PC 112906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker added that the residents had not seemed interested in permitted pazking. 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 pazking and advise patrons where parking is encouraged. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Peazce regazding whether the noticing was sufficient, Ms. Hatryman 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 particulazs about what might be going on. 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 pazking issues, which he believed was the Church service. He noted that there was an overflow pazking agreement and added that if that agreement were to be terminated, Condition No. 11 required the Church to fmd an alternative pazking arrangement or, within 60 days, they would have to construct the on-site gravel pazking 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. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the pazking lot for off-site pazking is not exactly across the street but located down and across. He did not know what utilization it would get. Commissioner Blank indicated he would like to suggest a motion. Acting Chairperson Fox indicated that prior to making motions, she would like staff to clarify the process regazding this application. She asked staff to confirm whether this being a design review, it would be subject to a 15-day appeal period and that anyone who disagrees with the Planning Commission's decision can file an appeal, and that unless that is done, this item will not go to the City Council. She asked staff to confirm that pazking on Stoneridge Drive would not go to the City Council, that variances would not go to the City Council, and that unlike PUDs that go to the City Council for approval, design reviews do not go to Council unless they aze appealed. Ms. Decker replied that this would be a Planning Commission action only unless someone wants to appeal the decision to the City Council. In a response to an inquiry from Acting Chairperson Fox regazding whether pazking on Stoneridge Drive would need to go the City Council, Ms. Decker indicated that the use of pazking on Stoneridge Drive would not go to the City Council as this was discussed internally with the Deputy Director/Transportation, Mike Tassano, and City staff determined that it is a workable solution. Acting Chairperson Fox asked whether the reduction of bike lanes on Stoneridge Drive would need to go to the City Council or would appear on the City Council's consent calendaz. Ms. Decker advised that it would not need to go to the City Council but decisions of the Planning Commission would appeaz as actions of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2006 Page 19 of 28