SR 05:154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Association was positive. The church official cannot speak for the Valley Trails Homeowners Association. In fact, neither the Valley Trails Homeowners Association nor its Board of Directors has ever voted on their position in regard to the church expansion. In fact the church official omitted the results of the last Valley Trails Homeowners Association after the city sponsored neighborhood meetings on the project. The result of that meeting, of which the church official was in attendance, was very negative to the expansion with an increasing resistance to the project. The church official also stated that another church St. Elizabeth Seton has not resulted in a relative decrease of home values in that area. However, the situation is far, far different. Neither the parking lot nor the playground area of the church is as close to the frontage of existing homes as in this case. A major objection to the north end parking lot is that it is a visual and noise nuisance yet any method of shielding, stucco wall or landscaping will create a worst nuisance of misbehavior and law enforcement. These was recent personal experience with this. In the course of a church clean up at another site, an area of years of overgrowth was removed whereby several picnic tables, chairs and litter including beer cans and wine bottles were discovered. Apparently it had been set up as a secluded rendezvous for underage drinking and perhaps other activities. It had been stated in the May 8 letter that a neighborhood parking problem exists now, despite a church promise to have a parking program to prevent such parking. A commissioner stated that a parking program was working at Valley Community Church. However, that is a temporary situation with Valley Community Church in the planning stages of a parking lot expansion. Here, St. Clare's has demonstrated they cannot have an effective parking program now, much less than when they triple in size. Finally, the Planning Commission failed to address the major objections of the residents which are also violations of the General Plan. In the two minor areas they addressed, their logic was flawed and the problems with the proposed plan remain. As stated in the May 8 letter, there are a number of violations of the General Plan that are the basis of the residents' opposition to the proposal. These violations have not been adequately addressed by either the applicant or the Planning Commission. We urge the City Council to reject proposal PDR-391/PCUP-118.