HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
'r'
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 85-709
Applicant: College Heights Assembly
of God Church
Request: Conditionalllse permit for a church with day care,
Christian school, and retirement center ministries.
Location: 10.357 ac. tract in the Glenhaven subdivision between
the extension of Glenhaven Dri.ve and the east By-pass;
see area map
Physical Features:
Area: 10 . 357 a c .
Dimensions:
Frontage:
Depth:
SEE ENCLOSED DRAWING
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
R-3
C-l, R-l (across the By-pass)
R-l (across Dominik)
R-l
Existing Land Use:
Subject tract is vacant. Vacant area to the east, across
the By-pass.. Residential area to the south, across Dominik.
Vacant areas to the west and north, part of the developing
Glenhaven subdivisioll. City park land adjacent to the
north.
Lalld Use Plan:
Area is reflected as low density residential on the land use
pI all.
Engineering:
Water: Available; off~siteextension may. .be necessary.
Sewer: Available; off-site extension may be necessary.
Streets: Adequate; access to Frontage Road only
Flood Plain: not applicable; drainage to south toward Do:minik
and Glenhaven; provisions to carry runoff to the
creek will be required.
Notification:
Legal Notice Publication(s): 7-17-85
Advertised Commission Hearing Date(s): 8-1-85
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 9
RespoIlse Received: 2 to date
1
Staff Comments:
This church has .requested consideration of the proposed use
of this property by the Commission prior to purchasing this
site. Enclosed is a conceptual site plan and a detailed
explanation of the proposed uses.
Conditional use permits are granted by the Commission,
subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when the
Commission finds:
A. That the proposed use meets ,all the minimum standards
established in the Zoning Ordinance for this type of
use;
B. That the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and
iXltent of the zoning ordinance aIld the plan for physical
development of the district as embodied in the
comprehensive plan for the development of the City;
c. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding
neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or
permanently injurious to neighboring property.
(See sec. lO-C.2, Ordinance 850)
The applicant is seeking Commission consideration of the use
of this property for the purposes stated intheapplicati~on.
The applicant will have to return to the Commission for
approval of the site plan if the use of the property for
chllrch and related uses is approved. The ellclosed site plan
is a conceptual plan; no PRe review will be held until a
finalized site plan is submitted.
P&Z ACTION:
On 8-1-85 the Commission voted totable this item until the
meeting of 9-5-85 to allow time for the applicant and the
neighborhood to discuss possible compromises. Minutes of that
meeting are as follows:
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: 85-709: A public hearing on the question elf
granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility with a
daycare center t a. C.hristian school, a retirement center, and a]l
outdoor recreational area to be located on a 10.357 acre tract
bounded by Glenhaven Drive, Dominik and the S.H.6 East Bypass
Frontage Road. Applicant is College Heights Assembly of God
Church.
Mr. Callaway located the land which is within the Glenhaven subdivision, po,inted
out area zoning and tile single family residentially developed land directly' across
Dominik from this tract. He.reminded the.Commission that the site plan presented
at this meeting is conceptual only in nature, . and the applicant isonlyreq,uesting
that his proposed uses be approved tonight,....with a definite site .plan to come back
to tllis Conunission for approval at a later date. Mrs. Stallings asked if the
2
applicant .. would be likely to stay with this site plan if the uses are approved
tonight and Mr. Callaway replied the applicant could better answer. the question
than he. Mr. MacGilvrayaskediftheparking, location and size of the buildings
co.uld not. be considered at this meeting, where did that leave the Connnisso:n. Mr.
Callaway responded by stating it putstheConnnission into a position of only
decidillgif tIle proposed uses . of this tract are acceptable, adding that a site plan
would be forthcoming for review and approval by this Commission at a later date.
The public hearing was opened. CalviIl Durham, senior pastor of the Colleg,e Heights
Assembly of God church came forward to act as spokesman for the church and
explained the plans the church has formulated to date. He referred to the
projected maximum numbers of people to be served by the various ministries being
proposed, adding that. it is hoped that the conceptual site plan presented at this
Ineetingwillbevery close to. the actual site plan, but what the church is really
illterested ill at tllis time is getting approval of the various uses propose1d prior
to committing large sums of money on the actual development of permanent plans.
Mr. DurllaID referred to the memo. which accompanied the application and pointed out
that the church is planning various phases. of development of the site, and is
requesting temporary access to Dominik for a2 year maximwn time period Ulltil
Glenhaven Drive is completed. He then.addressed the possible objections to this
plan as follows: (1) Drainage: Stated that curbs and gutters as well as storm
sewers will be installed on Glenhaven Drive;.that the street will be completed
withiIl 2 years; (2) Noise: Stated the greatest noise ill tIle area will COD143 from
the existing Bypass, but agreed that a greenbelt could be planned between this
project and Domillik to help buffer noise; (3) Traffic: Stated. that most of the
traffic to this site will be from. the East Bypass with the probability that only
local area residellts will use the access to GleIlhaven Drive and Dominik; (ll)
Traffic Surges : Stated that surges would take place primarily at worship f~ervices
on Sllndays and possibly on Wednesday evenings and the available access to:2
overpasses would help alleviate possible problems; (5) Daycareand School:
Indicated that these ministries would probably not cause any increase in traffic as
people already travel to daycare centers and schools in the area, and that perhaps
development of tllissi te would help alleviate any existing. problems as it provides
more immediate access to the Bypass; (6) Lighting: He would hope for help with
specifications from the City, adding that the aim of the church is to enhance the
area, and perhaps even help to deter cl^ime in the neighborhood by providin~~
additional night lighting; and, (7) Property Values: Tllis project should IIOt Ilurt
property values in the neighborhood as .the church plans to enhance and to l)eautify
the area.
Mr. MacGilvray state.d that the drawing the applicant has been referring to is
different from those provided earlier totheConnnissioners. Mr. Durllam agreed
statirlg that some of the changes he has inked in on his drawing have comeclS a
result of talking wi ththe. Ci tyEngineer . and tile neighborhood residents, aciding that
the church does not want the entrance to this project to be from the cul-de-sac on
Dominik, but would rather llavean entrance from Dominik further to the west of that
location. He then said that an entrance off Dominik. would not be absolutely
essential to the church's use of the property, but he would hope tllat at lE~ast a
temporary entrance would be allowed until Glenhavenis cut through and com~pleted,
which tIle developer llas indicated would <take place. wi thin two years.
Mr. Brochu asked for further explanation concerning the proposed retirement center,
including the number of..people, the numberQf stories of. tIle building, etc. Mr.
Durham said the specifics<are unknown, but it probably would not be more thlantwo
stories in height and would be. located at. the base of the hill; that it wouLld be a
3
live-in type home with perhaps a recreational center and a worship center, but it
would not have a large <dining room or medical facilities. He clarified by stating
that the exact location of the building has not been set.
Mr. MacGilvray asked what the liklihood is of this sit.e being fully develo]ped adding
that. the membership of the church is only 300 now and this seems to be. ara.ther
largeuIldertaking. Mr. Durham replied that the church has been planning t]~lis
project for a long time, and believes tIle first phase will take place within 18
montlls.
Mr. Kaiser remindedthe.Commissioners and advised the audience that this Connnission
can attacll conditionsabov.e and beyond regular site plan approval including the
limitation of uses and development of each phase. Mr. Durham replied that the
church's commitmellt to developing the proposed miIlistries is very strong, 4and it
would hope that the Commission would not limit approval of the requested u~;es to
specific phases.
Hank McQuaide, 2101 Carter Creek, Bryan came forward to speak in favor of the land
use as a part owner and developing partner of the Glenhaven subdivision. ltle
confirmed that Glenhaven Drive will be. put in within 2 years, and the developers
know there ~vill be some additional traffic flow in the area, but believe th.at
addi tional traffic will not be generated primarily from the church project '.
Pllil Hobson of 1608 Dominik came forward to speak against this Condi tioIlal Use
Permit, adding that he has been chosen to represent all 9 area residents a(ijacent
to this land (across Dominik). He handed out a memo to all Commissioners l",hich
addressed specific concerns of the residents including traffic congestion, sound,
lighting, aesthetics, drainage, decreased property vallIe, compliance to
comprehensive plan, the resemblance this project would have to commercial
development, and the lack of need for this type of project ill the ci ty . A copy of
this memo is attached to these Minutes. He then highlighted the neighborhood's
COllcerllS, emphasizing the already existing drainage problems in the area, l"ihich
City Engineer Pullen confirmed by explaining that some of those homes are l)uilt in
the 100 year flood plain.
Mrs. Stallings asked Mr. Hobson if there is complete opposition to this, or if
something could be worked out and Mr. Hobs.on said that theresidentshadbE~en given
no chance to work anything out with the church as the pastor had only conta~cted
some of the residents 2 days ago, but added that trees) and a greenbelt would not be
enough to buffer this proposed project from the residences, and the neighbors felt
like at least a ftlll city block of residential development . should separate their
homes from a project of this magnitude.
Mr. Brochu said the traffic to Dominik could be controlled with no access to
Dominik, reminded everyone that this isa conceptual plan only and with
compromises, parking and recreational facilities could be moved, and the cllurch
seems to be willing to compromise. Mr. Hobson said that all compromises would have
to be on the part of the area residents. Mr. Kaiser asked if access to Glenhaven
and Dominik were precluded would the area residents still oppose this proposal and
Mr. Hobson answered that they very definitely would, as there would still be the
large, paved parking lot, the additional. sound and the lights; adding that it seems
to him the churcll is. not interested in having only a church on that tract. Mr.
Wendler said he believed if brick and concrete screening fences were erected a few
feet back from the property line with utilization of low level lighting, tllis
project would not have an unfavorable impact on the existing residenceso Mr.
Hobson stated that would still not make it an acceptable plan, as the resiclents
4
could see over the fence,. and maintenance .of landscaping and fences in this city
has beeIl lacking .onmanyprojects. Mr. Brochu asked again about the reference made
to drainage under the Bypass and City Engineer Pullen replied that some of the
homes..are in the 100.year flood plain, and if the water backed.. up under the Bypass,
the homes would surely be affected.
Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson came forward to speak in opposition to this project:, adding
that she was very aware of both the development aIldthe zoning of the area because
she had served on both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City COUl1cil when
tllese . subjects had been studied. She went on to explain that any. changes in the'
plans developed for that area now would be in direct opposi tioD to previouf;
regulatory bodies' decisions.
Rudy Freund, 1508 Dominik came forward to speak in opposition to the project citing
the probability of floodillg of the existing .hoDles in the area if this site is
developed ias proposed, and the belief that this proposal represents a commercial
establishment ratller tllan a church, specululating that. if someone would COlne in
with a rezoning request to change the tract to commercial zoning, it would not even
be. COIlsidered.
Mr. Kaiser stated that a Drainage Committee has been formed and an engineering firm
has been hired to study the various drainage basins in this area, but that no
permanent answers. . have been reached regarding what is to be done to . control
flooding,nor where the money will be derived to make any recommended ChaI1Jses.
Tom Comstock, 1700 Dominik came forward to speak in opposition to this prol~osed
complex stating that retaining property values of the residences along Dominik are
of primary interest to him, and he would not want anything across the street but
single family residences.
Hank McQuaide came forward again to address the concern over drainage problems
explaining that a contractor had cut GlenllaveIl Drive through without the planned
terracing. which caused water to flow where ... i thad never gone before. when tIle
residents had felt threateIled by water . in their yards , adding that this ha(! been
done .in error,and had since been rectified. He stated that any type of
development would include storm sewers, adding that it Ilas been his experience that
metering oif water runoff is easier to control from a parking lot than it is from
single family residellces. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. McQuaide if, in ~is opinioIl, this
tract is the best site available in. Glenhaven for this project to minimize. noise
aIld traffic ill the neighborhood and Mr. McQuaide replied that there is another
tract on a commercially zoned corner which might be as good a location, but added
that he does not believe any heavy traffic will be added to Dominik and thE~n
disagreed with the. expressed realtor's opinion that there would be a 20% reduction
in property values if this pI"oject is developed, as the appraiser lIe had consulted
had indicated there WOllld be no drop in property value.
At this time, Director of Planning Mayo arrived at the meeting. George Bass came
forward to address the fact that Commissioners change periodically and if tlses on
this project are approved step-by-step, problems for future conunissioIlers Dlight
become extremely difficult to solve. Mr. Mayo explained that only usesarE~ being
considered tonight and. the actual siteplan(s) would have to be approved b~7the
Commission after the specific allowable uses are approved, and each time .t~his
project is considered by the Conunission, the area residents will be notified and
notices will. be placed in the newspaper, just as has been done for this hesLring.
Mr. MacGilvray asked if rezollingwould be required to allow a retirement center and
5
Mr. Callaway replied that. would depend upon exactly what type of retirement home is
planned. Mr. Kaiser asked if. access conditions can be attached by this Co:mmission
and Mr. .Mayo replied that question should be addressed to the Legal DepartJment as
access is normally controlled by the City Engineer. Assistant City Attorney CIaI'
rep~ied.that itappeal'~t:b.at ordinance would allow the.Commission to a.ttachaccess
conditions to a conditional use permit, but added that he is only basing his belief
uponinterpretation.ofthe.. ordinance, adding that. before he .could.give. a.definite
ans~er, he would have to study case la.w, etc. Mr. Pullen spokea"t,thi~tim~ to
state that he afErees with Mr. McQuaide regarding runoff from a q,?~el'cl~~lparking
lotheing more easilrsontrolledthan runOf'f from single familY.f~~ii~ep"tif\l
development. MI" MacGilvray stated that this church is not. simJ?illi~,J,~Sl,"til:lchurch,
~dhewonders ~f the neighbors wOllldobject to only a church'~~rt;~epia~ked Mr.
H?~sqnifhe c()llld answer if the main objections were to "coIlQller~~/:\l" ~evelopment,
and Mr. Hobson said the objections would not be as stre:nuous, but the resildeIlts
wo'uldstill not want to be looking out over a parking lot.
Mr. Paulson stated tllat it appears tllat 11eighborhoods in general do not waJnt
churches and schoolsanddaycare centers. in the neighborhoods,.. and it seem~ed a
s.llame to him that this. is happening. He stated also that drainage could ble better
co:ntrolled . on developed ..land than on undeveloped land. Mr. MacGil vray disagreed to
a certain degref? with Mr. Paulson, stating that the real question appears to be
"th~ther or not the city itself should allow these usesina residential area. .Mr.
Ka. ...;..,l........se.r. . .remiIlded. . ..e.. ve. ryo.. n.. e that this proposed facility i.s actuall.y. o. n.t. h.e BYlpass., and.
.... . . . ' . ....
2 other churches have been built in recent years along the Bypass, and still
an~ther church on Welsh hacks up to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Brochu stated
that this is a well, established, older, true neighborhood and new developInent of
this nature in this. neighborhood is not the same as new development in a n~~wer. type
neighborhood, and he personally believes there are better places for this
particular developmeIlt, aIld furtller, if there were a motion to deny this request,
he would be in favor ..of denial.
Mri. MacGilvray stated that toa certain degree only, he agrees with Mr. Brochu
abput .the differences in. neighborhoods. Mr. Welldler stated that he believes this
pastor has demonstrated honesty and . willingness to cooperate, there are wa~rs to
provide serious buffering, it seems runoff can be controlled, and the developeJ:'
does not. seem to think this project will hurt the value.ofhis remaining property,
therefore he believes consideration should be given these facts.
Mr. Brochu then made a motion to deny this request for conditional uses as listed
on tile application. Mr. MacGilvray secollded the motion to deny.
Mr. Paulson suggested perhaps a larger greenspace could be developed. Mr. Kaiser
said he is troubled by the scope of this project and does not know if lIe C~ln
support one of this. magnitude. He added ..thathe is not troubled by develol>ing a
church on .tllis site, as he does find a precedent of locating churches ill
residential neighborhoods, and believes that. a..compromise can be reached ill this
case. Mr. Brochu said tllis does not answer the church's question tonight; they
have requested an answer on these uses they believe they need. Mr. Wendler agreed
that a definite answer is. in.. order toniglltrather than a u1naybe so, come bclcktt. and
does not believe in this case a compromise would be a good idea.
Votes were cast and tile motioIl. to deny failed by a vote of 2-4 (Kaiser, StElllings,
MacGilvray and Paulson voting against).
Mr. MacGilvray suggested that a motion to table might be in order so the church and
the residents could get together and discuss a possible compromise. Mr. KSLiser
6
pointed out that since the motion to deny failed, the other options open are to
table or to move toward an affirmative response to this request. Mr. PaulsoIl said
that if this is buffered well it could be a decent site, but that he is aga~inst
the conceptual plan which has been presented tonight. Mr. Brochu pointed out the
applicant could.alwayscome back. with another request.
Discussion waIledaIld Mr. Brocllu made a motion to table this request. until the first
meeting in September. Mr.. MacGilvray seconded this motion. Votes were caf3t with
the motion to table carrying by a vote of 5-1 (Paulson against).
7
"
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 85-7n9
Applicant.: College Heights Assembly
of God Church
Request: COllditionaluse permi t fo.ra churchwitll day care ,
Christian school, and retirement center ministries.
Location: 10.357ac....tract in the Glenhaven subdivision between
the extension of Glenhaven Drive and the east By-pass;
see area map
Physical Features:
Area: 10.357 ae.
D.imensions:
Frontage:
Depth:
SEE ENCLOSED DRAWING
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
R-3
C-l, R-l (across the By-pass)
R-l (across Dominik)
R-l
Existing Land Use:
Subject tract is vacant. Vacant area to the east, across
the By--pass. Residential area to the south, across Dominik.
Vacantare~~tothewest .and north, part of the developing
Glenhaven subdivision. City park land adjacent to the
north.
Land Use Plan:
Area is reflected as low density residential. on the land use
plan.
Engineering:
Water: Available;. off-siteext.ension may .benecessary.
Sewer: Available; off-site extension may be necessary.
Streets: Adequate; . access to Fr.ontage .Road only
FloodPlain: not applicable; drainage to south toward Dominik
and Glenhaven;provisions to carry runoff to the
creek will be ..require.d.
Not i fie a.t ion:
Lega+Notice.Publ~cation(s): 7-17-85
Advertised./Commission Hear ing Date( s) : 8~ 1-85
Number of NoticesMai led to Property Own"ers Within 200': 9
Response Received: 2 to date
1
,
Staff Comments:
Thischurchhasrequestedconsid~rationof the proposed use
of this propertyby>>the C.ommissionprior . to purchasing this
site. Enclosed is a conceptual site plan and <a detailed
explanation of the proposed llses.
Conditiona.l use permits are granted by the Commission,
stlbjectto appropriate conditions. and safeguards, when the
Commission finds:
A. That the proposed usemeets<all the minimum standards
established in. the .Zoning .Ordinance for.. .this type of
use;
B. That .. the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and
intentofthezo.ning ordinance and the plan f.orphysical
development of the district as embodied in the
comprehensive plan for the development of the City;
c. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
health,welfare,andsafetyof the surrounding
neighborhood or its occupants , nor be substantially o:r
permanently injurious to neighboring property.
(See sec. 10-C ..2, Ordinance 850)
The applicant is seeking Commission consideration ofth.e .use
ofthis.property.f 0 r .the .... pur:pos.es......s tated..in..the. ..appli cat ion.
The ...applicantwill. .....have ..to.return .. to. the ..Commission for
approval <of the site plan if the use of the. property for
church and related uses is approved. The enclosed site plan
isa conceptual plan; no PRCreview will be held until a
finalized si teplan. is submitted.
P&Z ACTION :..."
On 8-1-85 the Commission voted to table this item until the
meet ingof.9~5-85to allowtimefortheappl icantand .the
neighborhood to discuss possible compromises. Minutes of that
meeting are as .follows:
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: 85-709: Apub,lic hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility with a
daycare center, . aCbristianscbool,a retirement center , and an
outdoor recreat ional area to belo:catedona 10.357 acre'tract
bounded by Glenbaven Drive, Dominii~.and .tbe.S.H.6 East Bypass
Frontage Road. Applicant is Colldge<Hei.ghts Assembly of God
Church. I
Mr. Callaway .located .the land...which .iswithinthe..Glenhaven ..subdivision, pointed
out area zoning and the single family res>identially developed land directly across
Dominik from this tract. He. reminded the. Commission... that the site plan :presented
at this meeting is conceptual only in nature, and the applicant is only're<;luesting
that his proposed uses be approved tonig-~tj,with a definite site plan to come back
to this Commisslonforapprovalat a later date. Mrs. Stallings asked if the
2
applicant would be likely to stay with this site plan if the uses are approved
tonight. and Mr. Callaway replied the applicant could better answer the question
than he.. Mr. MaGGilvrayaske<lif the parking, .l.()cationand size .of. the buildings
could not. be considered .at ..tllis meeting, where..did that leave.theConunisson. Mr.
Callaway responded by stating it puts theConnnission into a position of only
deciding if tIle proposed uses of this tract are acceptable,addillgthat a site plan
would be forthcoming forrevie\v and approval by this Commission at ,a later date.
'fIle public hearing was opened. Calvin Durham, senior pastor of the College Heights
Assembly of God church came forward to act as spokesman for the church and
explained th.eplansthechurchhas.formulated to date. He. referred .to the
projeptejdntaximumtlumbers of peop~e to be served by the various ntinistries being
propose~, adding that it is hoped that the conceptual site plan presented at this
meeting iwillbeveryclose toth.eactual site plan, but what the church is really
illterested in at this time is getting approval of . the various uses proposed prior
to committing large sums..ofmoneyon the actual development of permanent plans.
Mr. Durham referred to the memo which accompanied the application and pointed out
that the church is planning various phases of development of the site, and is
requesting temporary access to Dominik fora 2 year maximum time period until
Glenhaven.Drive is completed. He then addressed.the possible objections to this
plan .asfollows: (1) Drainage: Stated that curbs and gutters as well as storm
sewer.s will, be installed on Glenhaven Drive; that the street will be completed
within 2 years; (2}Noise: Stated the greatest noise in the area will come from
the exi~ting Bypass, hut agreed that a greenbelt could be planned between this
project and Dominik to help buffer noise; (3) Traffic: Stated that most of the'
traffic... to this site will be from the East Bypass with the probability that only
local area residents will use the access to Glenhaven Drive and Dominik; (4)
Traffic.Surges: Stated>thatsurges would take place. primarily at. worship services
on Sundays and possibly.....on Wednesday evenings ..and the available.. access to 2
overpasses would help alleviate possible problems; (5) Daycare and School:
Indicated that these ministries would probably not cause any increase in traffic as
people alr~adytravel to daycarecenters and schools in the area, an<i that perhaps
development of this site would help alleviate any existing problems as it provides
more immediate access to the Bypass; (6) Lighting: He would hope for help with
specifications from theCity,adding .that the aim of the church is to enhance the
area,. and perhaps . even .help to deter crime in the .neighborhood by providing
additional night lighting;. and, (7) Property Values: This project should not hurt
property v:alues in . the neighborhood as the church plans to enhance and to beautify
the area.
Mr. MacGilvray. stated that .the drawing the applicant has been referring to is
different front. thos.~providedearlierto the. Commissioners.. . Mr. Durh8Ill agreed
stating.that some.of the changes he has inked in on. his drawing have come as a
resultoftalkingwiththe>CityEngineerandtheneighborhoodresidents, adding that
the church does.not..want theentrance..tothisproject.to...be.from .thecul-de-sac on
Dominik, but wouldratherhClVe an entrancefr()JilDontinik further to the west of that
location. Hethensaid<thatanentranGeoffDominikwouldnotbeabsolutely
ess~ntial to. the church's use of the property, but he would hope <that at least a
temporary entrancewouldbealloweduntilGlenhaven is cut through and completed,
which tIle developer has indicated would take place within two years.
Mr. Brochuaskedforf)lrtherexplanation.concerningthe proposed retirentent center,
includingthe.nUlDber. of.. people,.the. nUJDber/ofstories of the. building, etc. Mr.
Durh8Illsaid the specifics .areunkllOwn,<butitiprobablywo)lldnot be ntore than two
stories in height and would be located atthebaseof.thehill; that it would be a
3
live-intypehomewi"thperhapsarecre.ationalcenterand.a worship center, but it
would not have a large dining room or Juedical facilities. He clarified by stating
that the exact location of the building > has not been set.
Mr. .MacGilvrayasked.what the....liklihood.isofthis site...being fully developed adding
that the membership of the church is pnly300nowandthis seems to be a rather
large undertaking. . Mr. Durhamrepliedtliat the church has been planning this
project for a longtime, and believes the first phase will take place within 18
months.
Mr.... Kaiser r~mindedtheConnnis~ionersaridadvised the audience that.. this. Commission
can attach conditions.... above andbeyond..regular site plan....appro val including. the
limitation of uses and development of each phase.. .. .......Mr. Durham.. replied that the
church's. commitment to. developing ..the...proposedministries is....very. strong, and it
would hope < that the Commissionwouldnotli:mit.approvalofthe requested uses to
specific phases.
Hank McQuaide,. ..2101Carter.Creek,......Bryancameforwardto..speak .in ..favor .of the land
use. as apart owner and developing partner ()ftheGlenhavensubd ivision. He
confirmed that GlenhavenDrivewillb~putinwithin2years,and the developers
know there will be some additional traffic flow in the area, but believe that
additional traffic will not be generated primarily fr.om the church project~
PhilHobsonof1608Dominik.cameforwarditospeakagainstthisConditionalUse
Permit, adding that he has been chosen to represent Cll19arearesidents adjacent
to. this land {across Dominik). He.handedouta memo t,oallCommissioners which
addressed specific concerns of theresidentsincludingtraffic.congestion, sound,
1 ight ing ,a.es thetics ,drainage, decreased property value, comp 1 iance to
comprehensive plan, theresemblance<this project would have to . commercial
development,andthelackofneedforthis<typeofproject in the city. A copy of
this memo is attached to these Minutes. .........He.thenhighlighted the neighborhood' s
concerns, emphasizing the already existing drainage problems in the area, which
City Engineer Pullen confirmed by explaining that some of those homes are built in
the 100 yearfloQdplain.
Mrs. Stallings asked Mr. Hobson if there is complete opposition to this, or if
something could be worked out and Mr. Hobson said that the residents had been given
no chance to work anything out with the church as the pastor had only contacted
some of the residents 2 daysago,butaddedthattrees and a greenbelt would not be
enough to buffer this proposed project... from the residences, and the neighbors felt
like at least a full city block of residential development should separate their
homes from a project of this magnitude.
Mr. Brochu said the traffic to Dominik could be controlled with no access to
Dominik, remindedeveryone.thatthisisaconceptllal plan only and with
compromises, parking and recreational facilities could be moved, and the church
seems to.be willing. to compromise. Mr. Hobson saidtha.tall compromises would have
to be on the part of.the area residents. Mr. Kaiser asked if access to Glenhaven
and Dominik were precludedwouldthearea'residents still oppose this proposal and
Mr. Hobson answered that they very definitely would, as there would still be the
large, pavedparkinglot,the additional sound and the lights; adding that it seems
to him the church is not interested in having only a church on that tract. Mr.
Wendler said he believed if brick and concrete screening.. . fences were .erected a few
feet back from the property line with utilization of low level lighting, tllis
project would not have an unfavorable impact> on the existing residences. Mr.
Hobson. stated that would still not make it an acceptable plan, as the residents
4
could see overthefence,andnlaintenanceoflandscaping and fences in this city
has been lacking on many projects. Mr. Brochu asked again about the reference made
to drainage under the Bypass and City Engineer Pullen replied that some of the
homes are in the 100 year floodplain, andifthe.water backed up under the Bypass,
the homes would surely be affected.
Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson came forward to speak in opposition to this project, adding
that she was'very aware of both the development <and. the zoning of tile area because
she had served on both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council when
these subjects 'had been studied. She went on to explain that . any cllanges in the
plans developed for that. area now would be indirectopposition.to previous
regulatory bodies' decisions.
Rudy Freund, 1508.Dominik came forward to speak in opposition. to the project citing
the probability of flooding of the existing homes in the area if this site is
developedasproposed,andthebelief thatthis.proposal. represents. a commercial
establishment rather thana church,. specululatingthat if someone would come in
with a rezoning request to change the tract to connnercial zoning, it would not even
be considered.
Mr. Kaiser stated that a Drainage Connnitteehas been.formed and an engineering firm
has .beenhiredtostudythevariousdrainagebasinsin this area, but that no
permanent answershavebee.n reached ..regarding what. is to be done to control
flooding, nor where the money will be derived to make any recommended changes.
Tom Comstock, 1700 Dominik.c.ame forward to speak in opposition to this proposed
complex stating that retaining property values of the residences along Dominik are
of primary interest to him, and he would not want anything across the street but
single family residences.
Hank McQuaide came forward again to address the concern over drainage problems
explaining that a contractor had . cut Glenhaven .Drive..through without .the planned
terracing which caused water to flow where it had never gone before when the
residents had felt threatened by water in their yards, adding. that this had been
done inerror,andhadsincebeenrectified. He s.tatedthat any type of
development would include storm sewers, ..addingthat it has . been his experience that
metering. of water.. runo.ff.is .easier to control from ..a parking lot than it is from
single family residences. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. McQuaide if, inhisopinioJn, this
tract is the best<site<availablein Glenhavenforthisproject to minimize noise
and traffic in the neighborhood and Mr. .McQuaide replied. that there 'is another
tract on a commercially zoned. corner which might be as. good a location, but added
that he does not believe any heavy traffic will be added to Dominik and then
disagreed with the expressed realtor's opinion that there would be a 20% reduction
in property values if this project is developed, as the appraiser he had consulted
had indicated there would be no.drop in property value.
At this. time, Directpro!, Planning Mayo arrived at the meeting. George Bass came
forward.toaddress.thefact'that Commissioners.change.periodically and if uses on
this project are approved.. step-by-step, problems for future conunissioners might
become extremely. difficult to solve. Mr. Mayo.. explained that only uses are being
considered tonight and the actual site plan(s} would have to b.e approved by the
Commission after. the specific.allowableusesare approved,and each time this
project is considered by the Commission, the area residents will be notified and
notices will be placed in the newspaper, just as (has been done for this hearing.
Mr. MacGilvray asked ifrezoIling would be required to allow a retirement center and
5
Mr. Callaway replied thatwoulddepeIlduponexactly what type of retirement home is
planned... ....Mr.Kaiser ask~d.if.accessconditions can be ...attachedby this Commission
and Mr. . May() replied .... .thatquestionshouldbea.ddressedtothe.Legal. Department as
access is normally . controlled by the City Engineer. .. ...Assistant.City. Attorney Clar
replied .that....it.aPtlearsthat ordinance would allow the Commission. to attach access
con.ditionstoaconditionaluse permit,>but.added.that lle.is.only.basing his... belief
uponinterpre~ationof<theordinrmce,adding< that.. before .hecould gi v.e adefini te
ans~ver , .......he.. would.have>tostudycase law,etc . Mr. Pullen . spoke at .. this. time to
state thathe.a.greeswithMr.. McQuaide.reg(lrding.runoff....from .a..commercial parking
lotbeingmoreeasi lycontrolledthan rUlloff from. single . family res ident ial
development. .... Mr~MacGilvray . stated that this church is not simply just a church,
andhewondersiftheneigllbors would object to only a church. . He then asked Mr.
Hobson if he c9uldanswer'/if the>main objections were to "colllDlercial " development,
and Mr. Hobson said the objections would not be as strenuous, but the residents
t~ould still not wantto<be loolring out over a parking lot.
Mr.. Paulson stated that it appears tllatneighborhoods in general do not want
churches ...andschoolsanddaycare.. centers ...... in... the. neighborhoods, ..and it seemed a
shame.to~himthatthisishappening.Hestatedalsothat<drainagecouldbe better
controlled on .developedlandthan on undeveloped land. . Mr. MacGilvraydisagreed to
a certain. degree with Mr. Paulson,statingthat the real question appears to be
whetheropnot >thecityitselfshouldallowtheseusesinaresiidentialarea. Mr.
Kaiser reminded everyone that this proposed facility is actually on the Bypass, and
2 other churches;ha~e.beenbuilt in recent years along the Bypass, and still
another.churchon>Welshbacksuptoa residential neighborhood.. Mr. Brochu stated
that this:isawell,<established, older, true neighborhoodancl new development of
this nature in this neighborhood is not the same as new development in a newer type
neighborhood, andhepersoIlallybelievesthere are better places for this
particular. development, and further, if there were a motion to deny this request,
he would.be in favor. of denial.
Mr. MacGilvraystatedthat to a certain degree only, he agrees with Mr. Brochu
about thedifferencesinneighborhoods..Mr.Wendlerstatedthathe believes this
pastor has demonstrated honesty and willingness to cooperate, there are ways to
provide serious buffering, it seems runoff can be controlled, and the developer
, does not. seem to.thinkthis project will hurt the value of his remaining property,
therefore he.believes consideration should be given these facts.
Mr. Brochu then made amotion to deny this request for conditional uses as listed
on tIle .application. Mr. MacGilvrayseconded the motion to deny..
Mr. Paulson suggested perhaps a <larger greenspace could be developed. Mr. Kaiser
said he is troubled by the scopeofthis<project and does not know if he can
support one of this magnitude. He added that he is not troubled by developing a
church on tllissite, ashe does find a precedent of locating churches in
residential neighborhoods, and believes that a compromise can be reached ill this
case. Mr. Brochu said this. does not answer the church's question tonight; they
have requested an answer on these uses they believe they need. Mr. Wendler agreed
that a definite answer is inordertonigllt rather than a "maybe so, come backtt and
does not believe in this case a compromise would be a good idea.
Votes were cast and tIle motion to deny failed by a vote of 2-4 (Kaiser, Stallings,
MacGilvray and. Paulson voting against)..
Mr. MacGilvraysuggestedthata motion to table might be in order so the church and
the residents could get together and discuss a possible compromise. Mr. Kaiser
6
pointed out that since themot.ion.. to deny failed, the other options open are to
table. or to move toward an. affirmative response to.. this ..request.Mr.Paulson said
that ifthisisbufferedwel1>itcouldbeadecentsite, but that he is against
theconceptual..p.lan..which..hasbeenpresented. tonight. Mr. Brochu pointed out the
applicant .couldalways comeback with another request.
Discussion waned and Mr. > Brochu made a motion totable this request UIltil the first
meeting in September. Mr. MacGilvrayseconded this motion. Votes were cast with
the motion to table carrying by a vote of 5-1 . (Paulson against).
7