Laserfiche WebLink
It was further said that landscaping which should have been done by the <br />Trinity Lutheran Church under their use permit UP-67-2 and Z-67-8 has <br />never been done. It was recommended that the posting of a cash bond, <br />certificate of deposit, letter of credit or an agreement with the City <br />Council stating they would install landscaping by a specified date be <br />made by Trinity Lutheran Church. <br />The Public Hearing was opened. <br />A member of the building committee of the church was present. He stated <br />that they will be putting a large portion of landscaping in within the <br />next year and it was their intention to complete it at that time. He <br />further said they intend to use the money from the Watson purchase to <br />proceed with the landscaping. The church does not have the cash to <br />provide a bond or anything else at this time. <br />The Commission stated that they realize some of the alternatives offered <br />would be impractical for the church, but that the church, technically <br />is in violation of the ordinance code and their use permit. They also <br />stated further that they have no desire whatsoever to see the church's <br />use permit suspended. However, the Commission does want a specified <br />time period stated as to when the landscaping will be completed. <br />Applicant's representative, Edwin Rafael then spoke stating that the <br />applicant agrees with the changes in the staff report as to the 10 <br />parking stalls. He further stated that the Watsons do not intend to <br />remove any trees. If they came back another 20 ft. with the fence <br />it would put a tree in the middle of the play area. He further said <br />that the more area you have for the children the better and that the <br />landscaping would not be changed. He said that with regard to condition <br />12, the applicant would not be a party to that condition. The applicant <br />will only take care of their landscaping which they admit is currently <br />in disrepair. <br />Mr. Doherty then asked Mr. Rafael how much enclosed area the applicant <br />now has. Mr. Rafael replied 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Doherty then <br />asked Mr. Rafael how many sq. ft. they would gain if the additional <br />fencing were approved. The response was about 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Doherty <br />then commented this would leave as much area in the front as in the back. <br />Mr. Rafael then stated he feels the Commission is trying to restrict the <br />amount of area children use. <br />Mr. Leppert commented that to live near a child care <br />up with quite a lot of noise and that by keeping the <br />roadway 40 ft. and landscaping it, would help keep t <br />Rafael then commented again that by requesting us to <br />create a noise barrier and by keeping our fence back <br />restrict the use of the property. <br />center is to put <br />yard back from the <br />he sound down. Mr. <br />put in foilage to <br />40 ft. would <br />Mr. Jack Young, for the Trinity Lutheran Church then addressed the <br />Commission. He stated that the church would have problems developing <br />the property without the sale of the parsonage. He said the church <br />purchased $2000 worth of irrigation equipment which is scheduled to be <br />installed in the spring along Hopyard and Del Valle Parkway as the first <br />increment of their landscape plan. He stated he felt strongly this <br />would be done. He further stated the church was unable to come up with <br />a $10,000 bond or any other like amount for landscaping purposes. He <br />asked that the Commission consider his statement that considerable work <br />-4- <br />