Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The location and height of the canopy compounds this problem. <br /> <br />8. The project as proposed includes 163,530 square feet (3.75 acres) of impervious <br />coverage, including 47,080 square feet of buildings and 116,450 square feet of <br />pavement (driveways and parking). With a site area of 8.24 acres, this results in an <br />impervious lot coverage percentage of 45%. <br /> <br />9. The amount of parking provided on site should be the minimum needed at this <br />time. Based on a seating capacity of 500 (sanctuary and gathering space - <br />simultaneous services), a minimum of 143 parking spaces are required for the <br />church use (1 space per 3.5 seats). The 56 underground parking spaces combined <br />with the 28 spaces between the senior housing building and the church meet the <br />1.5 space per unit requirement for senior housing, with the joint use of the church <br />lot providing any required overflow parking. Rather than including all 191 spaces <br />at this time, the size ofthe parking lot should be reduced to 143. The parking lot <br />could then be expanded to provide additional parking as the church grows. The <br />Parks and Recreation Commission expressed a strong interest in having a joint <br />parking arrangement between the parking area on the south side of the property <br />and the park parking lot to the south. At a minimum, direct pedestrian access <br />should be provided between these two parking lots. <br /> <br />10. Traffic generated from the senior housing project is estimated at less than three <br />trips per day per unit, or 170 trips per day total. Both Victoria and County Road <br />C have capacity for this small number of trips. <br /> <br />11. As an alternative to the current proposal, owners of the Huberty property could <br />subdivide the R-l site into five or six single family lots with a new road serving <br />both the church and the Huberty site. Single family lots on this side slope would <br />require substantial regrading, new utility excavation and road work to each site. <br />Such a proposal would put residential backyards, decks, sheds, and other exterior <br />improvements adjacent to the park with no shared public parking or access. In <br />summary, the amount of soil and vegetation disturbance may be similar to the <br />proposed construction of the parking lot, but the amount of surface to be <br />replanted in residential yards would significantly exceed the proposed parking lot. <br /> <br />12. The Comprehensive Plan and City housing policies support the location of a senior <br />housing facility in this location; however, the proximity of the building to Central <br />Park will have an impact on the park. The plans for the private property submitted <br />with the application include steep slopes, extensive use of retaining walls, and <br />removal of existing vegetation on the project site. The trees removed during <br />grading will need to be replaced and the grading plan should be modified to <br />include gentler slopes and fewer retaining walls. In addition, the applicant should <br />be required to preserve quality trees and vegetation wherever possible during site <br />development. The landscape plan should also be modified to include additional <br />screening of the building and retaining walls to soften the view from Centrai Park <br />and additional screening of the parking lot to soften the view from Victoria Street. <br /> <br />PF3049 - RPCA (01/13/99) - Page 60f8 <br />