Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3789-C Staff AnalysisApril 19, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Agape Church - Conditional Use Permit (Z -3789-C) LOCATION: East Side of Napa Valley Road approximately 750 feet north of Mara Lynn Drive (701 Napa Valley Road) OWNER/APPLICANT: Agape Church/Joe D. White PROPOSAL: To construct a three-story (19,992 square feet/36 feet height) elementary school building (kindergarten through sixth grade - nine classrooms - 200 student capacity) on an existing church site that is zoned "R-2"/Conditional Use Permit. *Variance request of one foot (height). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial street (Napa Valley Road). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is abutted by vacant land and single family to the north, multifamily to the south and west, and vacant land to the east. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The site contains two paved access drives to Napa Valley Road and 326 paved parking spaces. The proposed construction will eliminate six parking spaces. April 19, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued 4. Screenin2 and Buffers The site is landscaped and is buffered by open space (wooded area) located to the north and east. 5. Analysis The staff anticipates no adverse impact to the surrounding area as a result of this proposal. The site is large enough and has good enough access to an arterial street to accommodate an elementary school. The proposed structure is also buffered by a heavily wooded area that is zoned Open Space. The applicant does need, however, to submit a revised site plan that contains the dimensions of the proposed and existing buildings, the playground area, widths of the access drives, and building setbacks from the property line. 5. City Engineer Comments Review detention with the City Engineer. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant submits a revised site plan as outlined above and meets with the City Engineer to review on-site detention. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant also stated that on-site detention had already been provided. There were no unresolved issues. April 19, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present as were two concerned neighbors. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and recommended approval subject to the applicant not receiving a certificate of occupancy until on-site fire protection has been installed. The applicant agreed to comply. Dr. William Jacobson, president of the Turtle Creek Property Owners Association, stated they were concerned about future church expansion. Tim McKenzie of #23 Turtle Creek Court submitted a letter stating concern about the future of the lots that the church owns within Turtle Creek Subdivision. Happy Caldwell, pastor of Agape, stated that the church had no immediate future plans for expansion or use of the Turtle Creek lots. He further stated that the church would work closely with the neighborhood in the future. The Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 5 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant. f September 9, 1986 I r" SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: Agape Church - Conditional Use Permit (Z -3789-A) The Southeast Corner of Napa Valley and St. Charles Blvd. (701 Napa Valley Drive) Agape Church/Joe D. White PROPOSAL: To construct 138 new parking spaces (after closing Turtle Creek Drive) on three lots (Lots 105, 127, and 144, Turtle Creek Subdivision) all zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a minor arterial street (Napa Valley Drive) and a collector street (St. Charles Boulevard). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The three lots are abutted by single family uses on the north, Church on the south, vacant land on the east and multifamily on the west. The Church use exists. The proposed use (parking) would be compatible provided it was properly landscaped and screened from the single family area located to the north. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkinq The Church has two existing access drives (Napa Valley Drive) with no further access proposed. The Church also has 252 existing parking spaces with an additional 138 spaces proposed. 0 0 September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued 4. 5. M 7. Screeninq and Buffers The applicant has proposed the construction of a 6' brick fence (on top of a berm) along the north line of Lots 127 and 144 as well as the realignment of the curb along St. Charles Boulevard (plus landscaping). The proposal also contains landscaping and a 6' brick fence on the north line of Lot 105. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area due to the fact that all the single family structures are below grade and the fact of the proposed extensive fencing and landscaping work. The staff does, however, have some question about the possible preclusion of a parking use within the existing Bill of Assurance. The staff also recognizes the fact that other land is available for parking on-site. In addition, the Fire Department will not recommend approval unless they are assured of on-site water lines for fire protection 3 fire hydrants- n the lower portion of each access drive approval or tnis proposal is suo3e the closure of Turtle Creek Drive. Citv Engineerinq Comments Physically close Turtle Creek Drive by continuing the curbing and sidewalks on St. Charles Boulevard which has been shown as a proposed entrance into 'the Church (if closure is approved). Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval of the proposed use subject to: (1) the applicant agreeing to provide on-site fire protection for the entire Church property; (2) the approval of the proposed street closure; (3) City Engineering Comments; (4) the applicant proving that the construction of a parking facility is allowable (as per private restrictions); and (5) exploration of other possible parking areas on-site. f.. September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant also stated that there were private restrictions pertaining to the proposed use. The staff stated that it simply wanted to point out the issue of private restrictions on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-12-86) The applicant was present. The staff stated that proper notification had not been made and recommended that the item be deferred on the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this item until the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86) The applicant was present. The staff stated that proper notification had been received and also recommended that the applicant modify their existing proposal to include a 50' open space (undisturbed area) along the north line of Lots 105, 127 and 144, and on the east line of Lots 105 and 127, and as well as the west line of Lot 105. The staff also recommended that a brick fence be extended along the perimeter of the recommended buffer area. The staff also requested that the applicant meet with the neighbors prior to the September 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated that he was revising his proposal to include two large parking lots on the south portion of the church property. The staff stated that they did not have a revised proposal. The applicant stated that they would submit a revised plan and meet with the neighbors. 0! 0 September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and was represented by Dave Thomas, Attorney, Happy Caldwell, Pastor and Joe White, Engineer. The opposition was represented by Hal Kemp+ Attorney for the Turtle Creek Property Owners Association, Victor Fleming, Attorney for General Properties, and Tim Mackenzie, a resident of Turtle Creek. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan/proposal that contained a three phase parking plan. Phase I was two large lots (107 spAces) located on the southern portion of the property. Phase II was a 68 space addition to the existing parking lot located on the north portion of the property. Phase III was 70 spaces located on three lots of Turtle Creek Subdivision. The staff recommended approval of Phase I, II and III subject to the inclusion of a 50' buffer and landscaping as outlined in the Subdivision Committee meeting of August 28, 1986. Mr. Kemp stated that they had no III problem with Phases I and 11, but they opposed Phaprimarily due to a preclusion in the Bill of Assurance which prohibited anything other than a single family use. Mr. Fleming stated that his client, General Properties, had sold the lots in Turtle Creek to the church for use as single family and had made an offer to buy them back from the church. Mr. Mackenzie stated that a parking lot use located at the entrance of the subdivision, would devalue the homes in the existing Turtle Creek Subdivision. The City Attorney stated that the Bill of Assurance issue was between private owners and that the parking lot issue was land use issue which could be dealt with by the Commission. The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 1 no (Ketcher) to approve Phase I and II of this proposal (a total of 175 new parking spaces). 0 JanuArY 12► 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item N LoC�ON OWNER: RE4�: ape Count - Conditional Use Permit Church north on Napa 700-800 blocks Valley a e Ministries► Inc• Ag i William M. Darby► Jr. By: Far a conditional use permit 000 square feet allowing a 24► and parking- structure and parking also church is to be Future building building requested. Each two stories ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS Location half block south of 1. one - Site Napa Valleyside of the street. The site fronts onon the east harles Blvd. 2. 3. St. C with Nei hborhvod and most Com atibilit zoned "R-2" church roperties arcxcept for several The surrounding single family e the West. are platted °Napa Valley to sites across Drives and Parkin Drive. Onsite b way of Napa Valley Turtle will be y stub streets from access We feel these The primary be no access to the and north. There will the east ermanent access barricades• ivision on Creek Subd streets need i and Buffers 1 from the 4. Screenin leave the will be located 50wi11 building proper line and The church brush as a buffer. nearest residentiaerPespand residences natural growth of Creek and Turtle sound and visual between the churac as a good, The land steep and will is quite buffer. 5. Anal sis use of the land this as a goo reservation We staff views The only Tanning ment s to The i of structures. ability the siting the Fire Departis reviewing and 9°sd concerning s Office the meeting on have The Chief' prior to serve the site. a report plan and will provide .j I January 12, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - A a e Country Church - Conditional Use Permit - rnntinued on the 12th of January. This permit will require the filing of a one lot plat if approved. The plat will provide on-site utility easements and dedication of R.O.W. for Napa Valley. The plat and conditional use permit also require improvement of Napa Valley to arterial standard which is one-half of a 48 -foot pavement and one-half of an 80 -foot R.O.W. plus sidewalk. 6. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to items noted in analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approval as filed, subject to: (a) Site design being modified to eliminate the future parking lot within the green space identified on the preliminary plat of Turtle Creek. This area lies generally along the east property line adjacent to the drainageway running north 4an01 m diouth, (b) Two story maximum on all buildings, (c) nimum natural state buffer along the north and east boundary adjacent to the building, ( d ) Filing of a one lot final plat, (e) approval of the site plan by the City Fire Marshall's Office and possible construction of a crash gate at the south end of Tortoise Hill Court if required by the Fire Department and, (f) Owner exploring the idea of purchasing the residential lots along the south side of St. Charles Boulevard for inclusion within the plan. The vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNI14G COMMISSION ACTION: (1-26-82) Nine present, the vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent in favor of the proposal as filed subject to the moving of the church building and adjacent parking so that a full 40' puffer exists on both the north and east sides of the building and the construction of two barricades at the end of Turtle Creek and Tortoise Hall Roads; and the filing of a Final Plat showing all improvements to be made.