CC MINUTES 11261985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Two members of the Nativity- Building Committee, John Hensel , Chairman, and Richard Carlson, were present to discuss the church's proposal and to respond to the conditions having to do with drainage, landscaping, screening and type of building materials which the Commission had placed on their recommendation for approval . Mr. Carlson requested that condition Cb) be modified to permit the use of asphalt rather than concrete in the construction of the new parking lot curbings, except in locations where concrete would abut existing concrete. It was his contention that asphalt could be expected to do the same job of water retention, provide as effective buffer between properties, and would be just as repairable as concrete which the church spokesman indicated, would add between $2,000 and $2,500 to the amount the church would have to pay for the parking lot expansion. Commissioner Bowerman told Councilmember Makowske he perceived the reasoning behind the Commission recommendation for concrete had a lot to do with the fact that the church's closest neighbor to. their west parking lot had indicated the bituminous curbings next to his home were in a state of disrepair. The Commissioner also, indicated he was presuming that the Commissioners had perceived concrete might be more durable than bituminous and would then present a more aesthetic appearance to a location which. would be more visible on a major intersection of the City. Mr. Hensel stated that, except for .the question about the material to be used for curbings in the parking lot, the Building Committee had generally agreed with the Commission recommendations related to the project. He told Councilmember Enrooth _"the curbing which was being discussed would serve as the border of the property on the west side -'but would be constructed on the higher elevations of the property with the lot graded to divert runoff to .the center and out on the street. The • Committee Chair indicated his committee had noted a widespread use of asphalt in parking lots and anticipated the curbs would, no doubt, last as long as the lot surface itself. Mr. Hensel then reported that since the Commission meeting a week ago there had been three meetings with Jim McNulty, the neighbor who lives just west of the prop- osed parking lot, to work out what the church representative said, he perceived had been an agreement agreeable to both the church and Mr. McNulty which should provide the visual screening the neighbor had indicated he desired for his property. Mr. Hensel said the agreement which he had with him thatevening provided for the construction of a 150 foot long fence of P'A 8" or 10"'_vertical boards- which, oards > which, as an extra bonus, could also serve as a physical barrier against having snow piled on the property line. Mr. McNulty indicated he was not prepared that evening to sign the agreement which had been given to the Mayor but had noted that the height of the fence had not been included. With the dropoff which exists between the two properties, it was Mr. McNulty's opinion, a three or four foot fence would probably never provide the type of buffer the church representatives had promised when they first approached him about the project three or four years ago.. He said if the fence were built on the lot line, as suggested by some church representatives, it would probably have to be 12 feet high to provide screening for his own property. Mr. McNulty said he would also like the agreement to state that the fence would be treated or stained and he urged the Councilmembers to put themselves in his place with a parking lot going in next door, when they made their final decision • on the request because he said, he agreed with the Mayor that the conditions the Council put on the permit would be as legally binding as any agreement between the church and himself.