23 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT 3. Add a new conditions that a two-inch diameter capped conduit shall be installed in the roof for emergency purposes, the location of which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Building Official; 4. Add a new condition that the City Traffic Engineer shall consider appropriate mitigation measures on Rheem Drive to address the neighbors' traffic concerns; 5. Add a new condition that additional large trees shall be planted in the southern planter area to further mitigate both noise and visual impacts of the Church property to the southern residential area, with the final location, species, and size ofthe trees to be shown on the plans submitted for issuance of building permits and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits; and 6. Add a new condition that if the Planning Director determines that the off-site parking at 2174-2186 Rheem Drive is not being effectively used by the Church, the applicants shall work with the Planning Director to investigate options to increase the effectiveness of the off-site parking lot; and if the Planning Director determines that this off-site parking lot continues not to be used, the Planning Director may inform the Church to construct an on-site gravel parking lot in the undeveloped eastern side of the Church site to accommodate the overflow parking within 60 days, the exact location and design of which shall be subject to the review and approval ofthe Planning Director prior to installation. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion and suggested an amendment to remove parking on Stoneridge Drive due to bicycle safety concerns. Commissioner Pearce indicated that she supports the off-site parking and believes that it mitigates the parking issue; hence, there is no need to have the Stoneridge Drive parking. Acting Chairperson Fox stated that one of the issues regarding parking on Stoneridge Drive is the risk during fall, winter, and spring when it gets dark early and people are exiting their cars on Stoneridge Drive. Commissioner Olson noted that the 28 parking spaces on Stoneridge Drive were included in the count of required parking since the 95 parking spaces on Rheem Drive would not be adequate. He asked staff if parking on Stoneridge Drive is not allowed at this time. Ms. Decker replied yes. She added that staff investigated the opportunity to put parking on Stoneridge Drive to mitigate the impacts of the evening service. She noted that Condition No.8 required that a sign be posted limiting parking from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. as the parking analysis identified the 6:30 p.m. service as the greatest impact. The on-site and off-site parking would serve the needs at other times. In response to Commissioner Pearce's inquiry if the 95 on-site and off-site parking spaces would adequately serve the Church's parking needs such that parking on Stoneridge Drive would not be necessary and could be eliminated, Ms. Decker replied that the existing parking spaces are adequate for the current Church functions and is in excess of the parking spaces required by the Code's actual computation of one parking space per six seats. She noted that staff requested that the Church look at the actual usage and to accommodate and maximize the opportunities for DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 29, 2006 Page 10 of 11