Laserfiche WebLink
the space and required a 25-foot-wide drive aisle in order to accommodate the movement. <br />The perpendicular parking would make it difficult to regulate which direction a person <br />would go; the best way would be with diagonal parking, and to accommodate the same <br />number of cars, a larger space would be needed. He noted that signage and legends on <br />the pavement could direct traffic in a particular direction. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that during the 1999 hearing, page 3 of the staff report under <br />Project Description stated that the 1999 Master Plan did not have a date stamp indicating <br />receipt by the Planning Department. He noted the following language in the staff report: <br />“Although not being reviewed as part of this application, the applicant has submitted a <br />revised master site plan which shows the location of the future freestanding preschool <br />building to the north of the existing Church, addition of classrooms (adult education) to <br />the church building, and new parking spaces where the existing modulars are located.” <br />He believed that the Master Plan never being submitted explained why the Commission <br />took no action on the Master Plan document. He inquired whether it had been <br />subsequently submitted. Ms. Decker understood that the Master Plan was requested by <br />staff at that time as a function of trying to determine what the ultimate program plan was <br />for the Church. She commented it was likely that they had proposed a plan. Staff then <br />indicated they wanted it to be revised, and the Master Plan had a handwritten “1999 <br />Master Plan” noted on the plan which was attached as a part of the project to illustrate <br />future development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that from reading the 1999 Plan, he perceived that it was not <br />submitted as a revision to the Master Plan but was an application for a Conditional Use <br />Permit and design review for the sanctuary expansion. Ms. Decker noted that this was <br />correct. <br /> <br />A discussion of the 1999 Master Plan ensued, and Commissioner Blank noted that there <br />was no opposition from the neighborhoods at that time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson expressed concern about Golden Road and believed there was a <br />safety issue to address. He suggested restricting exits from the building parking lot to a <br />right-turn-only, and that no left turn to Hopyard would be allowed. He further suggested <br />restricting left turns off of Golden Road for traffic heading west into the parking lot, and <br />installing a median strip in the middle of Golden Road that would be high enough to <br />restrict the left turn. He believed that may mitigate some of the traffic volume on Golden <br />Road. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker noted that staff had struggled in an effort to accommodate the traffic <br />challenges and noted that parishioners who lived to the north and east would travel to the <br />site using Del Valle Parkway or Greenwood Road and Golden Road or Harvest Road. <br />From the westerly portion of the City, they would likely use Hopyard Road. In <br />restricting traffic, she noted that would impact the neighborhood on the easterly side <br />because traffic would come through Greenwood Road, Harvest Road, and Golden Road, <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2007 Page 20 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />