Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />parking. The Church proposed the use of parking on Stoneridge Drive. Planning staff had <br />discussed this proposal with the City Traffic Engineer, who indicated that it was a reasonable <br />request and did not seem to create any adverse conditions. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Fox expressed concern about the safety of the neighborhood and the parishioners at <br />night. She noted that the installation of a gravel parking on the vacant property next to the <br />Church would address the parking issue. She added that residents of Gatewood Apartments <br />across the street constantly cross the undeveloped median to get to the park, with cars running in <br />excess of the 35-mile- per-hour speed limit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank commented that eliminating the 28 spaces on Stoneridge Drive would <br />inadvertently force more traffic into the neighborhood for people looking for parking places. He <br />noted, however, that he was concerned that the bike lane striping would not be as visible and <br />asked staff if a reflective paint or other material could be used. Ms. Decker responded that the <br />lane could be painted with thermoplastic reflective paint. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank suggested an amendment to add thermoplastic reflective paint on the <br />outermost (northernmost) bicycle lane striping along the Church's Stoneridge Drive <br />frontage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce accepted the proposed amendment. <br /> <br />The applicants indicated that they were amenable to the additional conditions. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />RECUSED <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Commissioners Blank, O'Connor, Olson, and Pearce. <br />Commissioner Fox. <br />None. <br />None. <br />None. <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-2006-61, approving PDR-561/PV-158, was entered and adopted as <br />motioned. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Fox noted that although she was supportive of the project, she believed the <br />building was sited in the incorrect location and that it was detrimental to the neighborhood. She <br />indicated that she would support the project if it were to be located between Nielson Park and the <br />Church, as shown in the existing 1998 plan. <br /> <br />DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 29, 2006 <br /> <br />Page II of II <br />