HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
P&ZMINUTES OF MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1987
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 87-707: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional UsePer.it for.theaddi tionof a sanctual.Y
andadult/youtheducationfacilities.to the existing church
facilities at 1100FM2818. Applicant is Peace Lutheran Church.,
Mrs.Kee explained this request is for a permit to allow the expansion of the
existing church fact 1 ity to include a 350 seat sanctuary and a classroom win,g for
adult/youth education. She described the physical features of the site, identified
area zoning and land uses and informed theCononission that the subject tract is shown
ashighdensityresidentialuontheadoptedLandUsePlan. She stated that 25 area
property owners had been notified of this request, and she had received 1. ,response
from Mr. Clement who had submitted his opposition in writing, citing,thepr~posed
head in parking lot which would butt up to his property as the reaso;nfprh~s
opposition. She continued to explain ,that the P.R.C. ,had reviewed thispljo~ect
andreconnnended approval wi thcertain conditions whichhaveallbeenrefa.ected on
the revis.ed site plan with exception~f the screening fence and theprQppsed
railroad ties ,which . should be considered .bythis ..Commission.
Mr. Stewart stated that the site planireviewedbytheP.R.C. was somewhat di.fferent
in the arrangement of the prOPosedpa~king ..,and asked t-irs. Kee. to clarify. . Mrs. Kee
presented a copy of the original site rplanwhichwas reviewed by the P .,~. G. and
pointed out that the parking lotloca~ion had been changed to include h~ad""'in parking
on both sides of the accessdriveway~n the revised plan. She then refetred to the
note on the revised plan concerning alternate surfaces and curbing.
The public hearing was opened. Cfu,lrlieCoble,l805Bee Creek, a member of the church
serving as representative of the applicant came forward and explained the cllanges
made in the location of the parking lot had been done for the purpose of cutting
costs~ an-d",,-had,;~b,een'"lDent ionedas apos~ibi lity .at .theP. R.C.review.- . He . said ~he_~T_'____~'~""_"
exist ihg"lbt' 'lm&' 'an asphalt surface with ,cross tie curbs and they have decided they~;""""~"'+'
would like to continue that same treattmentoftheproposedexpansion.
Mr. Stewart asked if the question concerning the fire hydrant had been resolved and
Mr. Coble stated.the FireMarshalhasiindicatedanadditionalhydrant would not be
required. Mr. Dresseraskedhowscreeningwasgoingtobeaddressedand:Mr.Coble
replied that the church is proposing to continue the wood fence between the duplex
and the church, adding the existing fence does not belong to the church. Mr. Dresser
then asked if the parking lot is right up to >1 he property line along the! entrance
drive and Mr. Coble statedthewheels~opshave>beenpulled back 2 feet to allow the
overhang to extend to but not over the property line. Mr. Dresser said that he was
only inquiring to see if there.wasro9mfrom some type ofbufferingjscreening other
than a fence. Mr. Coble said there would not be room for anything besides a fence.
Carrol Claycamp, another church member came .forwardandexplained that to extend the
parking lot on the other side as was shown on the original site plan to the P.R.C.
would entail cutting some rather large, major trees; whereas providing parking along
the entrance drive would allow those~reestobe saved. He continued bY' explaining
that there is now a car parked bytha~duplexall week lon~~, and the church is
proposing to use its lot there for parking only on Sundays. Mr. Stewart asked if the
primary reason for changing the location of parking is to save the large trees and
Mr. Claycamp responded that the main reason is to save money, with saving the trees
coming as the secondary reason.
P&Z Minutes
9-3-87
Page 1
Dave Belanger, architect for the proposed church expansion came> forward.. and. stated
that the location of the proposed parking will not be very visible from the highway,
and there are hopes to be able to retopthe old parking area to match the proposed
parking if there are enough funds available. Mr. Brochu said that to have parking on
both sides of the drive would seem to create a traffic problem. when 2 lines of
parking begin backing into the main drive. Mr. Belanger said that is a possibility,
but that particular parking area would.probably be the last to fill up on Sunday
because it is away from the main entrance.
Anita Friel came forward to voice opposition to this proposal as a spokesman for Mr.
Clement, the owner of the adjacent duplex who submitted the letter. in opposition.
She stated that the vehicle which is parked there does not belong to Mr. Clement.
She explained that Mr. Clement is not opposed to the expansion of the church
facilities, that he is only opposed to the parking area adjacent>tohis duplex. She
said that he works shifts,and the noise from the cars starting up will make it
difficult for him to sleep.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Discussion followed between the
Commission,theZoningOfficialand the City Engineer concerning the proposed
surface,theuse of wheel stops, possible congestion along the drive entrance with
parking on oothsides, and the effectiveness of a screen fence in screening noise and
headlights as well as being a visual screen.
Mrs. Sawtelle then made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit as requested
withP. R.C .reconunendat ions,wi thrailroadtiesasproposedandwith theireq,uirement
of thec.hurchplacinga6footsolidscreen fence down the property line,!. covering
thelengthof.the... parking . spaces including spaces numb.ered49 and .50 along .. the duplex
side to join the existing fence. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which ca.rried by a
vote .of4-3withDresser, Stewart and Moore voting against <the motion.
P&Z Minutes
9-3~87
Page 2
vWM--\~
'-:ITYCOUNCIL 'REGULARl\lEETING
~JED N E S DA Y,OCTO BER 14,1987
Page .3
Thepubl ic."hearlngwasopened.,HerrnanGibsonoftheTenneco Re-
:tailServiceiCompanyspokein favor of the request . 'Hes tated
that the primary purpose of this rezoning request . is to enable
th ee ompa ny.tohave <a frees tandings i go, a ndno tedth at.t h es i gn
will be beneficial to the store.
';,Nc).<o<--tCons i ,deration,o.fano r d ioan ce it"" e zon in gt he
Coune i lman Brown moved.... approval.""of'..> Ordinance'.". ,..No .17.27. . ..rezon i ng
Lot 2B,Block2, Courtyard>ApartmeotsSubdivis ion, fromC-N tcf
C-3. The motion was seconded by Councilman Boughton.
Councilman Gardner commented that he believed granting the re-
zoning request would> be wrong because it . is to accomplish a re-
duction in the sign regulations and is inot needed for use of the
land. He pointed out that A-P and C-N zones are placed n,ear
residential:zonesto providecerta.in services toresidentswh.ile
keeping the area attractive through some fairly strict regu,la-'
tions including limitations on signs.
Councilman Brown's motion for> the ordinance rezoning the lot was
approved by a vote of 6-1, with Councilman Gardner opposed.
Agenda Item No.'>- A ;Qublic hearJngcmthe question of an appeal
made by Michael J.Cleroentrelatingtoacond itional. use per'roi t
approved for the Peace Lutheran Church located at 1100 FM.2818 ·
Zoning Official Keeexplained that the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission granted a conditional use permit to Peace Lutheran
Church for an expansion project . Mr. Clement, who owns and re-
sides in a duplex adjacent to, the church property, has appealled
in objection to aproposed.rowofparking to be placed alongside
the entrance drive to the church. Mrs. Kee noted that the Plan-
ning and ZoniI)gCornmission responded to Mr. Clement's concern and
imposed asolid6-footscreeningfencealong the property line
between the church and the duplex.
Mayor Ringer opened the public hearing.
Mr. r4ichae.lClement, of 1201 Airline, stated his reason for the
appeal and explained that in his opinion the church has alnple
parking area in the rear. He pointed out that the site plan
shows parking spaces:' placed>in:a position that will allow the
lights of thevehi,cles to face his home..
:: I TYCOUNC I LREGULARMEETING
.1EDNESDAY, . OCTOBER 14,1987
Page 4
'Mr.CharlieCoble, o Bee Creek, spoke on behalf of the Peace
Lutheran Church. He presented three slides showing the area in
question . He ,stated t:hat ,the major reason for >:placingthe per-
pen d ic u.la rpark ingspac esa sr eque s te dwast hat itheeostwou 1 d.be
one- th i rd.lessthanthatforadd ing the eightelen spaces to the
park ing area> in the rear. Heexplai nedthat the ,planwasa.lso
proposed to allow the church a way to improve the appearance in
the ",entrance ....area.
'Coune ilmanBrownasked iftheproposede ighteen:park ingspaces
located to the right of the entrance,Clriveway could beposi tiolned
at the rear-of the property building. Mr. Coble replied that, in
order to place the parking spaces at the rear of, the- properJty ,
more 'paving would be required for access to the park ingspaces;
therefore, the cost would be greater. -
Pastor Chris Mortchard of the Peace Lutheran Church spoke in
favor of the site plan as proposed. He stated that the church is
experiencing ... growth and they would like to expand the sanctuary
and 'an education wing .at . the church' .s . existing loca~ion. He
stated that the parking lot expansion affects Sunday morning and
does not relatetothe<usesduringthe week.
r1ayorRingerclosedthepublichearing.
Agenda Item No. 8- Consideration of an appeal'.made '.' by Michael
J. Clementrelatingto.theconditional'use permit for,.the Peace
Lutheran Church.
After general discussion by the council , Mayor Ringer asked if
both part ieswouldqomromi se iftheCounc i lsugested ch,Cln,ge~,t9"
th :. ,.,~ite .?1.~~s,e.Y ...'.,.., .... .......'.'.. ,...... ..,...TX) .:"E;';G:j~;~.;~Q;fF
~~';;';';;'i;.~j~~;~~lJi~Jf~.;,.~ii;,;i~,;.. . . . . . .'1ml. na;,t',j"nqj';;,otI:t:;:;.>;'P~'t;';:~:;tIJJ;~.(;$p.a;o.e's'. . Mr .
Co'fj'le""""a'Ii(r'.~fr-'.~-n>';'Cltementagreed to this compromise.'" ",,'
Councilman Haddox made a motion to remand this item back to the
Commission with the condition that the front four parking spaces
beside Mr. Clements'housebe eliminated and the fence line be
brought to. the edge of the duplex.
Mayor Ringer stated that the Zoning Board of Adjus trnents wi 11
have to make a decision whether or not to eliminate the parking
spacesitherefore, the Church will need to make an appeal to the
Zoning Board of Adjustments for a variance to the parking
requirements
Councilman Brown seconded the motion as clarified. The motion
was approved by a vote of (6~O-1) with Councilman McIlhaney
abstaining.