Laserfiche WebLink
The proposal presented here is a result of several revisions that have taken into consideration the <br /> comments from two neighborhood meetings and includes the elimination of the driveway off <br /> National Park Road, the deletion of an interior courtyard in order to group buildings together, <br /> and the installation of new landscaping to enhance the existing site and to buffer non-residential <br /> uses from residential uses on Bryce Canyon Court. Staff finds that the master site plan meets <br /> the Fire Department's requirements, creates adequate open area between the Church facilities <br /> and residential properties, avoids placing a high activity-level building adjacent to residential <br /> properties, and provides needed on-site parking spaces to meet the parking demand at build-out, <br /> thus avoiding curbside parking on residential streets. Additionally, access to and from the site <br /> would be from Valley Trails Drive only, and the preclusion of a driveway on National Park <br /> Road would reduce neighborhood traffic intrusions. Staff also believes that the proposed layout <br /> would least impact the neighborhood by grouping the buildings away from the adjacent <br /> residence and provide for buffering of the proposed northern parking lot. <br /> <br /> The proposed revised master plan still has not resolved all of the issues. Staff has worked with <br /> all parties in an attempt to encourage a plan which allows the Church to expand while mitigating <br /> neighborhood impacts. Staff believes that with the proposed conditions, the issues and concerns <br /> expressed by the appellants would be substantially mitigated. The Council has several options <br /> regarding its action on the proposal and the appeal. <br /> <br /> STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br /> Staff recommends that the City Council consider the options presented and take the appropriate <br /> actions. Staff supports the master expansion plan (PCUP- 118) to allow the proposed three- <br /> phase expansion with the building layout and uses proposed, and the design review (PDR-391) <br /> for Phase I construction. Phase II and Phase IIl would require only separate design review <br /> approval. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council take the action as stated on page 2 of <br /> this staff report. <br /> <br />d~ Jerry Iserson-TDi~c~r Susan Rossi Nelson Fialho <br /> Planning and Community Finance Director City Manager <br /> Development <br /> <br /> SR:05:154 <br /> Page 13 <br /> <br /> <br />