Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4686 Staff AnalysisJuly 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: St. John Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4686) LOCATION: The Southeast and Southwest Corners of Roosevelt Road and Main Street (2504 S. Main) OWNER/APPLICANT: St. Missionary Baptist Church/ Raymond Branton PROPOSAL: To rebuild an existing education fellowship building (21,600 square feet total), and to expand the educational area (12,160 square feet) and the worship area (27,500 square feet - 850 capacity). The proposal also calls for the construction of 109 parking spaces currently, with an additional 132 spaces to be constructed on land that is zoned "C-3" and "R-4." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a principal arterial (north, Roosevelt Road), a collector (south, Main Street), and residential (west and south, 26th and 27th Streets). 2. Compatibility with the Neighborhood This property lies in a mixed use area. The structural proposal is abutted by commercial uses on the north and west, with office/multifamily to the east, and residential and recreational uses located to the south. The structure that currently occupies the site has burned. The reconstruction of the existing facility and the construction of additional facilities has the potential to be compatible only if all screening, landscaping and design techniques are appropriately applied. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains 17 on-site parking spaces. A total of 109 parking spaces is currently planned bringing the proposed total to 126 spaces. The applicant is also proposing to use 132 parking spaces of existing adjacent institutional uses. Finally, the applicant is proposing an additional 132 parking spaces in the future. A 14' access drive is also proposed from Roosevelt Road. Various access points are proposed for the parking areas. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has shown the proposed landscape areas as well as noting on the site plan that landscaping will be as City ordinance requires. 5. Analysis The staff is generally supportive of this proposal but does have some reservations. The staff wants assurances of written parking agreements from all off-site parking lot owners whose property is being used. In addition, the staff wants assurances that all residential lots will be screened from the parking areas. There is some question about the proposed access drive (141) on the east side of the building. The staff wants Fire Department approval for this access. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan that shows the dimensions of the proposed canopies (if canopies are desired). Finally, the staff has some question about the proposed height of the structures. Our understanding is that the existing church is 83' in height ( and had a 7' steeple) and that the new auditorium will be 90' in height with a proposed 70' steeple. The staff requests a site section which shows the heights of buildings both existing and proposed (ordinance allows 35' in height). The applicant is also apparently asking for a front and rear setback variance (25' is required). July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Eliminate one access drive to Louisiana from the proposed parking area; and (2) place signage that indicates access drive to be one-way (south off Roosevelt Road). 7. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval provided that the applicant: (1) receives Fire Department approval of the proposed Roosevelt access drive and that he agrees to make it one way (south) and erect a sign to that effect; (2) provides signed parking lot agreements with adjacent institutional property owners; (3) agrees to screen residential uses from proposed parking areas; (4) agrees to eliminate one access drive from Louisiana Street to the proposed parking area; (5) agrees to provide a site section; and (6) receives approval from the Commission on front yard, rear yard and height variance requests. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all staff recommendations. The applicant did, however, question whether or not any variance for front and rear yard setbacks were required. A lengthy discussion ensued over whether the front yard for the church was Roosevelt or South Main. It was finally agreed that the front yard for the church could be Roosevelt Road and that no variance would be required for the front or rear yards. The applicant presented a site section which illustrated the height of the existing structure, the proposed structure and the steeple. The applicant explained that the church property lay in a sort of valley and that the impact would not be negative. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and assurance that off-site parking was being addressed. The staff recommended approval of this item subject to the Commission approving the proposed height variance. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff including the proposed height variance. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: St. John Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4686) LOCATION: The Southeast and Southwest Corners of Roosevelt Road and Main Street (2504 S. Main) OWNER/APPLICANT: St. Missionary Baptist Church/ Raymond Branton PROPOSAL: To rebuild an existing education fellowship building (21,600 square feet total), and to expand the educational area (12,160 square feet) and the worship area (27,500 square feet - 850 capacity). The proposal also calls for the construction of 109 parking spaces currently, with an additional 132 spaces to be constructed on land that is zoned "C-3" and "R-4, TM ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a principal arterial (north, Roosevelt Road), a collector (south, Main Street), and residential (west and south, 26th and 27th Streets). 2. Com atibilit with the Neighborhood This property lies in a mixed use area. The structural proposal is abutted by commercial uses on the north and west, with office/multifamily to the east, and residential and recreational uses located to the south. The structure that currently occupies the site has burned. The reconstruction of the existing facility and the construction of additional facilities has the potential to be compatible only if all screening, landscaping and design techniques are appropriately applied. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The proposal contains 17 on-site parking spaces. A total of 109 parking spaces is currently planned bringing the proposed total to 126 spaces. The applicant is also proposing to use 132 parking spaces of existing adjacent institutional uses. Finally, the applicant is proposing an additional 132 parking spaces in the future. A 14' access drive is also proposed from Roosevelt Road. Various access points are proposed for the parking areas. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has shown the proposed landscape areas as well as noting on the site plan that landscaping will be as City ordinance requires. 5. Analysis The staff is generally supportive of this proposal but does have some reservations. The staff wants assurances of written parking agreements from all off-site parking lot owners whose property is being used. In addition, the staff wants assurances that all residential lots will be screened from the parking areas. There is some question about the proposed access drive (14' ) on the east side of the building. The staff wants Fire Department approval for this access. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan that shows the dimensions of the proposed canopies (if canopies are desired). Finally, the staff has some question about the proposed height of the structures. Our understanding is that the existing church is 83' in height ( and had a 7' steeple) and that the new auditorium will be 90' in height with a proposed 70' steeple. The staff requests a site section which shows the heights of buildings both existing and proposed (ordinance allows 35' in height). The applicant is also apparently asking for a front and rear setback variance (25' is required). July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Eliminate one access drive to Louisiana from the proposed parking area; and (2) place signage that indicates access drive to be one-way (south off Roosevelt Road). 7. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval provided that the applicant: (1) receives Fire Department approval of the proposed Roosevelt access drive and that he agrees to make it one way (south) and erect a sign to that effect; (2) provides signed parking lot agreements with adjacent institutional property owners; (3) agrees to screen residential uses from proposed parking areas; (4) agrees to eliminate one access drive from Louisiana Street to the proposed parking area; (5) agrees to provide a site section; and (6) receives approval from the Commission on front yard, rear yard and height variance requests. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all staff recommendations. The applicant did, however, question whether or not any variance for front and rear yard setbacks were required. A lengthy discussion ensued over whether the front yard for the church was Roosevelt or South Main. It was finally agreed that the front yard for the church could be Roosevelt Road and that no variance would be required for the front or rear yards. The applicant presented a site section which illustrated the height of the existing structure, the proposed structure and the steeple. The applicant explained that the church property lay in a sort of valley and that the impact would not be negative. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and assurance that off-site parking was being addressed. The staff recommended approval of this item subject to the Commission approving the proposed height variance. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff including the proposed height variance.