7.2. SR 07-18-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C~'y JC:1e .page CCI,;:1C:':' :"1:.:-:t...::es 1 S, 1984 six H=. Dexte~ Mapsonj re?~esen:ative of the ~~se=hly of God Chc=c~ i~cicated :~a= '~he~ ohase ~~O uas co~?leted, the phase one po~~ion of t~e building vould be used ~s classroom and g;~. H=. Roy wallace of 196th Ci:-cle, indicated that he felt the proposed build~~g design looked like ~~ industrial buildi~g ra:he= than a building that ~as suitable to a residential area. Ms. Teresa Russell of 11930 196th Ci=cle, indicated that she ,was not awa:-e of the faCe that a po~tion of the buildi~g ~ould be used fo~ a school and g)~. The=efore, she cas very concerned about the traffic-th=ough the residential area. Hs. Russell indicated that the possibility or a .chu:-ch anc t:herefore, excess . traffic one day a veek vas a lot different than seven days use of the building. Discussion vas also c2~ried on, regarding the proposed s~ze or the building. Discussion was carried on regarding the present parsonage and fellovship hall. Mr. Jeff Pelcer indicated that unen he bought his lot in the Bren~ood Addition, . there were certain covenants that were included in the agreement. Mr. Pelter further indicated that in the purchase of his property, it ~as indicated by 1. M~. Dennj{:}~de~son, developer of the Bren~~ood Addition, that the development "" "as platted for' all single-family residential lots.. . Discussion was carried ,.. 1. 1-'..:.-, Denn~.:.J'.nde:-s'm, on regarding the convenants as pro~osed by the developer, Tne City Aci~ininstrator indicated that the City cannot enforce convenants anc that it yould be a civil ~atte= be~~een the pur~~ase= and the developer. Discussion ~as carried on regarding the cona~t~ons of the conditional use as recoIl:.!lJ.ende.d by the ?la..."1.ning COlIOmission. Discussion "'.as also car=ied on regarc.ing the phasi.ng of the buildi:lg and the possibility of phase ~~o never happening.. Fur~her discussion vas carried on regarding the financing of the proposed church, and the. construction and design of the church. The City Ac.ministrator indicated that the City Council could xequire a letter or credit or an esc=o~ account for the alteration of phase one to ~ake it ~ore compati.ble vith the neighborhood, should phase two not happen. Cou~cilmember Gunkel suggested thet the City Council consider five years from the initial start of phase 1, that if P9zse t~o is not co~pleted, the church vould be required to do a face lift or phase one. . COUNCTL~l-St:3. GUNK:::;:' HOVED TO J...PPROVZ A COND:CTIONP~ USt: Pt:R.'ET FOR To."'" EK HVZR ASS~H3LY OF GOD Cnu~CR TO J.~LOw Tn~~ TO CONSTRUCT A mow,Chu~Cn w:CTEIN If.~ 5REN1WOOD Su~DIVIS:CON wITf. T,- CONDIT:CONS AS STATED IN ,f.~ CITY P~MIN:CST?~TOR"S ~~~R P~~UH TO T,- ~_~YOR P_~~ CITY COUNCIL DA1~D' JU~ ,12, 1984 PND TO P~OUlRE r."~ ./ EST.'.3LJ.S=NT OF AN ~SCROW ACCOUNT OR "..:. Su!:>1-"TION OF ;. L~T-,~3. OF CREDIT w.-;ICii wOULD FINPJ\~CE TP-=- l.r?GR...~j)ING OF ?1-U."S:. ONt. S:i.OirLD PS.6.5E TwO NOT EE BUILT. COUNCIL- l-'"M3~R SCEu~DT S~CON~~D T~- ~OTION. Tn~ HOTION ??SS~D 3-D. 7. DUsc~ Conditional Use Pe~it Reouest - Public F.ea=i~g Cou~cilne~ber E~gst=o~ inciic~ted that Paul and Donna Busch of 620 7~h Street have ==~~ested 2 conciiroilGl use De=lli~~ to 211o~ the~ t .1~ ~~