PC 012407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that staff believed that the able to make the conditional use permit findings could be made for any combination of any particular design. She acknowledged that the previous November 8, 2006 staff report had provided a recommendation for the proposed Master Site Plan, which depicted 122 parking spaces. Staff believed it was a viable plan which was consistent with the 1999 plan. Staff did not believe there was any real benefit to Alternative A, which provided an increased buffer area reducing the parking to 98 spaces, would bring more cars onto the street. Ms. Decker reflected that this project has undergone extensive communication among the applicant, staff, and the neighborhood in looking for compromises regarding the issues and concerns of this site. She advised that no funding was available for mediation for this project. She believed that the project planner has done an excellent job in meeting with the community. She wished to publicly commend the community for coming forward and working with the applicant during this year-long process; she believed there was a sincere effort during this process to find a compromise. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider the merits of the proposal and take action on this project. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding how old the six-seat-per-car standard for parking spaces was, Ms. Decker replied that it was very old, but that she did not know the exact date. She noted that that section of the Code had not been updated in a long time. Commissioner Blank requested clarification of the C-3 pretreatment berm and a traditional bioswale. Mr. Grubstick noted that was one option and that the bioswale was a C-3 requirement or an alternative to a bioswale; he added that was part of the proposal. He added that it could be a bioswale or a bioretention area; in this case, it would probably be a bioswale. Commissioner Blank noted that when the residents of Golden Road bought their homes, he presumed that at that time, a disclosure about the Church was required. He inquired whether that disclosure contained information related to the 1967 or 1999 Master Plan. Ms. Decker noted that she did not have that information and had not been made aware of any disclosures about the expansion of this facility. She was aware that this site had been developed with a use permit in 1967. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O’Connor if an additional use permit would be required if the applicant wished to increase the number of students, Ms. Decker confirmed that was correct. The applicant would either request an amendment to the Church’s current use permit or a separate use permit could be processed for the additional number of children. She added that they were limited to 99 children per session, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, with no expansion or additional children being allowed. Chairperson Fox noted that there was a conditional use permit from the 1970s when Carden West Elementary School was located on that property; that permit has expired. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2007 Page 12 of 24