Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800029 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2009-03-11 (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: March 11, 2009 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 Entrance Corridor issues. Issue: 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 current submission, requires the removal of an existing 33" Red Oak located 20' northeast of the proposed sanctuary. This tree, and others like it, contributes significantly to the vernacular landscape of Route 22, so its loss would significantly impact the Corridor. It appears that shifting the location of the sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward could avoid the removal of this tree. Staff cannot support a proposal that would remove significant trees when alternate building locations are available. Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to show the 33" Red Oak, located 20' northeast of the proposed sanctuary, remaining. Revise the plan by shifting the location of the proposed Sanctuary and Fellowship Hall footprints southeastward to avoid conflicts with the canopy and root system of the 33" Red Oak Issue: Proposed Building Design/Compatibility with Manse Comments: In this latest submission, the sanctuary footprint, previously 95'x48' (4,560 sf) has been reduced in size to 50'x65' (3,250 sf). The location of the northwest (EC) elevation of the sanctuary has been shifted southeastward, away from the Corridor, to align with the adjacent northwest (EC) elevation of the fellowship hall. Whereas the reduction in size and relocation of the sanctuary footprint represent positive steps in giving the existing church more visual hierarchy, the location and size of the fellowship hall continues to deemphasize the architecture of the existing historic church. Shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall further southeastward, so the distance from the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest) elevation of the existing church and the northwest (EC) elevation of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall 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 existing 2 -story, frame rectory, adjoining the south (rear) elevation of the proposed fellowship hall, originally designated for demolition, is designated as to remain in the current proposal. It appears that the upper section of this structure would be visible from the Entrance Corridor; however, it is not shown in the perspective drawing provided with this latest submission. The rectory, while an important historic structure that should be retained and reused, is of an architectural style and material (frame) composition that is not compatible with the sanctuary and fellowship hall. As a result, it would have an awkward and unresolved appearance in its current close proximity to the sanctuary and fellowship hall. This awkward relationship would be even more visible from the Corridor during Phase 1 of this development due to construction of the proposed sanctuary not taking place until Phase 2 of the development. Relocating the existing rectory to another location on the parcel where it maintains an appropriate distance from and orientation to the proposed structures would be more appropriate. Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan by shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward so the distance from the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest) elevation of the existing church and the northwest (EC) elevation of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall is more equal, giving the architecture of the existing church more hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. If possible, relocate the existing rectory, displaced by the revised sanctuary/fellowship hall location, to a location on the parcel that would provide an appropriate distance from and orientation to the proposed structures. Issue: Proposed Parking/Location and Design Comments: In the previous submission, half of the proposed parking (45 spaces) was shown behind, southeast of, the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall. The other half (45 spaces) was shown in the northeast corner of the parcel, adjacent to the Route 22 Entrance Corridor. In this latest submission, all of the proposed parking (75 spaces) is shown in an L -shape lot centered in the north corner of the site, directly adjacent to the Route 22 Entrance Corridor and the Route 616 right-of-way. The edge of the parking lot is shown approximately 15' from the Route 22 pavement edge and 10' from the Route 616 pavement edge. Street trees are proposed, 35' on center, between the parking lot and the Route 22 Corridor. The urban -like appearance of this parking lot design, further hi-lited with the characteristic consistent spacing of street trees, is inappropriate for the rural setting of this Corridor. The location and design of the parking lot detracts from the architecture of the existing and proposed structures, while also reducing the wooded appearance that currently characterizes the setting. Recommendations: Revise the proposal to show a minimum of parking between the existing/proposed buildings and the Route 22 Entrance Corridor. Show the remaining parking at the rear of the site, behind the buildings. Provide a landscape proposal that retains the wooded character of the site, as seen from the Corridor, with the planting of additional trees.