SR 05:154 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT2 proposed sanctuary goes no further east than the westernmost portion of the Masons' building. Yet for residents who have no legal property claim save for the protection of the planning department, the church's stance is incredibly uncooperative. Residents' ideas to reposition expansions to accommodate all concerns were rejected. Some the church's reasons were as esoteric as the location ora bridal lounge. Their stance was that their smallest desire should have precedence over severe impacts to the neighborhood. Personally, I do not believe that the visibility of the proposed sanctuary will help meet the church's membership goals. The present sanctuary is already readily visible, as is their sign on Hopyard Rd. The church has a right to believe what they want to believe. But they do not have the right to impose that logic in the form of an obligation of the residents to suffer impacts for the church's benefit. Page 6 The Staff believes the master plan layout is thoroughly considered. I could not disagree more. The needs of the church have been carefully considered. The needs of the community have, in the most part, been disregarded. At buildout, the 19,895 sq ft will triple the size of this facility. That is a huge difference compared to the current facility. Considering the problems caused by facility as it exists now, impacts for such an expansion have to be carefully considered. In this case, from the perspective of the residents, it has not been. Page 7 There were three meetings at the church, not two. These meetings were often very contentious with church being intransient in all major aspects of the design, save one, the elimination of the driveway onto National Park Rd. However, many issues remain and the Staff's judgment that no further input from the neighborhood is necessary is incorrect. In fact, even the driveway deletion was a hard fought issue. It is only at the submission of this proposal that it is entirely deleted. The proposed plans at all three meetings included driveways. At the subsequent meeting of the Valley Trails homeowners association, many had not heard of this proposal and resistance to the project significantly increased. Page 8 Finding A: Because of the many reasons stated above, in no way does th/s proposed project foster a harmonious and convenient relationship among land uses. The expansion will definitely not complement the neighborhood. Who would think that putting a parking lot in a neighborhood would complement it! The proposed mitigations of the nuisances are completely inadequate. Finding B: The experiences that Valley Trails has had shows the staffopinion that churches make good neighbors is incorrect. Of the three churches in Valley Trails, two are considered to be bad neighbors. The timing and use of the churches is not such that it minimizes traffic problems. Instead, if this plan is approved, it will doom all the homes near the church to having every holiday being spoiled by the impact of the church. As