23 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT until 8:00 p.m. were limited to office work and/or meeting with parents; all group parents meetings and other meetings are to be held before 6:00 p.m. She added that there was a big difference between 6:00 p.m. and II :00 p.m. in terms of school activities. She asked Mr. Iserson if the same type of conditions and restrictions would have been envisioned for the school ifit were placed on the site between the Church and Nielsen Park as proposed in the 1998 Master Plan. Mr. Iserson replied that it would be difficult to say what staff would have done because each application is different in terms of the number of children, teachers, and activities before and after school. He stated that each application is considered on a case-by-case basis; staff looks at the particular proposal, identifies the issues, works with the applicant and the neighbors, and responds with conditions of approval as necessary to best serve the use. Praveen Sharma, 4227 Diavila A venue, agreed with the concerns of the previous speakers and was especially concerned that the notification did not show the new location of the building. He stated that some of his neighbors shared the same impression of the revised location. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the revised location of the building was clearly indicated at the last neighborhood meeting, Mr. Otto confirmed that it was made clear at the meeting. Ms. Decker wished to clarify that the purpose ofthe notice was to give a broad description ofthe scope of the project and to provide a map identifying the location of the project. It is not intended to actually define where structures and improvements were planned to go. Milind Joshi, 4293 Diavila A venue, expressed concern about noise, parking, security, and the change in the original plan. Sharrell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, wished to clarify that while she arranged the meetings with the Church representatives, she did not meet with Acting Chairperson Fox regarding the project. She noted that they had conducted a phone conversation. She noted that her history with this project included her tenure as a former Planning Commissioner. She noted that the uses in this conditional use permit were attached to the conditions; when someone has a concern, it may be brought to the Commission, and the Commission could then address the concerns with the applicant. She believed the Church had made an early effort to address the existing concerns regarding overflow parking. They had tried to educate the parishioners to be courteous and would also install signage to that effect. She believed the Catholic Community of Pleasant on l1ad tried to be a good neighbor and would like to go forward with the project. She requested the members of the audience who supported this project to raise their hands. She noted that she was a parishioner and had worked on the fundraising committees. She believed the Church had tried to impose the least impact on the neighborhood. She noted that this application contained 88 conditions that addressed each concern that had been raised by the neighboring residents, including keeping doors and windows closed and adding landscaping. She noted that while a 300-foot notice was required, this project had been noticed to over a I,OOO-foot radius each time. Acting Chairperson Fox began a discussion ensued regarding past decisions of the City Council during Ms. Michelotti's tenure with the Council. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 29, 2006 Page 7 of II