SR 05:154 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 2 that would be a fertile nesting ground for all sorts of law enforcement problems and undesirable activities. It could subject place the neighbors who might report such incidents to dangerous reprisals. That would certainly change the character of the neighborhood. It is best to eliminate the parking lot from this area entirely. The phase I multi-purpose room in the proposal is sited on the south end of the property that is ideal for the expansion of the parking lot. Residents were willing to accept the church expansion if the church would move this expansion to the north side of the existing building. The church absolutely refused. If their preferred location were to be built, it would doom any further expansion because it would require use of the north part of their land for parking that would be absolutely unacceptable. The planning staff report recognized the need for parking beyond the minimum typically specified. At one oftbe public meetings, a church member volunteered to have a parking committee to keep people from parking on neighborhood streets. This has translated to Condition 12 of Exhibit B requiring "a parking plan ..... to minimizing (sic) parking onto the residential streets". Actions speak louder than words. On Easter morning 2005, National Park Rd was wall to wall cars from church goers. Clearly the church is not following through on their promise. Furthermore the condition states "minimizing" not "eliminating" parking on the residential streets. This condition is clearly unenforceable and easily disregarded by the church, as their actions prove. It is precisely this type of weak conditions that should be avoided. It asks residents to accept impacts to their neighborhood and home values that will never be mitigated as promised. They ask of residents to accept a permanent project in return for the unlikely fulfillment of very weak promises. The scale of the project should match the size of parking that can be reasonably accommodated on the site. The church may have a right to expand their buildings but they do not have the right to do so at the expense of the surrounding residents. The existing day care site is not mentioned at all in this report. It has a playground on the west side of the existing building, fronting National Park Rd. Since the time that the residents agreed to having a school at the church, the church has been allowed to expand both the number of children and the range of ages without residents' approval. In particular, the inclusion of preschool children, too young to be studying lessons inside, spend many noisy hours in the playground. The playground has recently expanded, again without approval of the residents. The playground is a visual blight as well as a severe noise nuisance. A quick glance at the well groomed lawns and yards on the west side of National Park Rd proves that this playground is out of character of the neighborhood, totally unattractive and not well maintained. To add to the visual blight of the chain link fence and cluttered playground equipment, there is now a bright orange flexible plastic fence (those normally used for temporarily fencing off construction areas for safety purposes) which has been there for months. A project proposal must include remediation of the negative impact of this site. Condition 13 of Exhibit B requiring repair or rebuild of the fence is totally inadequate. A high sound opaque wall that will contain the noise of the playground and create a visually appealing exterior on a par with the well kept residences is required. At a previous meeting, mitigating this area with vegetation was discussed. Especially for the small amount of vegetation shown in the