Laserfiche WebLink
The residents who attended the neighborhood meetings proposed a linear building design. They <br />believe that this building configuration, by removing the parking lot from the northern portion of <br />the site, would minimize noise and other impacts from the northern parking lot on the nearby <br />homes. Staff believes having the new sanctuary or multi-purpose building located north of the <br />existing facility near the existing residences on Bryce Canyon Court may create a greater impact <br />to the residents as a result of the noise created by the uses in the sanctuary (or a potential <br />multi-purpose building). Additionally, having the sanctuary or multi-purpose building front on <br />National Park Road may encourage parishioners to park on that street as it would be closer to <br />the worship or multi-use area than the parking lot. Staff notes that the clustered design would <br />use buildings to screen the majority of the parking lot, avoid a 30-foot high cathedral-like <br />building next to residential properties, and interrupt a linear building massing along National <br />Park Road. From a site use and management perspective, the applicant believes that the <br />proposed clustered design is preferable to the linear design. Church representatives believe that <br />the proposed building configuration would facilitate a phased expansion and would cluster the <br />buildings so that the main activity areas, the multi-purpose building, the sanctuary and <br />preschool, would relate functionally and would be located away from the residences while <br />locating the parking lot, with no access from National Park Road, adjacent to a residence. Staff <br />notes that the parking lot would be buffered by fencing and landscaping. <br /> <br />While staff understands that the building siting issue has not been resolved, staff believes that <br />the proposed plan would create a reasonable interface between the Church and the neighborhood <br />which would minimize neighborhood impacts while addressing the Church's plan for expansion. <br />Staff's experience in similar situations is that a parking lot properly screened may be a better <br />adjoining use than a building with a high activity level. Staff suggests that the Council consider <br />this issue. <br /> <br /> Parking/Circulation <br /> <br /> The appellants have stated that realistic parking should exist on site without using street parking. <br /> Staff is in agreement with this position. <br /> <br /> The parking requirement for churches is one space for every six seats. At this ratio, a total of <br /> 42 parking spaces is required for the current 250-seat worship building. Although a minor <br /> addition to the existing worship area is part of the Phase I construction, this addition does not <br /> result in an increase in seating capacity. Thus, the existing 66 parking spaces exceed the amount <br /> of parking required by code for the current congregation. Using what is perhaps a more realistic <br /> parking demand of one space per four seats (63 spaces), sufficient parking is available. <br /> <br /> Applying the same 1:6 parking ratio, a total of 75 spaces would be required for the 450-seat <br /> worship area when St. Clare's reaches build-out. The master expansion plan shows that a total <br /> of 104 parking spaces would be provided upon the completion of the new sanctuary (Phase II), <br /> which is nearly 28 percent more than what is required by the ordinance. Staff believes that this <br /> <br /> SR:05:154 <br /> Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />