Planning & Zoning Commission

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes to the March 27, 2012 MEETING Members Present: Mr. Chuck Hanson--------------------------------------------------------Chair Mr. Toby Gross----------------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Ralph Brown--------------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Riley Armstrong----------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Bruce Gwartney----------------------------------------------------Member Mr. Eddie Carrillo--------------------------------------------------------Member Members Absent: Mrs. Shirley Childress--------------------------------------------------Member Council Present: None Staff Present: Mr. Louis Najar-----------------------------------------------------City Engineer Mr. Michael Vickers------------------------------------------------City Planner Mrs. Barbara Patterson-------------------------------------------City Attorney Mr. Louis Jaramillo--------------------------------------Zoning Administrator Ms. Amber Copeland--------------------------------------Zoning Technician CALL TO ORDER Chair Hanson called the meeting to order and asked those who wished to speak to sign in. SWEARING IN Chair Hanson swore in the audience and Staff. INFORMATION ITEMS No information items were on the agenda. MINUTES Chair Hanson called for approval of the minutes of the February 28, 2012 minutes. Mr. Armstrong moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Gross made the second and all voted in favor. Mr. Brown moved to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and zero against. CASE NO. 11-006: One Year Evaluation for a Special Use Permit to Operate a Jazzercise, Original Request: Amend a Special Use Permit from a Church to a Dance School in an R-3 Residential District, 1212 North Richardson Avenue, Lot 1E, Block 20 of North Spring River Subdivision, Tyler and Michelle Carter/Owners. Michelle Carter, owner, spoke in favor of the request. She stated she has been a Jazzercise teacher for about ten years and that when she appeared before the Commission in 2011 she felt it important to discuss all information regarding why she was applying for a Special Use Permit. She stated she had taken over a local Jazzercise classes in early 2011. She stated she looked for commercial properties online and found the Church of Christ building, which was advertised as being capable of seating 120 people. Mrs. Carter stated she and her husband, Tyler, had discussed their intentions with a realtor and decided the building would suit their needs. She stated when she turned in the application for a business license she discovered the property was residential. She stated paperwork she had received from a title company discussed the building's commercial status. She stated she and her husband then met with Michael Vickers to discuss how to proceed and decided to classify the business as a dance school, which is allowable as a Special Use in R-3 District. Mrs. Carter stated she had two concerns with the packet presented by Staff: the question of whether the Jazzercise facility would qualify as a dance school and if adequate parking was available. She stated the definition of dance is to move rhythmically to music, usually to prescribed or improvised steps, or a series of motions performed to music. She stated a school is defined as an organization that provides instruction or a group of artists under a common influence. She stated Jazzercise met both definitions. She stated the Jazzercise website defines it as dance based cardio with strength training and it is a combination of jazz dance, pilates, yoga, and kickboxing. She stated her studio also currently offers a ballet format. She stated children's classes are held in which they learn two routines to perform at the end of the session, as well as learning about health and nutrition. Mrs. Carter stated her studio allows Serenity Dance School to use the facilities. She stated all of her instructors are trained locally and then sent to a corporate workshop to be certified, all of the routines are professionally choreographed, dance terminology is used, instructors face the students during classes, and that all routines are consistent. She stated yearly monitoring takes place to ensure strict guidelines are followed. She stated local exhibitions had been held in which Jazzercise gave demonstrations alongside local dance studios. She stated her studio has no exercise equipment. She stated she understood parking is a concern and that the studio has grown over the last year. Mrs. Carter stated the number of students has increased from 16 to 58 and that additional classes had been offered to reduce the number of students per class. She stated that only 5 out of 19 classes average above 10 students with all other classes averaging 9 students or fewer. She stated the facility had 9 parking places and that her most attended classes averaged between 11 and 14 students. Mrs. Carter stated a parking agreement with the business owner on the lot to the north east had dissolved because he had been reprimanded by the City for overflow parking on 13th Street. She stated he lives believed it was her customers parking in the street but that it had been his tenants. She stated her customers were required to park in the vacant dirt lot to the north or along Richardson Avenue. She stated she had believed parking along Richardson Avenue to only be discouraged, not prohibited. She stated she would continue to search for other parking accommodations in the lot to the south. She stated the building was constructed in the 1940s and had been tax exempt until its recent purchase and is now subject to property tax, gross receipts tax, and employed 5 instructors. She stated the functionality of the building is limited and that the last thing the City needs is another vacant building. She stated the neighborhood is being revitalized and that the one neighbor who had been concerned now supported the business. Mrs. Carter cited a letter of support from a neighbor across the street and stated no complaints had been made. Mr. Armstrong stated the main issue is parking and asked what alternatives were available. Mrs. Carter stated City Ordinances would not allow parking in the front portion of the lot. Mr. Armstrong asked how much time is allowed between classes and Mrs. Carter stated a 15 minute buffer is allowed. Mr. Armstrong asked if 30 minutes would be more helpful to allowing the parking lot to be cleared and stated that while Staff would prefer to have no parking along Richardson Avenue, there are no "No Parking" signs and those who park there cannot be cited. Mr. Vickers stated it is public right-of-way (R-O-W) and that operable vehicles may park there on a temporary basis. Mrs. Patterson stated vehicles parked there could not be cited. Mrs. Carter stated she did not believe allowing thirty minutes between classes would not be helpful. Mr. Gross asked if all other avenues for additional parking had been exhausted. Mrs. Carter stated that the agreement with the property owner to the north east had been dissolved and that the lot to the north was not for sale. She stated the lot to the south could possibly be purchased and paved but that it would be an extra expense. She stated they wanted to be sure they would be able to use the building before investing in paving a lot. She stated she understood the R-O-W on the streets were larger than normal and that her parking lot was in the R-O-W. Mr. Carrillo asked when the most overflow parking occurred. Mrs. Carter stated the 4:30 p.m. class on Mondays and Tuesdays with approximately three or four cars parking along Richardson Avenue. Mr. Carrillo asked if the owner was in compliance for parking requirements. Mr. Vickers stated the occupancy of 125 people was for assembly and no longer applied. He stated the requirement would be 50 square feet per person for approximately 42 people if the entire building is being used, which would require ten parking spaces. Mr. Carrillo asked if they were short one space and Mr. Vickers stated that was correct. Mr. Vickers stated one parking space was available to the west of the property. He stated parking to the east of the property was not desirable because cars would back out onto Richardson Avenue and required landscaping would be eliminated. Nancy Bowles, 2517 Cambridge, spoke in favor of the request. She stated she had been a 2 student of Jazzercise for thirty years and stated it is dance. She stated the small building limited the number of attendees and that the class held that day with sixteen students had been the largest she'd seen. She stated no issues had arisen and didn't anticipate any problems with the neighbors. She stated she has lived in Roswell since 1980 and had driven by the church many times. She stated when it was active it was a positive influence on the community but that when it sat vacant it was like many other unused properties in the City. She asked the Commission to allow the business to continue. Mr. Brown asked Staff if the business size could be limited to control parking. Mr. Jaramillo stated the Commission must determine if the business qualifies as a school. Mr. Armstrong asked what other category it would fall under. Mr. Jaramillo stated it would be considered commercial and that the Jazzercise website classified itself as a physical fitness industry. Mr. Armstrong asked if they were allowed to extend for another year would they be allowed to rezone the property and make it commercial. Mr. Vickers stated several other property owners would be involved and that it does not abut commercial. Mrs. Patterson stated it would be considered spot zoning. She read a list of Permitted and Special Uses allowed in R-3 District. Chair Hanson stated it would fit in to a recreation category. Mr. Armstrong stated it would be more applicable and asked how to allow the parking requirements to be met. Mrs. Patterson stated the definition of recreation center is a facility offering recreational activities. Mrs. Carter and stated Mr. Vickers stated a dance school was his recommendation. Mr. Jaramillo gave examples of recreational facilities such as the Yucca Center and Boys' and Girls' Club. Mr. Brown asked if Findings of Facts reflected the Commission's decision that the Jazzercise was considered a recreational facility, could the parking issues then be addressed. Mrs. Patterson asked that the new Findings of Facts be included in the motion. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff for clarification on Finding of Fact #1 which refers to parking along Richardson Avenue and 13th Street being prohibited. Mr. Jaramillo stated Mr. Storey had asked for no parking along both sides of Richardson Avenue because while the street has a 60 foot R-O-W it is approximately 35 feet from curb to curb. He stated the idea was to be restrictive in a manner similar to the museum's parking area. Mrs. Patterson stated conditions can be attached to a Special Use Permit that would normally not be allowed, such as having the owner discourage street parking. Mr. Armstrong asked the owner if that would be possible but stated that without "No Parking" signs it would be impossible to enforce. Mrs. Patterson stated the proposed Findings of Facts were for the consideration of the Commission and could be struck. Mr. Gross stated he believed it would be better to park along Richardson Avenue than 13th Street. Mrs. Patterson stated there was some concern with pedestrian traffic in an area with a 35 mile per hour speed limit. Mr. Gross stated no accidents or complaints had been reported and the neighbors are happy. Mrs. Patterson asked the Commission to make FOFs clear during the motion. MOTION Mr. Brown made the motion to amend and approve Case 11-006 based on additional Finding of Fact that "the Commission considers the facility to be a recreation facility." Mr. Carrillo made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and one against. Mrs. Patterson asked if the Commission wished to delete Finding of Fact #2 dealing with the definition of a school. Mr. Gross asked if Finding of Fact #1 dealing with parking needed to be stricken. Mrs. Patterson stated it did. Mr. Gross moved to strike Finding of Fact #1. Mr. Carrillo seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and one against. Chair Hanson asked that anyone who had arrived at the meeting late sign in if they wished to speak. Mr. Brown moved to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and zero against. 3  CASE NO. 11-019: A Special Use Permit for a Church in an R-1 Residential District, Tract D of Sulimar Subdivision 2 Summary Plat 2; located on the North side of the 600 Block of West Mescalero Road; First Baptist Church of Roswell/Owner, Smith Engineering/Agent Scott Hicks, agent, spoke in favor of the request. He stated he was accompanied by Rick Kraft, representative for First Baptist Church, and Michael Douglas of Smith Engineering. He stated the case first came before the Commission in December 2011. Mr. Hicks stated that prior to that meeting First Baptist had sent letters to the surrounding property owners inviting them to an informational meeting on the proposed zone change in an attempt to be good neighbors. He stated only representatives of McClellan Oil came to the meeting. He stated Simon Polaco stated in December that he did not oppose the church but expressed concern about Missouri Avenue. He stated at that point Staff read a Finding of Fact stating the church may be responsible for helping to build the street. He stated the church did not need the street for access or utilities and should not be responsible for Missouri Avenue's construction. Mr. Hicks stated the case was postponed by the Commission with the recommendation that the applicant meet with Staff to discuss how to resolve the issue. He stated the applicant requested postponement in January because they had not yet met with Staff. He stated the case was placed on the February agenda. Mr. Hicks stated at that point he'd met with Staff and Mr. Kraft had met with Mrs. Patterson and Mr. Vickers. He stated an agreement was reached and listed in Findings of Facts for February's presentation stating the applicant was not required to design or construct the portion of Missouri Avenue south of Vista Parkway. Mr. Hicks stated the agreement reached allowed the church to design and construct a portion of Missouri Avenue north of Vista Parkway for 180 feet to allow a north-south access. He stated a large amount of information by Staff and the case was postponed to allow the Commission to read it. He stated nothing has changed on the church's side but that the City has changed the Findings of Facts and the language has been removed. He stated it now stated the applicant may be responsible for construction of Missouri Avenue south of Vista Parkway. He stated the case was again in the same place it was in December. He stated the church has maintained that the property is a lot but is not a subdivision. He stated it abuts R-O-W dedicated by the Marshall Subdivision and that the church had dedicated an additional 30 feet for a total of 60 feet of R-O-W. He asked that the church not be asked to pay for more than was agreed to in February's Findings of Facts. Mr. Hicks stated Mr. Storey had retired and Mr. Najar was now asking the church to build the street prior to or in conjunction with the development of the property. He stated 4 vacant lots in the Marshall Subdivision next to the proposed church have no access and it's the owner's responsibility to build the street. He stated no existing water line serves those lots and that the owner has not developed the lots because of the cost of building the road. Mr. Hicks stated Staff recommended the church apply for a Special Use Permit. He stated no complaints have been lodged about the church and the only concern has been the construction of the street. He presented a development plan for the proposed church. Mr. Armstrong stated the preliminary plat showed Missouri Avenue going north and tying in to other streets and with the current development plan the street is disappears. Mr. Hicks stated the preliminary plat was filed and approved and that the only final plat is to the north with the rest being a large open tract. He stated preliminary plats are only valid for a year after which time the process must begin again. Mr. Armstrong asked what the church's plans were to allow access to the lots owned by Mr. Polaco. Mr. Hicks stated the church is not the subdivider and is not responsible for access to Mr. Polaco's lots. Mr. Armstrong asked how the City would get access for the owner and Mr. Hicks stated the R-O-W was dedicated but the church is not responsible for building the road. He stated they were willing to build the portion north of Vista Parkway as agreed. Mr. Armstrong stated he wanted to be sure the lots weren't landlocked. Mr. Hicks stated they are not. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff if access to the lots to the north would be through the subdivision with multiple turns. Mrs. Patterson stated Staff would present after Mr. Hicks was finished. Mr. Hicks stated Kentucky Avenue is platted and built and stated Lea Avenue could be opened up. He stated the applicant agreed to build a portion north of Vista Parkway to have an connection for the streets. Mr. Armstrong asked if access would be through the existing subdivisions and Mr. Hicks stated it would through Lea and Kentucky Avenues. He stated the applicant had met with Mr. Storey and Staff showing possible cul de sacs and stated all portions have access. Mr. Najar asked if Mr. Hicks represented the other properties and Mr. Hicks stated he did not. Mr. Brown asked if the request is approved who would decide who would build the street. Mr. Jaramillo stated Staff would present their case. Mr. Brown stated that throughout the City numerous streets have been built that aren't 4 north-south or east-west and that he did not wish to compound that issue. Mr. Hicks stated Washington Avenue continues through to Berrendo Road and that access exists. He stated the access required by the City is not needed. Chair Hanson asked why the church does not consider itself the developer and why it is not responsible. Mr. Hicks stated they are only the developer of the building proposed for the property which accesses off of Mescalero Road. Chair Hanson asked why they as a developer are not responsible for the road. Mr. Hicks stated developer would mean subdivider and that a subdivision is not being created. He stated no access for traffic or utilities. He stated the lot is not being developed into a subdivision. Chair Hanson stated Missouri Avenue would provide direct access without causing drivers to make numerous turns. Mr. Hicks stated direct access existed through other streets. Mr. Armstrong asked about the 30 feet of R-O-W that has been dedicated in front of the four vacant lots. He asked if the owner of the vacant lots would be responsible for their 30 feet or if they would be required to build the entire 60 foot road. Mr. Hicks stated it would be a 34 foot wide local street. Mr. Armstrong asked if the Mr. Hicks was saying the church had no responsibility to build half of a road and Mr. Hicks stated it was not needed by the church. Mr. Armstrong asked what would stop the church from accessing the street after it is built. Mr. Hicks stated the alley to the north would not be considered access and that several lots could use Missouri Avenue. Mr. Armstrong stated Mr. Polaco was told Missouri Avenue would go through when he purchased them and that he is now burdened with the cost of the entire road. Mr. Hicks stated the R-O-W was granted last year and the road can be built. Mr. Armstrong asked if the church would not benefit from Mr. Polaco building a road. Mr. Hicks stated they would not need it. Mr. Armstrong stated Mr. Polaco may have purchased the lots under the belief that he would have help building the road. Mr. Hicks stated he could not speak for what Mr. Polaco was told but that Missouri Avenue may or may not be his responsibility. Mr. Armstrong stated he felt cost should be shared and that the church was developing the lot. Mr. Hicks stated the church did not need the street but future developers may. Mr. Gross stated he understands the church is granting R-O-W but that Mr. Polaco also granted R-O-W. He stated he felt costs should be split. He stated the church has given all but the paving and curbs. Rick Kraft, 2875 North Sycamore Avenue, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Kraft stated he is chair of the board of trustees for First Baptist Church and is a member of its executive team. He stated the church is a not-for-profit organization that wants to develop the property to be able to build a church. He stated no opposition has been presented to the building of a church. He stated he understood that at the first meeting Mr. Polaco stated he wished to have the church build the road and that the Commission asked the applicant and Mr. Polaco to come to an agreement. He stated the church was asked to meet with Staff and the church was asked to build the entire road. He stated the road serves no purpose for the church. He stated he met with Dave Parsons, Mrs. Patterson, and Mr. Vickers to attempt to reach an agreement. He stated Mr. Vickers and Mrs. Patterson recognized they had no authority to create a binding agreement. Mr. Kraft stated they came up with the Findings of Facts included in the February packet with #5 stating the church would not be responsible for building the street south of Vista Parkway and #6 stating the church may be responsible for building approximately 180 feet north of Vista Parkway. He stated he had not been aware the Findings of Facts had been changed. He stated the City expected the church to provide access because they are the last ones to develop land in the area. He stated it makes sense for the City to have Missouri Avenue connect to Mescalero Road but the question was who should pay for it. Mr. Kraft stated Mr. Polaco has a proprietary interest in having the street built and stated the future subdivides of the property to the north should pay for that portion. He stated there is currently no need for the street. He asked the Commission to follow the Findings of Facts presented in the February packet. Mrs. Patterson spoke for the City. Mrs. Patterson listed the legal standards for approving Special Uses in Residential Districts and that the Commission may make additional requirements to approve a Special Use. She stated the developer is defined by City Ordinance as the owner of land proposed to be subdivided or its agent who is responsible for any undertaking that requires review and approval under these regulations. She stated it is a subdivision and pointed to a drawing labeled "Sulimar Subdivision". She stated it was approved as a final plat and stated both the Roswell Fire Department and Roswell Police Department want access to the northern subdivision. She stated fire stations are located on Sycamore Avenue and 8th Street and on Wilshire Boulevard with no fire service from locations north of those. She stated if access is only available from the north it is problematic for emergency vehicles. Mr. Jaramillo gave the Commission a copy of definitions from City Ordinances. He stated a 5 summary subdivision is defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated a subdivision is defined as any land vacated or approved which is proposed to be divided into two lots. He stated the plats are under a subdivision and stated Finding of Fact #5 shall dedicate or improve the remaining half of the street. He referred to Mrs. Patterson's definition of "developer" and stated summary plats fall under the category of subdivisions. Louis Najar spoke on behalf of the City as acting City Engineer. He stated he has been in the engineering field since 1975 and has worked for the City since 1995. He stated the tract is a subdivision and the applicant is developing a vacant lot. He stated Missouri Avenue must be addressed. He stated cul de sacs impact quality of life for others in the neighborhood. He stated $400,000 is being spent on College Boulevard attempting to fix past errors in Enchanted Hills with another $100,000 fixing other mistakes. He stated he would like to avoid future errors. He stated the lot in the request is approximately 2 1/2 city blocks by 1 city block. He stated he believed from Mescalero Road to Vista Parkway should be developed. He stated the church would benefit in the future. He stated Article 1.2.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance states mistakes in past subdivisions are to be addressed with future development. Mr. Armstrong asked what Mr. Najar's recommendation would be for development of the vacant land to the north and who he believed should be responsible for Missouri Avenue. Mr. Najar stated he could only speak regarding the portion south of Vista Parkway and that the responsible parties are adjacent to the proposed street. He stated developers north of Vista Parkway would be responsible from then on. He stated Mr. Hicks could not speak on behalf of the other property owners. Mr. Najar stated a shell game had been played when the property owners used summary plats to avoid doing subdivision plats. He stated a summary plat should only be allowed once. Mr. Carrillo asked how other tracts in the subdivision would be affected and stated common sense would say it would be best to continue the street all the way up. Mr. Najar stated it would depend on future development and placement of intersections. Mr. Gross asked if the street were built with private money would the City ask it to be dedicated. Mr. Najar stated it would be public R-O-W like any other street and the City would maintain it. Mr. Armstrong asked about water lines. Mr. Najar stated water lines could be placed behind the curb which would benefit future development to the north. He stated the church could benefit in the future from having an additional outlet from the parking lot. Mr. Hicks stated the Commission was not being asked to approve a subdivision but only a Special Use Permit for a lot within a subdivision. Chair Hanson stated the Commission must look to the future. Mr. Hicks stated the church agrees and have granted the R-O-W. Chair Hanson stated it was a very large lot and impacts a lot of property owners. Stephen Clements, 503 West Vista Parkway, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated his objections are to the lack of planning for the future Missouri Avenue and for traffic increases in the neighborhood due to the presence of a church. He read his letter of opposition which was included in the packet. Todd Wagener, 2904 North Lea Avenue, handed out his Findings of Facts to the Commission. Simon Polaco, 2900 North Lea Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated he was told by the seller when he purchased his property that Missouri Avenue would be constructed. He stated he was willing to pay his fair portion to have the street constructed and wanted the church to be successful. He read his letter of protest. He stated he had not seen the revised site plan and had not been invited to the most recent meeting. Mr. Polaco stated he felt Findings of Facts #1, 2, and 3 were acceptable. He stated #4 should be clarified to stated Missouri Avenue would be public R-O-W and that it would extend from Mescalero Road to Vista Parkway. He stated #5 makes it clear that the church will design and build Missouri Avenue and stated he will contribute his fair share. He stated #6 should clarify that the eastern side of the site is being referenced. He stated #7 should deal only with ingress and egress issues from the lot. He stated #8 should deal with the site plan and its approval. He stated #9 would be the former #8. Mr. Gwartney asked what Mr. Polaco felt would be his fair share and that he would gain the most from the development of the road. Mr. Polaco stated he would pay his fair share. Mr. Polaco stated he does not need the street to be built but cannot develop the lots for anything else. Mr. Gwartney asked if Mr. Polaco had spoken to the church in the past 3 months. Mr. Polaco stated he had spoken to Mr. Kraft the day of the hearing. He stated he could build a small private street but it wouldn't be best for the City. 6  Mr. Wagener stated debris from the vacant lot reaches his home. He stated he had lived there for 25 years and was happy to see Sulimar Subdivision come in. He believed they would build Missouri Avenue. He stated Mr. Polaco's lots were the only undeveloped lots. He stated owners in the neighborhood have drivers turn around in their driveways and that the alleys were subjected to heavy traffic. He stated neighbors felt the street issues should have been resolved with the original subdivision. Mr. Wagener stated Staff told him the church would be required to build the street. He stated the meeting in February was one-sided and felt the Findings of Facts caused a bigger problem. He stated the preliminary plat addressed the past problems but that the City should have required a minor plat instead. He stated no neighbors were notified. Mr. Wagner stated he believed the Ordinance was violated. He stated the church understood the process when they purchased the land. He stated he supported extending Missouri Avenue through to Berrendo Road and asked that somebody be required to build the street. He stated three dead-end streets exist in the area. He stated the request presented an opportunity to correct past mistakes. He stated the request must be in the best interest of the public. He asked the Commission to require Monterrey go through to Missouri Avenue and that no access to Missouri Avenue be given to the church unless it is extended to Berrendo Avenue. Mr. Gross asked if the church should pay for Missouri Avenue but not access it. Mr. Wagener stated access to Missouri Avenue would not be beneficial unless it extended to the north. He stated they were required to build the street as developers but not because it benefits them. He stated he felt a cul de sac would be a possibility but stated no real conversation had been had with the church. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff who is responsible for the road by the lots that have already been developed. Mr. Vickers stated if Missouri Avenue stops at Vista Parkway the future developers would be responsible. Mr. Armstrong asked who pays for the portion north of Mr. Polaco's lots. Mrs. Patterson read from the Subdivision Ordinance and stated Staff had interpreted it to read the remaining half of the street would be improved and dedicated by the subdivider. She stated Staff wanted a street from Mescalero Road to Berrendo Road. Mr. Armstrong stated it would be similar to the original plat. Mrs. Patterson stated it would and that fewer jogs would be desirable. She stated the 30 feet dedications don't align. She stated Staff believes the church is responsible for the development and that Mr. Polaco knew no street existed when he purchased the land. She stated the Commission must allocate the improvement or have the City build it. Chair Hanson stated the decision was on a Special Use Permit and that the decision could be delayed until the issue is resolved. Mr. Brown stated the case was in the same place as it was originally. Mr. Armstrong stated he was disappointed that no resolution had been reached and that it should have been decided before coming to the Commission. Mr. Gross stated he did not believe the Commission should not assign financial burdens. He suggested postponing the case to allow the applicant to decide who will pay for the street. Mr. Gwartney stated it should be determined what the resolution will involve and how much of Missouri Avenue would be affected. He stated the portion south of Vista Parkway should be determined. Mr. Hicks stated the church would be hesitant to present more without knowing if the permit would be granted and asked the Commission to approve the request with the condition to resolve the street issue. Chair Hanson stated the conditions made may not be met later. Mr. Gross stated no church should be permitted without a street. Mr. Brown stated he would prefer to postpone it until there is a resolution. Mr. Wagener asked that responsibility for cost should be assigned with an assurance agreement. Mrs. Patterson stated the case could be postponed until the next meeting and the applicant can be required to present a plan to resolve the issue. Mr. Hicks stated the 30 feet of R-O-W had already been dedicated and Mr. Brown stated the absence of a road is the issue. Mr. Armstrong stated the preliminary plat should be utilized and the church should follow the original plat. Mr. Gross stated one last opportunity was given to the applicant to reach an agreement. Mr. Hicks stated the City did not want to place financial considerations on the applicant and stated the cost of building the street would be approximately $100,000.00. Mrs. Patterson stated an agreement before the Special Use Permit would result in no legal action but an agreement decided on after the Special Use Permit would likely result in a lawsuit. She stated she preferred an agreement be reached before the request is granted. Chair Hanson stated the request could be denied and Mrs. Patterson stated it would be one year before the applicant could bring the request before the Commission again. Mr. Wagener stated he believed the request could be denied. MOTION 7  Mr. Brown made the motion to postpone Case 11-019 until an agreement can be reached regarding the construction of Missouri Avenue. Mr. Gross asked if a time frame must be specified. Mrs. Patterson stated it did. Mr. Brown made a motion to postpone Case 11-019 until the April 24, 2012 meeting. Mr. Gross made the second. Mrs. Patterson stated a binding agreement on construction of Missouri Avenue through to Berrendo Road. The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor and one against. Other Business: Mr. Jaramillo stated current application fees for Special Uses, Variances, and Zone Changes begin at $150.00 and Conditional Uses are $50.00 with the last increase having occurred in 2007. He stated postal and material costs are approximately $165.00. He stated Staff is considering raising the rates from $150.00 to $175.00 and from $50.00 to $100.00 to cover costs from making copies and sending packets to Council. He stated costs of postponements and appeals are currently not covered. He stated he would like to discuss it further. Mr. Gwartney stated the costs seemed very low. Mrs. Patterson stated the costs of mailing the notices through certified mail had increased. Mr. Gwartney asked if Staff's time was covered by the fees and Mr. Jaramillo stated it is not. Mr. Gross asked if anything was included to cover costs of appeals and postponements and Mr. Vickers stated Staff is considering an appeal fee. Mrs. Patterson stated fees across the City are being reviewed. Mr. Jaramillo stated the meeting was Chair Hanson's last and that Chris Cortez would be the new Commission member. He stated elections would be held in April. The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. _________________________________ ______________________________ Ralph Brown- Vice Chair Eddie Carrillo- Secretary 8