available, and it is
anticipated that the ARB will not approve a plan that includes grading within the drip line.
Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan by moving the location of the proposed sanctuary and
fellowship hall to avoid the removal or demise of large existing trees that would be impacted by their current
location. Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to clearly show the location, size, type, and existing canopy drip line
of all existing trees in the area to be developed.
Issue: Proposed Building/Design/Compatability
Comments: The proposed building design, as reflected in the perspective rendering on Sheet A0, represents a
style of architecture that is compatible with that of the existing church. The proposed fellowship hall and
sanctuary are significantly larger structures than the existing church and sited forward (northwest) of the
existing church. This deemphasizes the architecture of the historic structure, a major element in this vernacular
landscape. Shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward, so the distance
from the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest, EC) elevation of the existing church and the northwest
(EC) elevation of the proposed sanctuary is more equal, would give the architecture of the existing church
more hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. This would further help to mitigate the imbalance in scale
between the existing and proposed structures. The architectural design of the church will be reviewed, in detail,
at the site plan review stage. All aspects of the design that would be visible from the Route 22 Entrance
Corridor are subject to ARB review.
Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan by shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and
fellowship hall to give the architecture of the existing church more hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. The
architectural design of the church will be reviewed at the site plan review stage. All aspects of the design that
would be visible from the Route 22 Entrance Corridor shall meet EC guidelines and are subject to ARB
review.
Issue: Parking/Existing and Proposed
Comments: Sheet SP 2 Conceptual Site Plan shows the outline of an existing parking lot, identified as having
35 spaces, in the northeast corner of the site. Views of the parking lot are very open to the Entrance Corridor
due to the lack of interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping. The layout of the existing parking area is not
shown. Entrance Corridor Guidelines encourage the use of shrubs to minimize the parking area's visual impact
on the Corridor. The Guidelines also encourage the use of trees, 21/z" caliper minimum, interior to the parking
lot, at a rate of 1 tree for every 10 parking spaces. These trees should be evenly distributed throughout the
interior of the parking area. Entrance Corridor Guidelines encourage the use of trees, 40' on center, along the
perimeter of a parking area. Due to the rural nature of this parcel, the strict application of this guideline would
not be appropriate. Trees at the north end of the parking lot would be required to mitigate the appearance of the
parking lot, as viewed from the Entrance Corridor.
The Conceptual Site Plan indicates that a Phase 2 parking area is to be located to the rear (southeast) of the
existing manse. Details, including the method of access, parking lot layout, conceptual grading, existing trees
to remain and those to be removed, were not provided with this application, making it difficult to determine the
degree to which it would be visible from the Entrance Corridor and therefore the impacts on the EC.
Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan by showing the parking layout of the existing parking area
in the northeast corner of the site. The landscape design for the parking lot will be reviewed at the site plan
review stage. Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to include details of the Phase 2 parking area including the
method of access, parking lot layout, conceptual grading, existing trees to remain and those to be removed.