CCP 11-09-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~inutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, November 4, 1987 Page 3 Case #87-32 (Cont'd) Kieffer explained that the interior layout of the home would not accommodate placement at the west end of the property; she advised the 6 ft. setback would accommodate her expansion plans. . Member Petersen advised that he did not favor granting the variance, however, it was his opinion that a precedent had been set in the area. Moved by Meury, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend approval of Case #87-32, Rearyard Setback Variance, 1891 Lake Lane, Kieffer, for a 24 foot rearyard setback variance; jusification for approval based upon unusual lot configuration, similar encroachments of adjacent houses, and the deep rear setback of houses to the north make the rear area more feasible for the proposed expansion. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) PRELIM. DISC; Commission members were referred to a letter from CHURCH, HWY 96 B.A. Niepriteky and I. Buhanjenko, of the Ukranian & SNELLING AVE. Orthodox Church, 873 Portland Avenue, dated 10-29-87. B.A. Niepriteky, President of the Perish Council, was present to discuss the proposal for constructing a Church, Church Hall and residence for the Minister on the property located on the southwest corner of Hwy. 96 and North Snelling Avenue (Reeve's property). Niepriteky explained that their Church located on Portland Avenue, across from William Mitchell Law School, does not have adequate parking and that was the main reason for relocation. He advised he had contacted the City staff relative to requirements for application and requested discussing the matter with the Planning Commission. Planner Miller advised that a Church is allowed in an R-l District by Special Use Permit; it was his assumption the accessory building would fit in the same . category and the home associated with the Church is permitted in an R-l District. The proposal would be dealt with as a site plan review; discussing parking requirements, setbacks, and would require a Public Hearing. He noted that specific plans have not been submitted. Chairman Curtis questioned what type of limitations there would be relative to parking, building size, and site coverage. Miller explained those factors depend on the scale of the Church facility; parking determined by the number of persons accommodated by the building. The building size would be determined by site coverage percentage. He advised that the following are issues the City may want to examine carefully: -Access: Traffic volume, how directed. There would be excessive traffic at certain times of the day and low traffic during other hours. How the two Church facilities would operate together should be considered. -Location: The proposed Church facilities should be located on the site so as toprotect the single family development to the east; visibility need not be hidden, but softened to be a good neighbor to the anticipated R-l development. . Miller also noted the issue may arise relative to tax exempt use in a community that has little land still available for development. Niepriteky advised that they are not anticipating building a complex the size of the North Heights Church project. He stated the parish is comprised of three . Churches with approximately 100 perishoners in each parish; it is their intent to eventually combine the three parishs.