23 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Mr. Gallagher noted that a sidewalk would be installed on Rheem Drive going out to Stoneridge Drive. He wished to assure the residents that the Church wanted to be good neighbors and that the Pastoral Council would be happy to hear from the neighborhood on a regular basis. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pearce recalled a previous discussion on permit parking for the residential street, which the neighbors opposed. She inquired whether putting up signs and encouraging parishioners not to park on the residential streets would be the best effort possible to relieve the neighborhood parking impacts. Mr. Otto replied that short of making it a permit parking street, which could be enforced by the Police Department, staff cannot do more than encourage, which is what staff has tried to do. Ms. Decker added that the residents had not seemed interested in permitted parking. She noted that anyone is able to park on public streets and added that the use of signage has worked in other project circumstances where an attendant from a facility has been available to keep an eye on parking and advise patrons where parking is encouraged. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether the noticing was sufficient, Ms. Harryman confirmed that the noticing was sufficient for this use. The law required that enough information be provided to inform the recipients that something was occurring with respect to that property, as well as some particulars about the proposed plans. In this case, the entire lot was hatch-marked, with no indication of where any building may be placed. It was her opinion that the notice was not misleading and that the size of the building to be constructed had been called out. Any person who was concerned about a 22,000-square-foot building would be able to contact staff or attend the meeting. Commissioner O'Connor did not believe this project was the root cause of the parking issues, which he believed was the Church service. He noted that there was an overflow parking agreement and added that if that agreement were to be terminated, Condition No. II required the Church to find an alternative parking arrangement or, within 60 days, they would have to construct the on-site gravel parking lot that the City had previously discussed with the Church. He suggested adding language stating that if the off-site parking was not being adequately utilized, the City invoke the 60-day requirement to add the gravel parking lot. With respect to the question on potential bike-lane reduction, Ms. Decker advised that the minimum width was technically three feet; in this case, four feet met the criteria. Commissioner Blank moved to make the variance findings listed in the staff report and approve Case No. PDR-561IPV-158 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B ofthe staff report, as recommended by staff, with the following amendments: 1. Modify Condition No. 19 to indicate that noise from the mechanical equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA at the property plane; 2. Add a new condition that additional trees shall be planted on both sides of the walkway on the western side of the parish center building; DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 29, 2006 Page 9 of 11