SR 05:154 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACI-TMENT ! O~ O~ PL~ASAN~o P~NNING DEm~ N ~e le~er to ~e city pl~ng co~ssion dated May 8, 2005 lists m~y of~e re~ons ~s project should be rejected. One up~te is ~t ~e britt or,ge cons~ction sVle fen~ h~ fin~ly ~ remove. However, bas~ on ~e results of the Pl~ng Co~ssion Meet~g on May 11, ~e follo~g repons for rejection ~ve also ~sen: ~e CiW Plier ~d ~dicated ~ere would be more nei~borhood meet~gs. ~e ci~ s~ decid~ to hold no mom nei~borhood meetings ~out notification of ~e nei~rs. As a resflt ~e nei~rhood had li~e or no t~e to prep~e for ~e Plug Co~ission he,g, w~ch cl~ly ~e ch~ch had weeks to pmp~e for. ~e nei~rhood ~so had no ch~ce to view or cogent on ~e fin~ proposed pl~ ~til publication of~e s~repo~. ~e nei~rhood shoed have b~n given s~cient time ~d ~o~ation to response to ~e fin~ propose. D~ng ~e disc~sion ~fiod, ~e CiW S~mMe f~se statements reg~ding l~dscaping ~d~g ~e ~s~ bli~t of~e play~o~d ~d fenc~g. However in ~e s~m~a, ~g 3, "Ph~e One: Pmli~n~ L~dscape PI~"; ~a~ng 7, "Over~l L~dscape PI~"; ~a~g 8, "M~ter PI~ Site"; all show ~at ~e sou~em half of~e play~o~d gea is to ~ ~covered by l~dscaping. Thc issues regarding noise from the day care operations were never discussed. During the neighborhood meetings, the church always insisted that there were no plans to increase the size of the school or day care operations. At a subsequent meeting of the Valley Trails homeowners association, however, the church finally admitted that they plan to increase those operations at sometime in the future. The city staffwrote their report based on inaccurate facts supplied by the church. The church sold a portion of its lot to the Masons. Many of the problems with the current design would not exist if they had not sold that land. The neighborhood should not be injured because the church has inadequate space because of a sale from which they profited. Of the 500+ homes in Valley Trails, only 2 families are reportedly members of St. Clare's church. Therefore the neighborhood does not substantially benefit from the church. Also the church's insistence on the placement of buildings for improved visibility to increase church membership is not based on realistic facts. Everyone who lives in the neighborhood knows of the existence of the church, yet the neighborhood membership is purportedly far less than 1%. In rebuttal the church official, in reply to one resident's comments, discussed the infeasibility of building the church sanctuary on the far north side of the existing structure. However, the resident's comments were actually directed to the multi-purpose room and not the sanctuary. All the church official's rebuttal points do not apply. Also, the same church official stated that an early meeting of the Valley Trails Homeowners