HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800029 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2009-03-11Phone (434) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Clark
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
DATE: March 11, 2009
RE: SP -2008-29: South Plains Presbyterian Church
Fax (434) 972-4126
I have reviewed the revised plan submitted for the above -referenced proposal (Sheets A0, SP2 and SP3
dated 1/19/09; Sheet SPI with revision date of 11/14/08; Sheet SP4 with revision date of 1/17/09; and
architectural rendering undated and received 2/17/09). I have the following comments related to
historic preservation issues.
Sources differ as to the construction date of the South Plains Church. Some cite the early nineteenth
century as the date of construction; others say the 1870s. The church is a good example of vernacular
Gothic Revival architecture. The rectory was built in the 1870s to replace the original rectory which
had burned. Both structures contribute to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District.
Issue: Parking/Wooded Area
Comments: The parking layout has changed from the previous proposal. Parking is no longer proposed
behind the church. It is now proposed in an L-shaped lot centered at the north corner of the site, along
the Route 22 Entrance Corridor and along Route 616. This parking layout has a suburban appearance
that is not appropriate for this EC and its location between the building and the EC diminishes the
visual prominence of the church. Its location (and the proposed development, in general) also limits the
ability of the site to maintain a wooded rural character that is the appropriate historic appearance for
this corridor. Although the planting of new trees with the development is appropriate, the consistently
spaced row of trees proposed along the parking area projects an appearance that is inconsistent with the
historic character of the site and the corridor. The loss of mature trees is a concern.
Recommendations: Maintain a minimal amount of parking at the front of the site. Move parking to the
rear of the site. Maintain a rural wooded appearance along Route 22 and Route 616 by retaining
existing trees and planting new trees.
Issue: Position of new buildings
Comments: The prominence of the historic church is reduced by the size and position of the fellowship
hall and the phase 2 sanctuary. Placing the new structures forward of the front elevation of the historic
church is not a positive aspect of this proposal. The perspective rendering can be a useful tool;
however, architectural elevations illustrating the proposed additions together with the existing church
are needed to fully assess the impacts of the proposal, particularly regarding compatibility of building
heights and scale.
Recommendations: Locate the new structures so that they do not project forward of the front elevation
of the historic church.
Issue: Rectory
Comments:
• The proposal retains the rectory, which is positive. However, the integrity and significance of the
rectory are destroyed by the method of connecting the buildings and the resulting relationship
among the buildings. The junction of the buildings is expected to have an extremely awkward
appearance. Building the new structures around the rectory, as proposed, ignores its historic
significance and discounts its architectural form and character.
• Should demolition of the rectory be considered to accommodate an alternate site layout, full
documentation of the structure prior to demolition would be appropriate.
Recommendations: If the rectory is to be retained, integrate it into the new development in a way that
retains it historic character, significance and integrity. If the rectory will be demolished, provide the
County will full documentation of the structure in photographs and drawings. The documentation shall
be undertaken by a qualified architectural historian. The rectory shall not be demolished prior to
approval of the site plan for the development.
Issue: Pergola
Comments: The pergola is represented differently on the rendering and the site plan. Located in front
of the historic church, the pergola tends to diminish the church's significance.
Recommendations: Coordinate drawings regarding the location of the pergola. Eliminate the pergola
from in front of the historic church.
General Recommendations: Any development plan for this historic site should be established in a way
that maintains the prominence of the existing sanctuary. It is recommended that new structures be
located to reinforce the existing church as the main resource on site. Positioning new structures behind
the front face of the existing church is recommended. It is preferred that the rectory also be retained
and fully integrated into the development, but maintaining the prominence of the existing church is the
priority. Maintaining the character of the wooded site is also important, particularly along Route 22
and Route 616. This will require a significant reduction in the size of the parking lot at the front of the
site.
Historic Preservation Committee comments: Following the request of a member of the Historic
Preservation Committee to see the proposal, the Historic Preservation Committee discussed the
proposal at its meeting on December 22, 2008. The committee had the following comments regarding
the 11/14/08 plan:
• The historic character of the existing sanctuary should be respected. The sanctuary and the rectory
are contributing structures in the Southwest Mountains Historic District.
• The proposed development does not protect the historic character of the sanctuary or the rectory.
• The historic nature of Route 22 and the landscape along it should be respected.
• Access to the site should be limited to Black Cat Road; access should not be made from Route 22.
• Trees located between the face of the addition and Route 22 should not be disturbed. Tree
protection throughout the site is extremely important.
• Establish additional vegetation to compensate for lost trees, particularly at Route 22/Black Cat
Road.
2