PC 112906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Rohit Gupta, 4443 Bowen Street, expressed concern about the effect the continued growth of the parish and its activities would have on the neighborhood. He was concerned about the plan to serve alcohol, and he had been previously told at the neighborhood meeting that it would not be served. He did not believe the expansion would be beneficial to the neighborhood. He noted that with his own limited landscaping, the gym was visually prominent from his home, and he believed it was too large for the site. He suggested that it be returned to the original location. He showed the Commission a spreadsheet of all Church activities and noted that Friday and Saturday uses were more intense than described. He expressed concern about hours of operation being until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Olson noted that he had-looked at Mr. Gupta's home from the parking lot of the Church and indicated to Mr. Gupta that he believed that it was the most impacted home by the proposal. He believed that if the cut-through were blocked off, it would benefit him. He suggested that additional trees on the Church side of the fence to the reaz of the Mr. Gupta's home may mitigate the visual and noise impacts. Mr. Gupta agreed with that assessment. Sonia Gupta, 4443 Bowen Street, noted that when they bought their home, they were attracted by the quietness of the neighborhood. She has become very concerned with the volume of traffic in her neighborhood as well as with the safety impacts. She did not feel comfortable allowing her children to play in the front yazd without supervision because of the speed of the traffic. She did not know what the Church planned to do two or more yeazs in the future. She noted that she had heazd skateboazders behind her home on church property, and added that headlights often shone into the back of her home. She indicated she has a small child who goes to bed at 8:00 p.m. She requested some commitment from the applicant that these concerns would be addressed. Acting Chairperson Fox read from the conditions of approval for the neazby Eazly Learning Institute, which was later renamed Hacienda School, on the corner of Stoneridge Drive and Stonepointe Way, provided for operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays only with no school activities of any type allowed on weekends. In addition, teachers allowed to be in the premises unti18:00 p.m. were limited to office work and/or meeting with pazents; all group parents meetings and other meetings aze to be held before 6:00 p.m. She added that there was a big difference between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 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 if it were placed on the site 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 particulaz proposal, identifies the issues, works with the applicant and the neighbors, and responds with conditions of approval as necessary to best serve the use. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that when the Eazly Learning Institute was brought to the City Council in 1997, the staff report included information and discussion about the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2006 Page 14 of 28