Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199900005 Minutes Special Use Permit 1999-04-21 SP 99-05 St. John Baptist Church (Sign #93)— Request for special use permit to allow an addition to the existing church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for church building and adjunct cemetery. The property, described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 78, contains 3.0 acres, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on St.john Road, Route 640, approximately 0.5 miles from the intersection of Gordonsville Road, Route 231. The property is zoned Rural Areas (RA), and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area. Ms. Scala presented the staff report, highlighting a sketch of the property as it exists now, with the proposed addition shown. She noted Phase I and Phase II proposed additions, and handed out an addendum to the staff report (Attachment "A"). Ms. Scala explained that the applicant proposes a two- phased plan to add on to an existing historic church: (1) constructing a 516 sq.ft. rear addition without a bathroom, and to enlarge the dining hall and pastor's study for the existing congregation and (2) constructing additions on either side of the sanctuary, which would accommodate a larger congregation and would require additional site improvements. Ms. Scala noted that the only planning and zoning history on the property is a recent variance for front setback (the church exists 25 feet from the state road). Ms. Scala explained that the addition of the dining hall would not bring any additional traffic to the site; it currently seats 32, and the addition will add 48 seats for 80 total. The existing congregation is 100 persons, with 75-80 regular attendees at the twice monthly Sunday service. Ms. Scala emphasized said while the addition to the dining hall will not change the character of the district, the future addition to the sanctuary will effect the character of the district by "substantially altering the appearance of a contributing historic church." She added that a preliminary review by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources indicates that an expansion that dramatically changes the traditional form of the church and covers material such as original windows would cause the building to lose its contributing status. 21 Ms. Scala reported that staff has met with church representatives to discuss options to reduce the impact of the proposed future additions. Regarding the site, she stated that county engineering finds the entrances adequate for the existing use, but recommends upgrading the entrances and the parking when the sanctuary is enlarged and the congregation is increased. Ms. Scala concluded that staff opinion is that the proposed Phase I addition will add to the convenience of the existing congregation, although entrance and parking improvements could be required under the Special Use Permit, it is more appropriate and in-keeping with other similar approvals to require such improvements based on intensification of use. She added that staff opinion is that the SP should be amended and a site plan required when the applicant is ready to proceed with addition to the sanctuary. Ms. Scala said "it is unfortunate that the historic value of the church would be compromised by a future addition; however, it is preferable that the historic church be saved and used, rather than abandoned for a new structure." She further noted that her addendum reflected proposed conditions in the event the Commission chose to approve both phases and reiterated that staff is not recommending approval of both phases at this time as the site plan pertaining to Phase II has not been completed. Ms. Scala added that several issues need to be resolved before it can be approved: the parking area must be expanded to accommodate the existing and proposed assembly areas [when the applicant increases the assembly area, staff feels the site plan improvements should be initiated]; the highway department is recommending that the entrances be improved to commercial standards, including widening to 30 feet, paving from the road to the right-of-way line, and meeting site distance requirements [engineering has not recommended any change at this time]; the septic system would have to be updated to accommodate the increased congregation, and it is not known if there is a sufficient area where it is located now; the time limit for the Phase II improvements should be addressed in the conditions of approval [special use permits are normally valid for 18 months, and a structure that is allowed by special use permit must be commenced within two years from the date of permit.] She concluded that staff believes the request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Special Use Permits. She added that staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for the Phase I addition to the dining hall with conditions; staff opinion is that a site plan is not required at this time. If an addition is proposed in the future which increased the intensity of use, then the special use permit must be amended and a site plan waiver required. Ms. Scala said staff recommends revised conditions as noted in her staff report, elaborating on the separate conditions for Phase I and Phase II approvals. Ms. Scala emphasized that a"cleaner way to handle" the two phases would be to require the applicant to come back after settling all of the issues, and have Commissioners approve the phases separately. Mr. Finely asked if there was room to enlarge the drainfield. Ms. Scala replied that the entire site is large enough, but everything is now near the front of the site (and the road), and staff has not addressed this yet. He asked if Commissioners were to approve both phases, if any work could begin until the questions were resolved. Ms. Scala said if the first conditions were met, the applicant could start Phase I; the Health Department has indicated that the current septic facilities can adequately accommodate the exiting congregation as long as there are not several major events in the same day. She added that the applicant is eager to get started with Phase I. and said she feels "a little uncomfortable" approving something (Phase II) without knowing how it will work. Mr. Rooker agreed, and wondered if the conditions pertaining to Phase II might adequately address those concerns. Ms. Scala said that the conditions could probably be met, but might require a different part of the site being used. Mr. Rooker said that the applicant, under staff conditions, would have to solve the problems and issues prior to commencing work. Ms. Scala said, '`You would be approving a Special Use Permit, so you wouldn't get a second chance at it..." She added that parking location, etc. could be addressed under the site plan review, but would not be able to be readdressed at the Special Use Permit level. Mr. Rieley said, "What concerns me about approving these two with conditions is that it short-circuits the public process. We wouldn't have another public hearing, so if somebody had concerns about the architectural expression and what it's doing to the historic neighborhood—we'd never hear that. That would just...be the design planner's decision unilaterally, and I worry about that a little bit. I think there are enough decisions here—relative to circulation, relative to architectural design on a historic building and so forth—I would have difficulty closing my eyes and saying, 'OK, we don't have to see it again." He added that if the $85.00 permit fee is the only issue, that "doesn't seem to equate relative to the process of the public hearing." Mr. Thomas asked if this might set a precedent by approving future construction without knowing some of the variables. Mr. Benish replied that approval has been made in certain situations, but usually there is a better feel for some of the outstanding questions, adding, "with this one, we're a little bit less certain about some of those things...we have a little bit less information than we typically would when we do this sort of phasing." Mr. Benish added that there would not be an uncharacteristic precedent set. Mr. Rooker confirmed that the advertising that has gone out to the public on the permit has included both phases, as the application was for both phases. "If they were going to participate, I would think that they would respond now." Mr. Finley noted, "There are some locations in question, and the Health Department and so forth. They are not done, and not ready, so there's no opportunity for the public to really know what might eventually happen." Ms. Scala commented that the projected build-out of Phase II is five years away, and conditions might change in the area. She noted that normally, a Special Use Permit requires commencement of construction within two years. Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission will have an opportunity to review the application again during the site plan review. Ms. Scala commented "you couldn't tell them not to do the addition, but you could look at all the site improvements." Mr. Rooker further noted that the building design would be reviewed by the design planner, which would deal with the historic significance of the building. He asked if what the significance is if the building would no longer be a contributing factor in the historic district. Ms. Scala replied that the structure is one of the earlier African-American churches established in Albemarle (c. 1890), and was part of a settlement there including a school house and Odd-Fellows hall. "I just hate to lose any contributing structure in the district. I think they all contribute to the character of it...one by one, it really makes a huge impact. Whenever possible, I would say let's do everything we can to protect them." Ms. Scala added that she would rather have the church expanded than abandoned or torn down for a new structure. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Commission has the power to deny Phase II and deny the addition, but does not have the power to prevent the applicant from giving up the use of the church and/or tearing it down. Ms. Scala agreed, adding, "We have no ordinance in place to protect the demolition of historic structures." The applicant, Keith Hawkins, addressed the Commission. He stated that when the church members first proposed adding onto the church, they considered expanding out in front near the entrance: however, staff encouraged them to keep the historical appearance of the church by leaving the front alone and widening the sides. Mr. Hawkins said that church members agreed to abide by the suggestions and keep as much of the historical look as possible. He added, "We still could accomplish what we are trying to do by keeping the front appearance of the church...we've been working with [staff] on that." Mr. Hawkins stated that the upgraded parking requirements—including 9x18' parking spaces and 24' aisles—are difficult in a rural area church. He asked if some type of"grandfather clause" might apply because "we're limited in parking, and if we had to—we cleared off two acres of land in the back of our church—if that's one of the biggest hold-ups as far as getting approval, we could use that." He added that that land is used now for cemetery use. Mr. Hawkins presented a sketch of the parking lot and illustrated the current parking arrangement. He mentioned that their Easter sunrise service brought 43 cars into the parking lot, and requested that the Commission be "a little lenient" on the parking requirements, which request 39 additional spaces. Mr. Hawkins expressed concern about the old driveway having to be upgraded to commercial standards, stating that the church would comply if mandatory. He added that the second entrance, which was just added in 1998, was approved by the state. Mr. Hawkins said, "If by chance we would have to upgrade both driveways up to commercial standards. we've got room on the left side going into the church that we could actually add parking to that area if we must upgrade both entrances up to commercial standards." He said that the second entrance was approved so that they could have adequate access to the cemetery; county staff suggested that if the church used the area to get to the back of the church and not for parking, the driveway could remain residential and would not need to be paved as a commercial driveway. Mr. Hawkins said church officials are simply trying to make adequate access on the left side of the church so that cemetery access is improved. Regarding the original entrance, Mr. Hawkins mentioned that county officials told him that all church entrances should meet the same standards, and stated that officials should have expressed that last year when the second driveway was approved. Mr. Hawkins added that the adjacent property owner, Mr. James Gardner, died two weeks ago, and some trees on his property would need to be removed to obtain adequate site distance. Mr. Hawkins indicated that he didn't feel it would be appropriate to ask the family to cut down the trees at this time. Mr. Rieley asked when the church plans to begin construction on expansion of the sanctuary. Mr. Hawkins said that the Phase I dining area construction would begin in May if approved; Phase II would begin in two years or so. In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding the size of the congregation, Mr. Hawkins said that the church is going through a youth movement, where young people are coming into the church. '`We can just see growth within the next two or three years, and we are just trying to accommodate some of that growth." Mr. Finley asked what type of siding would be put on the new structure. Mr. Hawkins said the church is going to match what they have now— white vinyl siding with a gray tin roof. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rooker said that since the church does not have an "immediate need" for Phase II and there are a number of outstanding issues that would not be addressed with conditions as well as they could be in a 24 full plan, and in light of the fact that Phase II might be what causes the property to lose its contributing status to the historic district, he would prefer to look at Phase I. Mr. Rieley agreed, adding that if the Commission deals with Phase II separately at a later date, with more information, they might be able to work with the applicant on concerns now expressed in conditions— such as the commercial entrance. "I don't think we have enough information here tonight to make that judgement. I think it's not only in the applicant's best interest—I think it's in the applicant's best interest to do this one step at a time." Ms. Scala said a site plan would not be required for Phase I under the ordinance, and no waivers would be required; Phase II would require a site plan or site plan waiver. Mr. Thomas commented that the congregation wants to put the addition on to help fulfill their"vision" for the church. "If you don't have the facility, you can't bring the people in..." He added that his inclination is to act on the first phase now, not the second phase. Mr. Thomas further expressed concern about what the entrances can accommodate. Mr. Rooker stated that the parking requirements may well be excessive, but the Commission does not have enough information now to make that decision. "I think at a later time if we get a more detailed plan, we might be able to waive what the ordinance might typically require in the way of the number of parking spaces and the size of those spaces." He asked staff how to deal with the phases in a legal and procedural context. Mr. Kamptner said that although the plans came in under one application, there are "two distinct subparts," and suggested that the Commission could recommend approval of Phase I and deferral of Phase II, which would allow the second phase to come in when the background work is completed. He added that there wouldn't be a need for an additional fee because it is still part of the original application. Mr. Kamptner noted that the Board would have one year to act on the application, and it would be up to the applicant as to when they want to come forward with the additional information; the site plan that's required with Phase II would be part of the same application. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP 99-05/Phase I with staffs recommended conditions, and moved for indefinite deferral of SP 99-05/Phase II of the construction. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kamptner emphasized that the indefinite deferral is under the church's control; whenever the Phase II and site plan information is ready, they can come forward. Mr. Kamptner said the Board will direct that Phase II come back to the Commission for review and recommendation. SDP 99-025 St. John Baptist Church Site Plan Waiver Request—The Commission deferred action on SDP 99-025 as part of the deferral of SP 99-05, Phase II.