Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 6-21-84 page 4 . driven throljghthi's area a d:found it very long and narrow,andlt appeared to him that any structures which could be .builtcouldbe -done with the present zoning, but he also did not see how any largeundeslreablecommercial use could possibly be built at the eastern part of the tract given the slzeand configuration of the tract. Mr. Hansen pointed outthatbufferlng can be handled-at site planr.evlew. Mr. Kaisersa,id this plan may not be developed as it is being shown and although there may be advantages of mixing uses, hei.s concerned with setting a precedent ofa long narrow tractofC-1 and the possi- ble negatIve impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the possible encourage- mentof further conversi'on of surrounding property. Mr-.MacGilvraysaid the best use of this property may well be residential, but that it is zoned A-P and even if'that was amistake,C-lzoningwouldonlycompound the error. Mr. Martyn said that the overall flow of traffic will have to be through one access point on Texas Avenue, and should 'probably flow through the entire proJect in a loop-type configura- tion,which could probably better be accomplished through one zone. He added that this is a unJque pIece of property and that although the current> zonIng may well be an ._~rror, he does. not think C-1 zoning wouldce>mpound the problem. Mr. Brochu said the applicant could come baek at a later time (after thebullding fact) and get the zonlngon the project changed. Mr. Kaiser said that this could be done. Mr. Carpenter stated from the audience that this plan will be slightly altered if this request is not granted, and then showed the change whlchwouldbe made. Votes were cast and the mat Ion to deny fa i1 ed by a vote of 2-5 {Kai ser & MacG i 1 vrayfor) .,' t~rs. Sta 111ngs then made a motion to approveth is rez0nlng request with Mr. Brochu second- ing~hemotlon which tarried by a v0te of 5-2 (Kaiser & MacGilvray against). . AGENDAlTEMNO." 5: 84-704: A' publi c.hear i ng on., the', ques t ion of ',grant i ng a ,Conditional Use Permit forconstructl.on<Dfarellqious/educatJonal facility at 100-106 Dexter Drive. Requestisi n ,the name .ofEdgar'Wolfe rts.. Mr. Callaway explained the request and the accompanying site plan, locating the tract and the area uses.. He'referred toanoteon the revlsedslteplanconcerning the removal of the existIng bulldlngafter renevatlon" and asked that>the.Comniissionask the applicant for clariflcation. He further indIcated that allP.R.C.condltions had been met. . Pub lie hear i ng was opened. AndyWl snoski,23.01B roadmoor, Bryan, 'came forwa rd rep resen t- ing the Church of the latter Day Saints, stating. that the site plan presented is the result of much work and~tudy, and pointed out that a great deal of the existing landscaping is being saved to help keepthepark-llke atmosphere, and the note refers to the fact that plans are to remove the exIsting building after the new facility is complete and to create a park area at that location. He said the building is designed in a residential character which would be in keepingwlththeresidential neighborhood. Mr. Martyn asked if the exist- ing bui Iding wil1>be removed and he answered that it will after completion of the new facll ity, Mr. MacGllvrayas'kedhow large the existing building is and how large the new facility will be to which Mr. \4isnoskiansweredthenew buildingwill be approximately' 4560 sq. ft. and Edgar>Wolferts answered from the audience that the existing buildIng is approximately 2500 sq.ft, Mr, Hansen reminded the applicant that the landscaping shown on this plan must be complet~dand maintained. Mrs. Stallings asked what the access would be to the pa rk i ngspacesandMr ,Mayo sa i d from Dexter and Jersey. Mr. Ka,iser asked how many spaces are being planned and what the use of the new facility willbe. Mr. Wisnoski answered there are SO spaces shown on this plan and the new bu 11 di ng wi 11 be used for religious education. Mr.Wolfertsstated the uses will be the same as are in the existing building, with weekday and evening religious instrucitonstoapproximately 150 students, and that there are usually no meetings on Sundays. Mr. Kaiser informed the applicants IiII.:.. ~ r &L n III U le:, 6-21-84 page 5 1 . that this Commissloncanattach conditions to a Conditional Use Permit, and then asked if they wouldobJect.to a.condrtlon that before the C.O. is .lssued for the new facility, that theoldbuilding'must be removed. .Mr.Wolfertsstated it..would be more suitable if re- moval came after they had moved into the newfaci 1 ity>. Mr. KaIser said :thatperhaps a 60 daylJmltwo(jldbebetter. Mr. MacGilvray asked why so ma'ny parking spaces are being planned and Mr..Wolfertsaidthedeterminatlon of enrollment in classes. is beyond his con- trol, but the largeparklnglot would ellminate possible on-street parking and congestion. Mrs. Tongco saida~malnconcern Is that there must be>noon-street ,parking in this area. Mr. MacGllvray dlsagreed....Mr.Hansenasked if the. size of the.parklnglqt can be limited and~1r . Kaiser read from theord lnanceand 1 i kened that type of cond it ion to the 1 i m ita- tion of the number ofchJldrento be allowed ina daycare center, stating this Commission has imposed those restrictions in the past. Size of staff, how parking spaces would be a 11ocated.,excessive useofthls.1 and and . the large . amount of concrete was discussed, along with theslze of theclassrool1)s and possible restrictions which may be imposed by this Commission. Mr.Wisnoski said the parking lot was desIgned from projected parking require- ments based on other facllitles whlch i'ndicatedSO spaces would be a mini-mum number for this type of facility. . Mr. Mayo said that staff had determined' SO spaces would be more than adequate with both buildings being used. Mr. MacGilvray said that more spaces were being provided forthTsfacllity than would be required forambviehouse, and that he fears this :,lotprovldes an excessive amount ofparklng and the use of it wi 11 be abused by area stu- dents. Mr, Hansen said if a major concern is the amount of concrete and its effect on aesthetlcvalue,thetotal amount of landscaping. planned far exceeds the Ordinance require- ments. Mr. Kaiser said the possible misuse of the lot and whether it could be injurious . ..... ... '.. .. .... .... .. .. . . . I to the neighborhood should be considered. Mr.Wisnoski said there are solutions to the problem of misuse of the lot. . Mr. MacGllvray said the lmpermeable surface>wlllprobab1yaffect the drainage in the existing, creek and aggravate possible floodIng condl1:i'on5. Mr .Wisnosk i said that an engineering study has been done and detentlonor retention isbeTng planned to control the flow rate. Tim Middleton came forward stating he is not a member of this congregation, but the land- scaping plan presented seems better than many others, and the size of the parking lot should not.matterbecause peoplewlll always try to use empty spaces no matter how many or how few are there. Mr.\~olfert safdthis institute has existed at this location for 7 years, and there has been no abuse so far, and they plan to protect the area, as they love it. David Woodcock cqmeforward to speak against the permitclting the number of parking spa~es would increase traffic and the visual appearance of a parking lot would be unsightly, the retain lng wall willcaus,etreeloss and the additional amount of hard surface wi 11 have an adverse affec'ton the amount and rate of runoff. He reques ted' i nvesti gat i on of (1) a possible land swap, (2)the impact on parkIng, (3) the possible addition of under- brush asabuffer, (4) a redesign of the retafnfngwal1s, and (S} a more porous parking surface, Dwayne Cote came forward statIng this represents poor use of the land, the hard surface would contribute to floodIng and there would be loss of oxygen lntheareafrom the loss of the trees; he then suggested the parking lot be developed on the existing building site and that this requestbe'tabled pending further study. . R. E, Vrooman came forward to speak for his son, an area resident,inhi s absence, stating he is against the parking lot, against the large assembly place, against the loss 'of trees , and thinks thearea>shouldremainresiden:tial. He is also against the number of cars andagai ns tthe pass Lbi lltyofany .addit lonal flood i ng in the a rea and wou ld sugges t 1 i m I t ing thesTze i fth i srequest i 5 gran ted.. , Jim Bas ett came forward-stating he is against because of the additional f-loodTng posslbi lty whlch.would ...becaused by a 50-car....parking lot. j . . . p&Z Minutes '6-21-84 Page 6 Noone else spoke and the publIc hearing was closed. Mrs. StaLlings asked the Ci ty Eng 1 neerabqutfloodingi n >the area, and Mr.. Pull ~n sa 1 dth is isaf lood .prone a rea, bu t It Is hlsoplnlor'lthat a<parklng lot could be developed so It would not add to any flood- Ing. He then referred to the required P.R..C.drainage report which has not yet been receIved by the CIty, and stated that until thisreportls submitted, reviewed and approved, the project will not receive hIs approval. Mr. Kaiser s.tatedthat since there have been so many Issues presented.here tonight, he requested staff's opinion regarding the tabl ing of this matterto enable the applicant to.work more closely with the neIghborhood to alle- vlatesomeof the problems. .... Mr. Mayo said. that would cause no problem. Mr. MacGi lvray suggested 'that If this is tabled, the applicant supply some verifitation of the existing parking flow and project the actual number of spaces whIch should be required for a facility of this type, Mr. Martyn added that if this Is tabled, he would suggest that the sfte'planls redesigned because he and others have concern with the overall size of the proJect and the ..'lmpactltwlllhave on the neighborhood. He added that un] ess the plan is significantly reduced, he would.. have to beagalnst It, although he is not generally against thls type of use in cl residential neighborhood. Mr .Ka i ser made a motion to table thlsrequestwith a recommendation to. theappl i cant to study the parkl ng,thecon'structi on of the lot, the' size of the facility and the possibilIty of restrict ton lncla.ssroom size. Mrs. Tongco seconded .themotion which carrled unanimously (7-0}. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 84--712: Apubli thear-lngonthe question of grant i ng aCond i t i ona 1 Use PermIt forpl~cemento.fastoragebu ild ing for USe by Aldersgate Church on land north of and adjacent to the existingchu.rch.. site;east...ofWlndwood....Phase.6. Request is in the name of Aldersgate Metnodist Church, Mr. Cal1awayexplalned that thIs request is for the locationofal2x32-foot storage buIlding ona tract adjacent to thls church slte,addlngthechurch does not own this tract, but does have an option to buy the land, He explained the building will be used to house food and clothlngfor distribution through mlsslonactivlties. Mrs. Tongco asked the exact locatlon,andMr.Callaway explained. .... Mr. Mayo>addedthatpart of the original use permIt was that none of. the phase 2 land was to be cleared until building was ready to begin, and stated that staffha? concern that this "temporary" building, which is too close to a proposed residentIal property, could become permanent. He said staff recommerlds dental because the contents are> already housed somewhere and that use could be continued, with phase.2deslgnedfora permanent location for' this use; or that the building is placed on phase oneofthls existing site, away from the adjacent. residential area, with a time limit set for the use of the building. Violation of the original' use permit was discussed. The public hearing was opened. Judy Wadding, a representative of the applicant and a social worker for Aldersgate, ~ame forward to state the reason for locating th~buildingasproposed is because It seemed to be the least offensive location. She added that she preferred to have the bui lding on this site so she can confer with the pastors when ne<::essary, and further that the current location of the grocery suppl ies Willno longer be available when the move is made to.the new site. Discussion followed concerning the old location, the new location, the possibilities of putting the storage of supplies in the new building, what is pJanne.dfor phase 2. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Martyn asked why there had been no P.R.C. .review of this proposal, adding that many of these questions could have been answered at that time. Patricia Hunt came forward stating .that this proposed 12x32 buildlng represents only a smal 1 part of .thearea which wi 11 be needed in the future, and that already part of the mission is being phased out ntil the new phase is built. She explained the various miss i on projectscurrentlyexlstng. ~ 9-6-84 page 7 Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an unlighted softball field and playground. Mrs. Tongcosecondedthe motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM No.8: 84-]04: Reconsideration of Conditional Use Per- mit for construction ofa religious/educational facility at 100-106' Dexter Dr. Request is 'in the name of Edgar Wolferts. This item was tabled after the public'hearing on 6-21-84._ Mr. Kaiser made a motion to'remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Martyn se- conded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Call~way indicated that the applicant is presenting a revised site plan which has been reviewed by staff and Mr. MacGilvray, and referred to letters submitted by the applicant from area ,r~sidents and the memos from staff regarding recommendations. Mr. Hansen an- nounced there wi]'l be no public hearing regarding this item, but asked the architect for the project to 'come forward to a.nswer possIble questions from the Commission. MarionO. Lawrence came forward and Mr. Hansen asked him fora brief .explanation of the letters from area residents. Mr. Lawrence explained the letter.s from Mr. Cote and Mr. Woodcock indi- cate they have reviewed these revised plans and no longer ha've objections to this project. He then stated the letter fr'om Mr. Vrooman and hIs 'son indicates they sti 11 have the same. objections and would prefer residential development of this property. Mr. Martyn asked if all other conditions re~ain the same and Mr~ Lawrence~ said the size of the building, the number of students and the days of the meetings (uses) remain the same as previously submitted. He then went on to. explain theparkfng has been reduced, the existing building will be removed after cOn1pleti'on of the new, facility and the land under that buildingwil1 be developed into a Hpark-llke"atmosphere. He said that all drainage wi-llmeet the requir ments of the City, adding that the applicant would still prefer more parking, but has been willing to meet the conditions' setferth by thisCommisslon. City Engineer Pullen stated that he had prevlously had problems with planned site development, but it would appear that this revised plan has addressed his concerns. He added that it would appear also there is sufficient street capacity to handle this 'project's traffic. Mr. Martyn asked how to address the time to be allowed prior to removing the existing building and Mr. Callaway. advised the Commlssion to seta time timit,suggestingperhaps one year after issuance of the c.o. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the paving should be widened and Mr. Lawrence ex- plained.thatstaff has indicated 9 requlrementbf 23 feet in width, which is agreeable to theappl1cant. Mr. Martyn made' amotion to approve this Conditional Use Permit with conditions as agreed to regarding the .timellmit for removal of the existing building and the wldthof the drive. Mrs. Tongco seconded the motion which carried 5-0~1 (MacGilvray).~ 84-221: at the request (Mr. MacGilvray as shown with Agenda Ltem #6 (84-120) to approve the plat with