Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200300041 Staff Report Special Use Permit 2003-08-06 STAFF PERSON: Joan D. McDowell PLANNING COMMISSION: August 5, 2003 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 10, 2003 SP 2003-41 St. John Baptist Church Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested a special use permit application to allow a 4,775 square foot expansion with 58 parking spaces to an existing 2,875 square foot church. The one-story expansion would consist of two classrooms, four bathrooms, and a new 3,192 square foot 175- seat sanctuary. The existing church building would become a fellowship hall/dining room. A kitchen and pastor's study are also located in the existing structure. Two church services and Sunday school would take place on Sunday. All activities and meetings would be associated with the church. Community meetings and outdoor playgrounds are not planned to be a part of this use. Petition: Request for an amendment to a special use permit (SP 99-005) to allow expansion of an existing church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches in the Rural Area. The property, described as Tax Map 66 Parcel 77 and Parcel 78, contain 3 acres on each parcel, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The proposal is located at 1595 St. John Road (Route 640), approximately 2,400 feet south of Gordonsville Road (Route 231), in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area and it is within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Character of the Area: The area is characterized by expanses of forests, scattered residences, and agricultural uses. The structures on the site, the existing church and an unoccupied schoolhouse, are contributing structures to the Southwest Mountains Historic District. A residence on the adjacent property to the south is in close proximity to the church property line. Planning and Zoning History: SP 99-05: In 1999, a special use permit was requested for a church expansion in two phases. Phase I was a 516 square foot rear addition to add SP 03-41 St.John report 1 07/30/03 a bathroom and to enlarge the dining hall and pastor's study. The second phase was to expand outward both sides of the existing sanctuary to accommodate a larger congregation. In conjunction with the special use peilnit, a site plan waiver application and a setback variance had been requested. The site plan would have been required for the Phase II expansion. As there were several unresolved issues related to Phase II, including the determination that the proposed additions to the sanctuary would substantially alter the appearance of the contributing historic church and of potential septic problems, the Commission determined that a public hearing should be held to consider any changes that may occur and to offer an opportunity for public input. Therefore, the Commission deferred action indefinitely on the proposed Phase II improvements. As a result, the site plan waiver (SDP 99-25) and the front setback variance (VA 99-04) were withdrawn, as the deferral made proceeding with these applications unnecessary. A copy of the minutes of the April 6, 1999, Commission meeting is attached for reference (Attachment B). Comprehensive Plan: The property is located in the Southwest Mountains Historic District and is within the Rural Area 2 Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The Historic District is listed as a Historic Resource in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Goal of the Historic Resources section of the Plan states, "Protect the County's historic and cultural resources." The 31,975-acre Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, following a 1992 nomination that included 109 domestic complexes, 11 churches, 16 commercial buildings, and 2 railroad depots as contributing resources. The Southwest Mountains Area Natural Resource and Historic Preservation Study, completed in 1989 by the Piedmont Environmental Council, led to the National Register listing. This research document described St. John's Church (circa 1890) as "One of the oldest black churches in the area." At the time of the nomination, the church was largely unaltered. The Southwest Area Building Inventory, included in the National Register nomination, provided the following architectural description, "Frame; 1 story; projecting front vestibule and low, narrow tower. Later flanking wings toward rear of the main sanctuary." The following comments were received from the Design Planner regarding the proposed church expansion in the Southwest Mountains Historic District: SP 03-41 St.John report 2 07/30/03 St. John Baptist Church is a contributing resource in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The vacant schoolhouse on the adjacent parcel is also a contributing structure. I applaud the congregation for maintaining both the historic church and the historic church use. While I recognize the need for expansion, I encourage the congregation to pursue expansion in a way that will not negatively impact the historic church or the historic district. It is anticipated that the size and position of the proposed addition and the method of connection of the addition to the historic church will result in a negative impact on the historic character of the existing church and its setting. (Please note that the illustration of the proposed development does not appear to accurately represent the existing condition of the church; i.e., the transept does not exist and does not appear to be proposed on the site plan.) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were developed to provide guidance to historic building owners prior to altering historic buildings. The Standards apply to buildings of all types. The standards for rehabilitation acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character. Among the recommendations outlined for the construction of additions to historic buildings are the standards listed below. (I have attached a copy of the full text of this section of the Standards for your reference (Attachment E)). Recommended: Placing a new addition on a non-character-defining elevation and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the historic building. Not Recommended: Designing and constructing new additions that result in the diminution or loss of the historic character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanship, location, or setting. The size, scale, and setting issues identified in the Secretary's Standards apply to this proposal. I recommend that the addition be redesigned to better preserve the historic character of the church and its setting. Reducing the size and scale of the proposed addition and repositioning the addition to a location that is set back from the existing church would help maintain emphasis on the historic resource. Maintaining a separation between the old and new buildings, without a physical connection between them, could help, as well. Alternatively, a different design for the connector wing might provide a more sympathetic transition between old and new. Also, the renovation of the school building to accommodate some of the proposed expanded uses would limit the area of new building required, allowing for a better scale relationship to the historic building and less impact on the setting, as well as the reuse of another historic structure. The sketch and original concept plan for this project were forwarded to the Department of Historic Resources in Richmond for comment on how the addition would impact the status of the church as a contributing structure in the historic district. I spoke with Jack Zehmer of DHR this morning. The opinion of Jack and his colleague is that the resource would be compromised by the addition being constructed as proposed. He noted in particular the negative impact of the size of the new sanctuary, which dwarfs the existing SP 03-41 St.John report 3 07/30/03 church. He suggested that the addition could be added far more gracefully by keeping the new construction back from the existing church, and connecting it at the side. He also identified the transept added to the original church as a negative impact. My recommendations are as follows: 1. I cannot recommend support of the addition as designed because it will compromise the existing historic resource and the historic district. 2. The design of the addition should be revised so that the historic character of the existing church is maintained and so that the existing church retains a visual focus on site. 3. Reduce the size and scale of the addition so that the existing church does not appear to be dwarfed by the new construction. 4. Set the addition back from this existing church. Location of new construction behind the schoolhouse is preferred. Alternatively, new building construction should not occur within 80 feet of the right-of-way along Route 640. (This is intended to maintain the addition behind the line of the rear wall of the existing church.) At a minimum, new construction should be held behind the line of the front wall of the existing addition on the south side. 5. Separate new construction from existing construction without a physical connection. If a connector wing is approved, it should be redesigned to provide for a more sympathetic visual transition between new and old, and should also be held to the location limits outlined in#4, above. 6. Accommodate some of the new uses in the schoolhouse. The applicant was advised of these concerns and of the suggestions to mitigate the impact of the expansion on the District prior to the submission of the concept plan revision dated July 7, 2003 (Attachment A). The revised plan did not depict any changes in the location of the expansion. At the site review meeting, the applicant indicated that the locations for the church and parking were chosen to provide a physical connection to the existing church and to have the parking conveniently located close to the building. An elevation of the proposed expansion (Attachment C) submitted by the applicant is included for reference. The applicant plans to renovate the vacated school building located on TM 66-77 at some time in the future. It is also considered a contributing resource to the District. The subject site is adjacent to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. The Ag/For Committee considered the application on July 21, 2003, and unanimously deteltmtined that the expansion of the church would not have a detrimental affect on the Ag/For District. SP 03-41 St.John report 4 07/30/03 RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance and recommends approval, subject to conditions of approval contained in this report. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The adjacent properties may incur negative impacts due to the proximity of the structure and parking extending the nearly the full width of the property. The parking would be in close proximity to the adjacent residence to the south. However, this church has been a long-standing use on this site, although not to the proposed scale. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Seating for 175 people within a rural area church congregation is within the range of other Rural Area churches. Since 1981, seating capacity for churches in the RA District have ranged from 25 seats to 500 seats, with most churches having less than 200 seats. The location, size, and scale of the proposed addition would compromise its existing status as a contributing resource to the Southwest Mountains Historic District. The surrounding properties are also within the Historic District. In addition, the impact of the volume of the building and of the additional 13,923 square feet of paving for the parking area along the frontage of St. SP 03-41 St John report 5 07/30/03 John Road would compromise the rural character of the area. There are other locations on the property that offer alternative sites for the building and parking which could mitigate the impact of the expansion, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan section of this report. The location of the proposed structure and parking area along the street frontage would cause them to be the dominant features on the property, thereby, overshadowing the existing historic church to the extent that its status as a contributing resource to the Southwest Mountains Historic District would be compromised. Only 20 feet on the south side and 40 feet on the north side (most of which is used as a driveway to the cemetery) would be all to remain unencumbered by building or parking surfaces from nearly 400 feet of road frontage. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, A purpose of the Rural Areas District (Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance) is "Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources." The proposed addition, as shown on the revised concept plan dated July 7, 2003, would compromise its status as a contributing historic resource to the Southwest Mountains Historic District. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The property and the adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that the addition of a church would not affect the uses pei nutted by right in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, No regulations in Section 5.0 of the Ordinance apply to churches. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The most current count of daily traffic along this 2-mile section of St. John Road is 220 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). The applicant has proposed two services on each Sunday and a 175-seat capacity. Assuming 3 people per vehicle, 117 vehicular trips for each service would result from this expansion. St. John Road has a 40' right-of-way. The Virginia SP 03-41 St.John report 6 07/30/03 Department of Transportation did not have any comments regarding mitigating for the traffic that would be generated by this expansion. As these vehicular trips would not occur during peak traffic hours, staff opinion is that the expansion would not create traffic that is severely detrimental to St. John Road or experienced on many other Rural Areas roads on a weekend day due to church activities. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. The number of seats requested are consistent with the seating capacity found in the majority of Rural Areas churches. 2. The traffic generated by this application would occur during off-peak hours. 3. Other locations for the expansion and parking area are available on the property. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The location of the church expansion would compromise its status as a contributing resource to the Southwest Mountains Historic District. 2. The design of the expansion overshadows the historic character of the existing church. 3. The location of the church expansion and parking area along the road frontage conflicts with the rural character of the area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 03-41, subject to the following conditions: 1. The design of the addition shall be revised so that the historic character of the existing church is maintained and so that the existing church retains its status as the visual focus on site, subject to the approval of the Planning Director or their designee, to include the following components: a) The size and scale of the addition shall be reduced so that the existing church remains the primary structure on the property. SP 03-41 St.John report ,, 07/30/03 b) New building construction shall not occur within 80 feet of the right- of-way along Route 640. (This is intended to maintain the addition behind the line of the rear wall of the existing church.) c) New construction shall be held behind the line of the front wall of the existing addition (permitted with SP 99-05) on the south side, at a minimum. d) New construction shall be separated from existing construction without a physical connection or it shall be redesigned to provide for a more sympathetic visual transition between new and old, and shall also be held to the location limits outlined in (b) and (c), above. 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 175-seat sanctuary. 3. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained. 4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit. 5. Health Department approval of well and septic systems shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. The two properties, TM 66-77 and TM 66-78, shall be combined into one parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The existing trees on the south property line adjacent to TM 66-76 between the schoolhouse and St. John Road shall be retained. Tree protection measures, subject to the approval of the Planning Department, shall be employed during construction. 8. A commercial entrance with a 150' right turn taper shall be required, subject to approval by VDOT. Attachments: A SP 03-41 Application and concept plan entitled "Application Plan for St. Johns Baptist Church" and dated August 7, 2003. B Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on April 6, 1999 C Elevation of proposed expansion submitted by the applicant D Photographs of the existing church, school building, and subject property SP 03-41 St John report 8 07/30/03 E Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties F Location maps SP 03-41 St.John report 07/30/03 9 \ County of Albemarle . Department of Building Code and Zoning Services OP FICnOp LY '_ �`7 ! TMI _ Go 0 CC ell 00 Sign Mag. Dist. ( V n r `w S:aff 4-4 Date /;VO_ Application for Special Use Permit O'0,o0 PCOJCCt Name(how aMwld wa rctu to Nu anrhuuun't) -sC.:;k\I-. V+—V\ C-\\\ft.\\ ` *Existing Use C.NnvY� Ct.Ade Proposed Use A Qxx ,t ,J Cl��r`h *Zoning District 1\ 'Zoning Ordinance Section number requested 10- 2- A (35) (*staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit tunpmUb.0 must tx delineated onplat) 3 ct_re. Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? ld'1'e D No Arc you submitting a site development plan with this application? P-YesD No Contact Person(Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): k 7\ Address fix- y City Re--s z.. -(,._ State Zip 1.< ` �1 Daytime Phone ( `I) Sg 3,a- Fax # 13 E-mail f r--r C l Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): J JC)� \-‘5T ��� "i•` -c Ce1S Address Q C> CX- 55 (: City \1c 5.:.:1 C‘4— State\C Zip r13-`Mi Daytime Phone ( ) 933 x Fax # E-mail Applicant(Who is the contact person representing?Who is requesting the special use?): \ �Ghr‘ C` �l 3 t C1 1 rc k Address N) 0 %c- 55 (0 City S k-elCkC. State NO- Zip a4Ii Daytime Phone( ) 1C(_q Ysy Fax # E-mail Tax map and arcel l,��'1 (p 6-11 Physical Address(irassigncd) Sci 5 ST - Y-\ Deli.. Ne-s k.ck Vv- 3�10.1/4n Location of property(landmarks.intersections.orother) ll� �J\ S-1- k Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in)any abutting property? If yes,please list those tax map and parcel numbers (2(o—1-1 • OFFICE USE ONLY © D 9 Fee amount$ i Date l'aid 4.2s 03 Check#2 244 ttcceipt N 14,°d°1 By: History: CISpecial Usc Permits:S P Q i9" 0O S CI ZMAs and Proffers: U Variances: 0 La �]xc 0 L Utter of Authorization �4llt Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? U Yes G No 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 •: Voice: 296-5832 ATTACHMENT A Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albi .rle County Zoning Ordinance states t..�t, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,with the uses permitted by right in the district,with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? tU'c 0_\ How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?111\ S / ICK S pC t C, li cm 1/4:\ V 5� t,,;'\\ S�o��1 -��e So.yr - cm\ w•(1 bsz- How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? � u.1 ill i r3 1 hcAtJ42Nvit o.- Twuy\\ve. E 7YzcIT Or\ SvfCO,,NVrY1 dQ.5 tc It 0 c c- O' ��vz Q xl S{�I� G hUrc-1-1 ACC 0.re \cvN'Yr,e5r\ta,3 u; ► c Q.xtsttr.6 12 r•AS, How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 13o to -\�e we arm tr o C'Uco-\ area-• 52wt.co., \ nerk C ohfi\.t( On(' cCArQ�..:ih� tt r‘sr1 CA' A-hfl u.se is r her (.1 t-'t svc ound.%How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by `right in the district? 1V\S O rQ IS t\pu„a r �G..rU` abrtcJ1kc)ro,1 ()5¢-S CtrN:V 4nk5 2r�C V -(C/i` w\'\ or\�` c). c1. A o -St ��r'f\o ``: 1 What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? i1 o nsv Ok • } �� �a�1� hop How will this use promote the public health,safety,and general welfare of the community? p uS o taiwo r cocS Av Aka- alsz GOvnr+tOwt��( w l�tit ic_ 'u tAlc� -\\NA-- we core trW d tr \I e- iUU-tk Qr0G fY�� �rlu�lA0C�14_ Q,n� S.esno Q1/4.1 er\}5_ 2 Describe your request in ail and include all pertinent informati( uch as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: n\e cory,eparnank !S il\Cceciiu- Sae 67 Ger— C\ CC.+'\ h 1 41 Co sst Te-k- ('1;1 im:.,m CAS,l s t]107'c .ix\ Py as ,n 4) 6f 1`2"r iiko A, Ac) Ne 1.cc •v`\) e_ Crams ` . \. \ J �.c: r\+ c,f_ce;r C/e biok r± q. c SCE. ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: 2/ 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. 2/ 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including,but not limited to, the name of a corporation,partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: cl 3. Drawings or conceptualplans, if any. • P 0 - 4. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property,or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. V,ASNN" Cirk25‘ee.\\ q 403 Signature Date Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory 3 7/2/2003 Joan McDowell County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntyre Road Room 218 Charlottesville VA 22902-4596 Dear Sir or Madam: This is a follow up on your comments from the site plan meeting on June 5, 2003. The responses to your concerns are as followed. • Provide the square feet of the proposed sanctuary. The square footage of the proposed sanctuary is 3,192. • Provide the uses within the existing building (classrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, etc.) The dining hall doubles as a fellowship hall and as a classroom for Sunday School. The kitchen is used for heating food only. • Provide the number of classrooms (existing and proposed). There is no classroom in the existing church. There will be two classrooms in the proposed addition. • Provide the hours/days for services and for meetings. Church services: 1' and 3rd Sundays 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. 2nd and 4th Sundays 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Sunday School 10:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Church meeting is once a quarter for three hours. We have four choirs that meet once a week for two hours. Church meeting is once a quarter for three hours. • Provide the days/hours for community meetings (Scouts, etc.) There are no community meetings held at the church. • Provide the number of bathrooms proposed in the addition. There are four bathrooms in the proposed addition. Rivanna Engineering and Survey Company will provide the additional information by July 8, 2003. Sincere) , , 1 Post-it'°Fax Note 7671 Date C1 1 ageo� _ ? (ps Togo im WIZ- From IM F 7 DA �� Co./Dept, Co. Ja Phvno# Pho�., L Fax# Pax LEGAL REFERENCE: TM 76 PARCELS 77 & 78 RevastD LcGetti SOURCE OF TITLE FOR PARCELS: REFER TO PARCEL PLAN OWNER/DEVELOPER: ST. JOHN'S BAPTIST CHURCH 1595 ST. JOHN ROAD KESWICK, VA 22947 ATTN: KEITH HAWKINS EXISTING ZONING: RA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIVANNA SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: HELD SURVEY PREFORMED BY RIVANNA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PLC_ SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: 5—FOOT COUNTOUR INTERVALS WERE INTERPOLATED FROM ALBEMARLE COUNTY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FOR THIS SITEPLAN. BUILDING SETBACKS: 30' FROM PUBLIC R/W 50' FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PARKING SETBACKS: 10' FROM PUBLIC R/W 20' FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BUFFER ZONE: 2C' ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 35' PAVING SPECIFICATIONS: PARKING AREA: 6" — #21A AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL SIDEWALKS: 4" — 4000 PSI CONCRETE PARKING SCHEDULE: REQUIRED: 1 SPACE PER 75 SF OF SANCTUARY: 3192/75 = 42.6 spaces 1 SPACE PER 3 PERMANENT SEAT: 175/3 - 58.3 spaces PROVIDED: 58 SPACES (INCLUDES 2 HANDICAP SPACES) LAND USE SCHEDULE: (EXIST ING) (PROPOSED } E115TING) PRE—DEVELOPMENT % POST—DEVELOPMENT BUILDING: 2,875 SF 1.1 7,650 SF 2,9 PAVED: 10,241 SF 3.9 24.,164 SF 9.1 PER OUS: 25 600 SF 95.0 3 SF 88.Q TOTAL: 265,716 SF 100 265,716 SF 100 1 I, i \, LE 4t� _4 e_ --------------- c=0 Xila A 09 J1r g g �\ o N, zan, 1m u , \ n\ U th o m m 0, j. r_ a o y o ,..., - \ g ty,. o%bxp 2 oc- .'-re`` ao�i m \Z m .s-- -11° mrn1 \ 4 \�U0._,,0 �. --.. \" - o �� A P 6iNP1.-..;1• 2 `'S, 8 n £ zzzzz ,yam _, 1�......_--ig,s_. f**** .-.= K'.• f > ., , OV O�mN n m b to.-i...- s n' D� o f -7 NJ- ta j 8 �� A U Al S0 fTl (�D L1i —1 C� o. c—j o 0 R o r ,= F I "� Q. p.-- 1 y Az lei.1 t.4 ' ry w'Vfir O'li�`pa°+ � •�� ,s:,:. o t!�I Ul d .F.;,' m , t ( y -- __ -- i f 4r 1 2 F^> a to �� K Q� CI 1 p r)Y N <na ; F. 'u , ; ; %a• c h t---1 t — l x, 6.1 I 'I,. .t I t t I !VI glp F1. 4 = 1: a. nf„„Irr, litre: z AI'PIICATION PLANS l OR ,_._. 0"' c0„4, ;�)��',{��� ��';�'���� °4� RfVANNA )✓NGINl,fR1NG & c ) -- i'. JOHNS IiAI'IIS'I' clitiN 'II 1r CD r SUI�VEYINC, PLC. Y d •• 1 I1lVF4f1(itA District, AIl)f',ffitaf'If; County, iiill'gflllti Drow r. kti, s A, Oran,u,�,13y v x II PHON6.(OM)V84 rey �= VI-N1,a 1'-U.BU%7000 F'A% (434)f184 9atl-1 D 11 l. p/,', r;l•r.rvl lay(ryi nrl t1i n s ti.r. Chariot tesritlr. VA MUG AVAIL I4_tIOC,:r,,.I),,;I ` ' . ' / ~ | / ! U � | | \ / ^ ` / / ( > / | ` > -17 CHANF 01 o � ^** mm �u~= m� ` . ~�~ - : ~ � APPLICATION |`|�N� FOR � — K���N& UNC}NK�8�C � . � S)'|'KV<,A�J « S7 JOHNS HAPDS? CHUK(U —' � —' ' —' � 3UDVKY�NQ. PLC. ._ _ Rivuuo^ 0ishi'L Nhom^r|, ywm\), \olj^p PHONE:*w"m ._ �,��' ,omumm FAX: *wm" ^' ~~~V�~~ m=w*.�w �� �ML msIK*�..� ` ` Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1999 SP 99-05 St. John Baptist Church (Sian #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 • ATTACHMENT B 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 none 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 he 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 for«and 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. .Iohn 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. •••_... _. . • \ - 7 \ .. .\ '. .1 \ \ „. s ,, \ . .".'.... - •\ ' ., ....WILN ,.._ \i \ • - . \,10,211Wieg• • \ .. .• 't . \ .... ‘, 91 S. . \ '=. _... . • '4,...''4. • . \..\ • • \ ...... \ • 4 • •1 k *', tioN'• L ‘ . • ' mg ..,... i .\ : , . \ ,,. • - • , ....,..,„ ,..`, .= ' \ '..1 k , . i N:s"-Illallni.•-„ k I •••■ • :.--_•••■air.• . ,• r ..r • - ‘ \ ': \ ,.. . • \i =‘ \ \ \ . .-. . , . =;• . . 24\ % , : ...... ',. ', ‘ ... .... , \ \ N . ‘...\.h. \ • • \ • • •,.. •. , \ , ......\ . \ . .. . \ • ' \ % \ % \ • •:.,''1,i i, \ • • Ina\ \ ..... .\ \ • • .. .\\ •• . -• , ••.‘ ‘. t'.r,7—. N . - — • . . s,.... .,--,,......w...ii--,. %. ..• •• \ . . • -,-• • ;•\-, •-- , . ..., \- -..•• 411f/ . : •---, .1.) ....---nr , . ------r"--. ••• --4.......- •.. /7-•atair Ira 0-21-4 --.7 ; • :•-•.---"- .' ' ''‘ ,..-as it mat 4.. 1 1,1; . •,....„...MI *.*••••.......,.......I...::-t...rip ..t. i .:. N 4 , ..... "'• .•-''''•1‘% It. --... 7.• - ....- ..... 1- • .-'1' --1.,--.5.'r-Cf... --r :'i4 :': zAg- • - . ••• :(-fi. ...1 . •Ittite-',1, ,...- it_ ....... , u 1."' •1 - s,". , .- .... 14. 1,...,•.. 1i .: 1111IIIMIIIIIFt- . .. • A , • —•' • .''''_•••••.-.e..„ . fi-e:t.71..,:t..•. •.1.tti, i'.. ..•1•.-,:i---.'--. .t•..•.:I, ....!.' it....•.' •'--.•,/. 'it•.4..'•'. _ -4i1lt1V1ri1.;.,,•i..,1.".'-1 '‘.F"'s a'W7.l,-:-1•;t m.t/e1,4.r-. 10 ./M•=t.i,1';,r•.,—';1_1h 1,0-:i,,/._..—.,. -.i..1.-.F_.T i:._'1"...._.:•1.::z1, ,1 ./_.,;..t....•....• ,.- :_- •t... :,I 4...7I-..:l L• , / 1; 4/ ••kd . '•, M . , I 1 1 7 / -. ii . . •! .• -•) • :N. •1;•: S.- .; 1 liOW ''•• ' • ...z. • r -r . :i j• Mail for, . 7' .. AIRINANZ'..e 7 c ,' • - _ .,• -...i • , _t- •• '`"-P ta.•A i. . - «• AIM I I.4101-:: I7/ ""," 1 MI I I Me.. .1 ii."..,- ::!'16.-...'‘/,' : .14 . I, . of /•,../- .1/ . . . , 11\1\\ .• -/ t•••i -- / / 79 -'' . /• I zi : ."/ AMINIIIMM Ill . ..Cue---, .-' ..p.. . • A . . • .7 /• :IA 1 ME111/1=1/ ... 'L'.."' . Ty-i ;---, : •—• .,/ ..r.vms., • • aiNfaitillt, NI/ , . / /WWWW*;:t; , .4 ....• • 7%, r: 1.'.t•:.•.f... I,, N\.„ . ;07-',.:..H.,ti:.)...• ilr,'I i 1 , 111.1.APE 7":-'''' \ • .... V'1„!!, .:'.'-'•;hii•-• \''..1: /* er.,..,.... : . _..4..:. . .‘ v_ . ... .„, , ., . . / • ....i. 1 1- 3,4 ..•,. _ • vi, •. _ .. r.--- -- f• -4---.c,-. ',.. / . i,........• • . ._4--ti--1., ..44-fil • avatar; .- -;..,if -1r jli..,..i-v-j.:::: 1 ' , : —=•• •.."-F •• .• 1, . ,.• ic,,-;.: A-1 I-, 1- II-..,. . -------..- -e A.,7'...::•:,: i.4 7-41;-;--,:i. 1 . II:. . \ ,- •• 1 . , . 1 . sp••-,- i I,--.4:i.,-: ;Po', 4 .... ....,....-r;t- 1.-;:i • i', . •-•4- ,... . , A-..-4-- 5 . i 1 • . . , --1,1.r,-- • 4?":'•!.. •.• 1-..-'•••'•,,---:..„- •ts \s.IllillikA is,.-.-.'i,,":„:, :.; . . ,•_.-.• \5allii -. I/ ;• T'''.''.';‘-"IA j. '..r,.; - • / --,:74:7.-. '.. ll I ..... • ),' (t ' \ . -,,N• • t - :--; , ... - e,i1X\-' . - ....._•.......' ; -‘,,..1.4. 4. : \- • i ..,,s .4 - k • _. ' -'.- • -4•,\ 1....:....___ ,...0.-, -` , . /INNT -.P'•- ......--• ••••••.....• -..7-. ..-Ar= .--.... ATTACHMENT C • =.,.=.• ••••=_,........• • 2 - ' f pf, �. r r y r ,`,1N, / ' f If �,` • .4 1;� ` ,t art. '- a� i , , . ... t I , , s , I ,; lel j , . '�( • iir, sr •. II ,ff , t ' giu pt., ..., A.. 1 s Yil, ti f se h •'bra"=J 'r rrel jr .. P ' r O r O CM Ill MOM 1. �. .0 v - .. ....f ' la lit ' l . -it • lip 1 A , IN oak ...... i . _ IP ' 0 ,r_ - 4 ATTACHMENT D , ' t ,. st— / yr • • P a4 �4 i • 3 'r t R i k.r e • Mt.y�1 ,4 Dart w " , ? Y • .. . _ . : s 11 ' : '.''''''''.!_i..:,. .‘'::::'''''' • IP='""silitirrg\ , _,_ .. _„ • A )1 . ' ` _ t • .,j 4r • • tkei � • �r} i, • it', .:.'r-..- „ :;r (11NA, '; ', , ' 1., • K1. , III o I • A , r. c A • ` • A t• �� -_ .� te -f I ,r t� a • _,t_ 141L'-' ' - w • .f.-.)..4'.....'.::.41v I, .., . .... i - ..;::;...e . -. ' =..•" -• .,•:, . , ''''. 1.,• ,"4,;•01"'•.` 4.r '',1, O• 'r., i.• -,st- - C., 0) 0, . cm ; P-• :4 0 . 1. 1 I, , A ' •s , /,,, • * . - . -,s•ror i- , „...t. ' ,7 "I' • • t A 0 , 44, , _ i 4.• LI2 • .. rt. � � •N � t0 O Z h C p ..., U ._ a' C ` C �: C O t. ` ` r L - a! CC _�' •U. h O Z C �+ O n ice. r•• GJ .U. .. at s v .mac. fv. C U 4 C . . m a v J ..' o awn �ecoc _ � c e U CrUU ^ C ^ c.. ,.. , • y w d i i J " U O v �'Z czti t4'' et r U O Cu .. G 0. � C, 4. �, QD .� y C S. • : M. U U C U tC +- L. C :�• •-• C i a., C `,- v ^ U •ry " ice.. C �. .^. ' C C, +�' v, i c r- U Lam, •. C 7. ti -ti ` O, O �^r.. - v �r� .^.� •.- V -, v .. ` .., .� %. fC CO U = paia,g 4.0 :v .ce{ _..,K,.-- { ,, •.it ,.. .` f Y t 0V U ..' s - fPV` .� ^ .= , - -Ica..7 t 1 - L. r -.. U IM J .. •= �y y ..may 4 J v .... • O it r 1. it v -+ U _• 1;. r L v, y C t� CZ. C v cd ..�- - C 0 tC to U _ t dp.t . "K I O C E. CU C . Oi., ev '. • • V •/�,,, O .b..p. �0\ ,,, Lr /AYJ' �i - _, `rim.. - " I t ►4. tlf 4 • r .• . 4. 4. s2. w ATTACHMENT E M ..N J — 1 J H a.) 011 r000 o y' Q) V J.J7 to 000 •� I.U.. O u C. U 0 -c Q.. 'i. 1 4J 0 O i. O = a/ . O U to I_ y .b 'LI • y V U a.) C c —.- = 0 CIO•�y V� C ..,.. 44, V i. a•+ 4J O a+ •C y CO C U C to•I: ar -c a. +' aU. b O 0 UA —a V 4. tUA .5.. Q - `V nIt 0 L h. 3 p 3o Z (a 4r �•` s ° b •c -C - -cv cU 'IC .0 E C. :. v 'nI o n CA °° p 57.7 :5 a, I) = to •. i "d Cl. � p�C O p C .� rA� C .., _ Jr O 4r OfJ J y O C4 _ C i.: C V a -,:, .c h li 4^J U L) (a i - L '' (a O U H to •0 s 444 E v •'L. - '_ '_ _ tt a 0 O U G..^ > 3 c v o ^ 3 .a p 3 3 A V > U C l CI) V p 11 C ,� r '.- — V = t. O OA v "'O C ✓ 04. 'tn O ^ CU J "n . � to +�. -L.. 5 •�� b U 4-4U = ''. C ay.. = J U 2 Q 4 ai-.G a� v n • La: - Tiu c ;» C h C fl.,s O — 0 C ^ .. C 4 bA .CA 41 y c (� -o •Jr Ou C�, U '— y - . br -0 vs E nn ea «t u oA • \ •_ O 'C C O 4: _ �� 3 C - 'C U V Ct C v to '4 _c L U �, p (a a/ c c <a C V 0 Y Z+H F� 1 .4 IN .` I Mw CD If .. / 0 a/ / WF— m o � � W ♦ • 11, I / i O60 �<♦ 0. / Ob t o Cs O / 1��/ o E• C �` v •Oo �`"" Lo ZO c fl OAS N ��~ P p55 U Cs- bs ♦`ae l eO �0� p ♦` a o E- -I, of 2 / zz A4 0 , oa /�JQ �`O e- / �P N i� oy cv ILn t r ��o\—�P Old 1° i �- �aL NOl l(W I___-� BUCK �� 7 1 2 ee O�y/�'�S O� 1��SO�d o Q�Ii •/ ol,��b �`' Ct ._ ‘\ 1 Q o * �� D d ® bObN y J Q1la `el% rn t Ert Ct O ,1 S J,1,b� a O'S ��/i 06 '>'-s-.-'0‘4.-- tt,...'`---frii4 44 ,' -.-,,S M Ilk' c ., , **SA y�' '� River °lam : o e 06) ctr .-2cP1 111):. FOIkcm 08, •`� ``V � � Od �10JS 00 104, m c j`3 `o VP�� mod` �)0 j �� Ob'NO 1Nf1 ''?Q o �� -� w 6 ATTACHMENT F 1...r• l .....--)\ J. 2.'s:-.-7.--—, Y 1_ V n '.\ '‘.....- ,:-.. /..----- : 1 / 1 1 I • ��\ 70 p, 7 �'..` 7qtP• z •tON' OR ,f � • ,,,,—„ og . 8 - I r `c, ,,t) / \ 1 ' `- -� i• .-- /' —ter f7. OY- / A - , '� \� .� di° TM k .\\\ ii P77 & �18 , ' '-2 . .4.-.."'‘i,t 2 lei:\-v-z"... : ��ti E\. I ',.1 /. '1/4"? ‘..11. ' 14, 1 (r0 -<\ \ • • \` ..„..........c, \ria 1 •� / ' � SP-03 -41 �,, J r 4, 1 i ST. JOHN'S � _., : I: L.' o i 11 BAPTIST CHURCH .' i 1 INCH = 800 FEET .II � *� ` I '•" ' t-� i PWALVD NY OPfl O G.VW DA TA axvasicws' 4\ MIS MAP LS PON DISPLAY PUNO N SPS ONLY (LAY 20.70I \ ••� ! :�