Neighbors press Saint Francis over 3,400‑space parking garage plan; board hears hours of public comment

Saint Francis Health System’s plan to replace an aging employee parking garage with a larger, modern facility prompted hours of public comment and extended technical presentation at the Board of Adjustment meeting April 8.

Saint Francis representatives told the board the project replaces a functionally obsolete structure and will add about 3,400 parking spaces in a cast‑in‑place concrete garage with screening and a planted buffer. The hospital and its design team said the bulk of the new structure sits in a hospital (O‑H) zoning district, with a narrow strip crossing into adjacent RS‑3 residential zoning, and so they requested a special exception to permit hospital use within RS‑3 and variances on height and setbacks where the structure crosses zoning lines.

Why it matters

Neighbors who live around the pond and reserve east of the campus said the proposal will intensify noise, light and traffic at the back of a residential subdivision and questioned hydrology, construction staging and long‑term impacts on property values. Several homeowners who spoke said they had long allowed the hospital to use a reserve area but did not expect the scale of the new garage and sought written commitments for additional screening and a sound‑attenuation wall.

What Saint Francis presented

Lou Reynolds, attorney for the applicant, and Robbie McNamara, vice president of design, planning and construction for Saint Francis, explained the project’s evolution and primary constraints: the hospital’s central plant, critical utilities and campus circulation that make shifting the garage footprint to the west impractical. They described a multi‑phase plan to build the new garage while maintaining employee parking during construction and showed facade renderings with a perforated metal screen in a dark green finish, concrete interior walls and tree planting around the south edge. Civil engineer Grant Phillips said the design includes underground detention to prevent increases in flow to the pond and that geotechnical borings encountered limestone on the south side.

Neighbors’ concerns

Residents described repeated contacts with the hospital and said many remained unconvinced the mitigations would be sufficient. Common objections included:

- Noise and light: residents said they already experience helicopter and vehicle noise and asked for stronger guarantees on reduction of headlights, headlight glare and late‑night activity. - Drainage and geology: residents asked for detail on pond volume, detention capacity and whether the proposed underground tanks and pile wall method would alter groundwater or raise flood risk. Several homeowners said the neighborhood soils are clay/shale and asked for geotechnical details. - Visual and privacy impacts: several neighbors asked for taller, denser evergreen screening and a commitment to replace screening if plantings fail. - Notice and process: residents said some felt the HOA‑level voting process on restrictive covenants was confusing and asked the hospital to ensure any negotiated mitigation is memorialized.

Negotiations and next steps

Saint Francis said talks with its most‑impacted neighbors are ongoing. Counsel for one affected household, Jay Wang, told the board he had reached an agreement in principle with the hospital that included tree screening and a later sound‑attenuation wall; the hospital confirmed negotiations are progressing and said recent offers were under leadership review. The board repeatedly urged the hospital to work with the neighbors and staff on firm, written commitments and asked for clarified technical documentation on stormwater detention, elevations and the proposed screening.

Board discussion

Board members repeatedly acknowledged the campus’s longstanding presence in the neighborhood and the utility constraints that limit where the parking structure can be located. Several members said they support replacing the failing garage but urged written, enforceable mitigation measures for the homeowners most directly affected. No final vote was recorded during the published portion of the hearing; staff and the applicant were asked to continue coordination and to provide additional engineering and landscape detail for the record.

Ending

The board did not adopt a final decision at the April 8 meeting. Members encouraged the applicant to formalize commitments with affected property owners and requested additional drainage and geotechnical information before taking final action.