Loading...
PL 08/16/1989 - 30706�"'� � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the Auqust 16, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. �20LL CALL • Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Barna, Paul Dahlberg Donald Betzold Sue Sherek, Alex Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Nancy Jorgenson, Councilmember at Large James & Beverly Wolfe, 1265 Hathaway Lane Neal Thompson, 1264 Hathaway Lane Karen Allard, 615-54th Avenue NE Laurie Wolfe, 960 Hathaway Lane Orville & Jeannine Sachs, 1281 Hathaway Lane Shelley Garber, 5800 Tennison Drive John & Juli Evers, 5801 Tennison Drive Helen Steinke, 1071 Hathaway Lane Cherle Pederson, 1030 Hathaway Lane Ma�y Eggert, 1090 Hathaway Lane David Matlock, 1080 Hathaway Lane Douglas & Nancy Strong, 5721 Regis Drive Carol Eppel, 5721 Regis Drive Jim & Juel Bagaason, 1191 Hathaway Lane Norman & Alice Abel, 1050 Hathaway Lane Janice Driggins, 1280 Hathaway Lane John & Michelle Ward, 5691 Regis Drive James B. Legatt, 5701 Regis Drive Keith Poppenhagen, 7510 Hwy. 65 Bohaban Mehrychenk, 2704 W. River Pkwy., Mpls. Father John Maqramm, 1201 Hathaway Lane Sister Vera Saba, 1201 Hathaway Lane Mother Victoria, 1201 Hathaway Lane Bernice Playle, 4509 Brookdale Drive, Brooklyn Park, I�IId APPROVAL OF JULY 12, 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: O�I TION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the July 12, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 2 � 1. TABLED: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #89-08, BY KEITH'S AUTO BODY: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Section 205.17.O1.C.9(0 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a repair garage on that part of the East 46 acres of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 46 acre tract distant 623.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 46 acre tract 161.63 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract 538.98 feet, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 65; thence Northerly along said Westerly right-of-way line 161.63 feet, more or less, to the intersection of a line drawn from the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract; thence West parallel with the said North line 538.73 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, the same being 7570 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open discussion on special use permit #89-08. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND DISCUSSION OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. Dacy reported this request was last considered on May 17, 1989. The site is located West of and adjacent to Highway 65, south of Osborne Road. The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. To the north and west is M-1 zoning. Lampert Lumber is located immediately to the north, to the south is R-4 (mobile home park), and to the east across Highway 65 is a mixture of C-3, Commercial, and M-1 zoning. On the property are two buildings constructed in the early 1960's. The petitioner, Reith's Auto Body, is currently occupying the western most building on the lot. As was discussed at the meeting of May 17, the site and buildings need improvements to comply with M-1, Light Industrial standards. The site would have to be paved between the two buildings, installation of required curb around paved areas, and creation of a landscaped area in front of the property to meet the 20 foot setback. The owner, Mr. Niichael Thompson, talked about the property and title problems with the site. The Commission discussed establishing a timetable for completion of improvements. Staff recommended nine stipulations and a timetable. The commission adjusted some of the completion dates. The nine stipulations remain the same but some of the dates were changed in #1, 2, 3 and 4 to August 1, 1991. The most important stipulation the Planning Commission wanted completed was the installation of sewer. The site is now served by a septic system. The item was � tabled so the building and fire inspectors could inspect the buildings and determine whether or not they met code and/or whether or not they would be considered condemnable property. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 3 �� inspection confirmed that the buildings are in good structural condition. There are some things the owners need to comply with, but not enough to justify condemnation. Staff has talked with Mr. Thompson, and he would be agreeable to go along with the timetable as recommended. Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with stipulations, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Saba felt it was difficult to take action without the owner present. However, the owner agreed to the stipulations and has indicated his willingness to comply with the recommendations. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the issues regarding ownership had been resolved. Ms. Dacy stated these issues were not resolved, but the owner is willing to continue with the process and to do what the Planning Commission has recommended and agrees with the dates. Ms. Sherek felt that in stipulation #3 the dates should be 60 to 90 days rather than August 1, 1991, to haul away the junk. She felt that 1991 was too long and felt the abandoned property on the site should be hauled away. She recommended a date of October 15 or November 1, 1989. The last sentence should read "This work ^ shall be completed no later than November 1, 1989." Mr. Kondrick indicated the owner is not present to address this change of date. Ms. Sherek indicated that the owner could address this when it is before the City Council. Ms. Sherek stated that the date should be changed in stipulation #8 to November 15, 1989, at which time, staff can make sure the work has been done. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that some of the materials the commission considered "junk" he considered valuable to his business. Mr. Barna stated these materials should be stored inside or behind a fence. Ms. Sherek stated that materials cannot be visible over the fence. Ms. Dacy stated this was covered in stipulation #3. Mr. Barna questioned #7 regarding the letter of credit. Should this be provided at this time because the holding tank must be installed by January 1, 1990. �' Ms. Dac stated the intent is not to re y quire until ownership is established. Prior to extension of the City sewer system, staff � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 4 would require it at that time but not later than January l, 1991. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Dahlberg to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Saba had no problem with the special use permit as long as there is compliance with the stipulations. Mr. Barna agreed, as long as there is no hazard to others. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #89-08, with the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and line with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1991. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20-foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking r'`� setback requirement by August 1, 1991. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of the buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed no later than ATovember 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by January 1, 1991. 0 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. ,� 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 5 ��`1 construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. � 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on November 15, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. 9. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UATANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kondrick indicated this item would be brought before the City Council at their meeting of August 28. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-11. BY ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST INC.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Section 205.07.O1.C.2 of the Fridley City Code, to allow churches in a residential district, on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks First Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICIC DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARIATG OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. McPherson reported the property is located on Lot 3, Block 1, at the intersection of Hathaway Lane and Regis Drive in an R-1, Single Family district. A church is allowed in an R-1 district with a special use permit. The proposed site plan shows the existing house with alterations for an addition to the rear and a change in design at the front entrance. The code states that there are some building lot standards that need to be met by a church in an R-1 district. The lot area must be 15,000 sq. ft. This lot has approximately 9,900 sq. feet. The petitioner has applied for a variance for the lot area requirement. In addition, they must have a 15 foot setback on the side; again a variance has been requested to reduce the setback to 10 feet. The petitioner is proposing some changes to the existing house, including an 18 ft. X 18 ft. addition to the house over an open deck to allow room for a worship area. Also, an addition over the front walk as shown on the site elevation is being proposed by the ,._, petitioner at this time. Regarding the lot coverage requirements, staff has looked at the ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 6 other churches that currently exist in the city. Most of the churches in the city far exceed the minimum lot area requirement. Many of the churches reside in an R-1 district; however, most are located at the edge of an R-1 district and near a major intersection. Ms. Dacy reported that the City Attorney is researching the ability of municipalities to regulate churches. Given this application is different from previous applications in that it is in a single family home and the church is small in size, the City Attorney wishes to review the minutes and make a written recommendation after his research and submit his recommendation at the first meeting of the Planning Commission in September. He would prefer that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing so he is aware of what the other concerns are from other owners. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were legal complications that he is looking to unravel before makinq a recommendation. Ms. Dacy stated this is correct. Father Magramm stated the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ is a traditional Christian church with a continuous history reaching back to the Apostles. It is considered here in the United ^ States to be the fourth major religion after the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. There are 13 such Orthodox churches in the Twin City area. There was an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch in the religious section last Saturday about some of the Orthodox churches and his church was mentioned also. Father Magramm stated that they want to use the house in Fridley is as a monastic house, the aim of which is a quiet life. He stated that they have been for the past 8 years at the other end of Hathaway Lane. They have enjoyed the quiet of the neighborhood and that particular street. He stated he anticipates some church members would come to the house, altogether about 12 people, 8 or 9 besides themselves. These people would join as they have been doing. They have had the property at 1201 Hathaway Lane since January; about 8 months. There would be no more traffic and no more parked cars in the future than have been noticed up to now. The church also uses the worship space at 601 15th Avenue in Dinkytown. Any lar-ge gatherings besides the regular Sunday services would take place in that facility. The church has asked for this permit so that it would not violate any legal code in converting a room in the house into a chapel and so that anything that they did would be done with the neighborhood�s knowledge. They passed around, hand delivered, to the neighborhood, or at least to those who were on the list that were receiving notification of the permit, a pamphlet about the church and a sheet to acquaint neighborhood with who they are and what are projects are going to be and mainly to stress that they � are not asking to use the facility to build a big church, a new church, but to use it as a monastic house chapel. The sisters that have been living there are looking for a quiet life and they would I� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 7 be the first to protest any type of activity that would be disruptive either to the neighborhood or to them. He did have the sheet that was hand delivered to the neighborhood. There are others at the meeting to whom they did not deliver this because they kept this to the list that they had. He is open to discussion and willing to answer any questions that anyone might have. He wants to stress that the purpose of the monastic house chapel is a quiet life, the ability to have prayer meetings for the monastic community rather than a church that would have social activities. Ms. Laurie Wolfe asked how many members are in the church right now. Father Magramm stated about 20 members in the church in Dinkytown. The house will be used as a monastic house chapel for those at one end of the Hathaway Lane. Ms. Wolfe stated it appears the Code says a church and Father is saying this is a monastic house. Which is it? Father Magramm stated he thought the City had only one word which is a church. The church described it as a monastic house chapel. Ms. Janice Driggins asked, if it were a monastic house and not a � church, is a special use permit necessary. Mr. Kondrick replied that this apparently is a question for which the Planning Commission needs to wait for an opinion from the City Attorney. Ms. Driggins stated that, to her understanding, the property has a garage built over a water main. As a realtor, she had problems several years ago on a closing and could not get a title because of the water main issue. In view of that, would that be taken into consideration for granting permits for building onto that house. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought it would, but this is new information to the commission. This information will be considered and will surely have an impact on the final dis�cussion. Mr. Kondrick thanked her for that information, and directed staff to check on it. Mr. Douglas Strong presented a petition signed by 45 people in the neighborhood. The petition stated that this property is a relatively small home in a quiet residential neighborhood. The property is a single lot, with no room for expansion. There is no off-street parking. The location of the property at the end of a T intersection and at the base of a steep hill causes tremendous on-street parking problems. Mr. Strong stated that the following �, property owners hereby wished to register their extreme opposition to the granting of the special use permit by the City of Fridley for this property. The petition is to safeguard the neighborhood � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 8 because a variance or a special use permit is granted to the legal description and not to the individuals living in the house. The people living in the house may be totally above board, but once they move out, the special use permit carries over to the new owners. One of the neighbors' concerns is that once it is done, it is very difficult to undo. As the Commission can see by the site plan, the lot is very small. Another chart that Mr. Strong was very interested in seeing was the churches in Fridley that have been looked at so far. The square footage of the lots is larger than this lot. Mr. Strong asked the Planning Commission if they had driven by the site. If so, members are aware of the steep hill. He has checked with the Engineering Department, and this hill has over a 9� grade which makes it an undesirable hill for parking, especially in the winter. Mr. Strong has lived in his current residence for 15 years and sees that the Public Works Department has to hit that hill first thing when the first snowfall hits, so that the people that do live up there can get up the street. It is not conducive to parking. The neighbors are hearing that there will not be parking problems here. An addition to the building is being done to accommodate a volume of people. While the church is saying 12 people maximum, there is no place in the special use permit that the Commission can set a maximum number of people that can be there. The fire code may enter into this and require additional exits, and sprinkling of the building may enter ^ into it. Also, to leave this structure looking like a single family residence will not happen with the proposed changes to the structure, particularly to the front of the house. That will make it look like a church. There is a realtor here tonight, and that person would know better than Mr. Strong what happens to the values of the homes next to a church. It is a church. Whether you want to call is a fancy name or not, if it's a special use permit for a church, it's a church. Mr. Strong asked if he was wrong. Mr. Barna stated that in that instance, yes. If a special use permit is issued forever for that property, but a special use permit can be limited to the occupant. A variance is forever, that goes with the description of the property. But a special use permit is reviewable or renewable. If this church were to move out of the residence as owners, the special use permit can be limited to their residence or their use of the property. Mr. Rondrick stated that, as with many special use permits, there are oftentimes certain stipulations that the petitioner must comply with. Time limits are given, and even no time limits. If those stipulations are violated, the permit can be revoked. So those things are in the background here too. He suggested a motion to accept the petition and the names as part of the minutes so the City Council and City Attorney can review. ^ MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to accept the petition as part of the minutes. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 9 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTIOAT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Strong stated with regard to the water main and construction to the building, his experience with Fridley's water system in the neighborhood is that there have been a number of water main breaks . Assuming that they are cast iron mains, these mains are conducive to water main breaks. This particular main is a 6-inch water main that runs all the way through in a loop system. With construction of the addition near the main, vibration and what not in that area could lead to a leak. With a garage over the water main, there is potential for severe problems there. Mr. Strong knew the individuals who sold this house, and knew they had great difficulties once they discovered the water main was there. They did go through the City. They did get a permit. It was issued. Nobody caught this until almost 20 years later when they went to sell it and it was surveyed. There was an error along the way, but Mr. Strong didn't think they need to add to the problem allowing additional construction on there that could affect that. Another concern is that even if there will not be additional parking, he knows there will be at times additional parking. With the T intersection today, if anyone in the neighborhood has guests cars parked on either side of the street, it become difficult to maneuver when the streets are at all slippery. Unfortunately, �'`� people also have a tendency to come down Regis Drive which is also at a grade, not at 9�, something less than that, but they have a tendency to come quickly down there. The alternate is to make a sharp turn or go right up the driveway because it is an extension of the street. It becomes a hazardous situation. Mr. Strong has barely missed cars because the view is blocked. There are some hazards there and the neighbors don't need to add to this by adding the potential for additional parking. He knows the intention is good and there is nothing the neighborhood has against the residence being used as it is today, as a single family residence. He believes they are good neighbors. It is the use of the property that the neighbors had a problem with. It is not designed for a church. A neighborhood is quiet and we would like to keep it that way. Mr. Strong stated his daughter commented that she could hear church music on Sunday morning, which may be desireable some of the time, but not when you wish to sleep. Mr. Kondrick asked, suppose the number of cars were limited and that church services would not be held except with Father and a few others, how would Mr. Strong feel about that? Mr. Strong stated he would still have a question of the use of the property as a church and there is still the factor of values of houses when that takes place. A neighbor is in the process of putting his house up for sale due to a move out of state. It does � have an affect on the property values. Another thing that the neighbors are missing is whether the property is now on the tax roles. r--, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 10 Ms. Dacy stated the church has applied for a tax exempt status. Taxes for 1989 are paid, but next year would be tax exempt. Mr. Strong stated that the neighborhood would be losing the tax base of that property. Maybe if the church special use permit is not granted, it might not be that desireable. The taxes are based on mill rate with the school. These residents will not be having children in the schools and this structure will not add tax dollars to support that. Each of these that does apply and does get it means that the rest of us pick up that share. Another concern is that a neighbor who is close to this property is also considering selling their house if the permit is granted. It is a quiet residential neighborhood and it is not designed for a church. A home for the Father and Sisters is no problem. They are good neighbors from a residential standpoint. But as a church, the lot is not conducive, the traffic pattern is not conducive for that situation. It is be very easy to say there won't be any problems now, but no one has any experience with that right now and what is going to happen. The church has a substantial increase proposed in size which to Mr. Strong would generate additional people, or at least the ability to accommodate additional people. It may not be there now, but with the addition the possibility is there. Once it is done, it's done. You can review special use permits, but Mr. �, Strong would be very surprised that once it is granted, unless it was abused greatly, it would not be lifted. Abuse would be very difficult to show. The people on that petition are looking to the Planning Commission to review and to not grant the special use permit at this time. Mr. Kondrick asked, if there were no more than 3 or 4 cars there, and he realizes that could mean 20 people, and with off street parking, how would Mr. Strong feels about it. Mr. Strong stated he would be opposed to any use as a church even if the cars are limited and modification to make the house look like a church was denied. Mr. Barna presented a hypothetical situation of a salesperson for a home-based company who held regular meetings at their home which could include as many as 20 to 25 people each week, would Mr. Stronq still object? Such use does not require a special use permit. Mr. Strong stated he would, if traffic becomes a problem, the City would hear about it from the residents. Regardless of whether you hear from the citizens or not, the neighbors are looking at a safety factor. Mr. Barna stated the Planning Commission can put restrictions on `�, with a special use permit, but a home-based business cannot be restricted. There are restrictions on employing others in your ,� ,� �--. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 11 home. The special use permit gives the City a handle on it so staff can restrict the parking on the site, and can even put on architectural restrictions which cannot be done on a normal home. That is the idea of a special use permit being required for a church. A question is that the City Attorney is not sure if staff can legally put on those restrictions. The idea is to get as much as you can and stay within the law. Mr. Barna agreed that he would not want to see a big ��church" structure put on that lot, but whether or not the Commission can restrict a monastic chapel or chapel uses is the question. The Jehovah's Witness hold Bible meetings and/or prayer meetings in their homes and there are no restriction on that. Several persons stated that in that situation the persons are still paying taxes on their property and maintain a main church building. Mr. Strong stated that the tax exempt status is still a question. A public hearing is to get public opinion which is what the neighbors are here to do. The Planning Commission also needs to look at the best use of the property. The decision must be made whether this is a legitimate use of the property. Mr. Kondrick stated that residents� input is valued. This exchange brings out ideas and viewpoints that are very important. Father Magramm stated he had two comments. He is quite a distance from Mr. Strong�s house. There is another church in the area that could make noise. Also, the tax exemption has nothing to do with the permit. Ms. Shelley Garber thought it would be lovely to have these people as neighbors. The parking would not affect her because she doesn't live on the street. The tax exemption is a problem. She wanted to know what a monastic house is. Has the house where the Brothers live been changed into a church? Who lives at the house? Father Magramm stated they pay taxes at the other house. The Brothers have a house chapel there which is small. Mr. Kondrick asked Father Magramm to provide a definition of a monastic house. Father Magramm states a monastic house is a place where monks or nuns live, similar to a rectory or convent. Ms. Garber asked if any were employed. Father Magramm stated yes. The sisters do volunteer work at nursing homes and hospitals. Ms. Garber stated that other churches in the community are also tax exempt and have services for the community which benefit the ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 12 community. She wanted to know from the sisters, if they were there and did have a monastic house, how would they contribute to the neighborhood? Mother Victoria stated that she had not yet moved permanently to the house on Hathaway Lane, but hoped to do so soon. For 10 years she has been living in a similar monastic house in California. The main purpose is the monastic life. The first purpose is a prayer life. They contribute to the community in non-specific ways. They are not dedicated to one type of work. They have a house full of people that live monastic life and do what comes. In California, it turned out to be a lot of work with old people, helping with transportation, filling out Social Security forms, living with them for a few weeks while recuperating, this is work that developed with the needs as seen. It is not as if the Sisters have a charter . Ms. Garber asked if Mother Victoria had had a chance to evaluate the needs here. Mother Victoria stated she had personally been here a very short time and had met very few neighbors. So that is something she had not yet had time to do, but hopes to do so in the future. �``� Mr. David Matlock stated he had recently moved into the neighborhood and has a 4-year-old son. One of the things that attracted him to neighborhood was that it was very quiet and secluded. He had heard the comments about the off street parking, and agreed that the driveway could not hold more than 4-6 cars. That T intersection is very nasty which he found out last winter when he almost broadsided a car coming down the hill on glare ice. Mr. Matlock was afraid that if there was a lot of off street parking with cars on both sides of the street, it would make the lanes very narrow. Because there are so many kids, any increase in traffic could be hazardous to the kids. In addition, it was stated that there is a chapel in the house at 991 Hathaway Lane and asked if that needed a variance. Was that house modified? If not, why modify the house at 1201 Hathaway Lane? ,�'1 Father Magramm stated they use a room in the basement, and they did not modify the house. They want to modify the house for their church furniture and icons. The front would be a type of extension. Mr. Matlock stated it does change the look of the house dramatically from a single family dwelling to an obvious church. If the Brothers and Sisters are going to lead a monastic life, why is this necessary? Father Magramm stated they want to have a certain look. Mr. Matlock asked if they had plans to modify the home at 991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 13 i�1 Hathaway Lane. Father Magramm stated they did not have plans to modify the other home. Mr. Matlock stated he did not have a problem with these people as neighbors. He had noticed an increase in traffic since last summer. He had had people stop and ask directions to the church. He wanted to voice his opposition to this and felt the change will stand out dramatically. This is a single family home and, if the church wants a place for nuns to live, Mr. Matlock did not see why it needed to be modified for use as a church. Ms. Wolfe asked if they would be notified of the issues that the City Attorney is considering, such as whether it is a church or monastic home. Mr. Kondrick stated this will come back to the Planning Commission again before going to the City Council. The Planning Commission will have another meeting and make a recommendation prior to this item going to the City Council. Mr. James Wolfe stated there seems to be a contradiction between monastic residence and applying for a tax exempt church status. �, Which is it going to be? Mr. Kondrick stated that is crux of the problem, and that is the area that the City Attorney is researching. Mr. Wolfe stated he was not sure the parking will be the way it now is. The hill is very dangerous at that intersection in the winter. There is no stop sign. Drivers have to get a little run to get up hill and slow down for that corner because it is blind, and take off again. There are a lot of cars in the winter that go past that hill probably faster than they should trying to get home. He is not convinced that the traffic will stay the way it is. He does not care for the change architecturally in the front of the house. Ms. Juli Evers stated the church�s backyard meets her backyard. When she first heard about the request, she was quite concerned. She has four young children and was concerned about what the church might be telling the children. Ms. Evers was relieved to know it was a Christian organization. She moved into an established neighborhood so she would know her neighbors. She was opposed to a church. They were invited to an open house and were the only ones who went. They were there 1 1/2 hours and had their questions answered. If she could pick neighbors, they would be at the top of the list. They are quiet, she has not noticed that they have been there for 8 months. As far as the tax purposes, she thought ^ that if the neighbors are concerned about taxes, they should look also at larger churches that are not being taxed. This is minute in comparison. She belongs to a church and appreciates the status PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 14 � they have, and was sure these people would also. Parking, if it could be restricted to only so many in the driveway and no street parking, it would be okay. However, she has garage sales on her street on Fridays that line the street which also makes traffic patterns which can be just as often as church services. Ms. Evers has no objection to them being there. She was not sure that she would agree to the structural change in front. She had done a complete turn around since she was notified. Ms. Driggins stated she would like to comment on the traffic. She asked if the members would be physically looking at that area to see what the neighbors are looking at. The Commission members stated they had driven past the intersection. Ms. Driggins stated she has been a victim of being near missed many other times in that area. She square footage of the lot clarified. Ms. McPherson stated the lot is 9,600 square feet. blind sided and asked to have Ms. Driggins stated that the minimwn for a church is 15,000 square feet so without any further additions on that property it is �, already overbuilt, so to speak, for the land. r"`. Mr. Dahlberg stated not as a residential property, but as a church yes . • Ms. Driggins asked then if the addition has any impact. Mr. Dahlberg stated not with respect to building setbacks and lot coverage. Mr. Kondrick stated the setbacks from the side may need to be changed to allow a special use, but the Commission is not considering that at this time. Ms. Carol Eppel stated she had no problem with the house as it presently is. She thought the size of the property and taxes were an area the neighbors should deal with. She thought the neighbors are fortunate that this has comes up. Any neighbor could paint their house any color they want and she couldn�t complain. She stated that, since this is a small residential area, she would not like front of house changed to look like a church. She did not move to the area to live ne�ct to a church. She did not oppose the activities that are there now. She wanted to know, if a special use permit was granted and activities became a problem, could restrictions be put on? If the permit was granted and if something came up, do the neighbors no longer have any rights to say this is something that is an disruption to the neighborhood? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 15 ,'� Mr. Kondrick stated a special use permit can have as many stipulations as necessary to protect the welfare and look of the community including restricting the number of cars, etc. There are certain setbacks that would need to be changed with a variance. If they did not comply, the City has the right to ask them to stop. If they didn�t do that, the City can deny the special use permit so they can no longer function in that way. Ms. Garber asked if a monastic house is tax exempt. Father Magramm stated the house has been paying taxes all along. Mr. Matlock asked, if on street parking was restricted, can the church then pave the front yard for off street parking. Mr. Kondrick stated no. Mr. Barna stated that the only way the church could possibly gain additional parking on this lot would be to move the garage to the rear of the lot, to within code, but if there is a pipe there, there could be problems at that point. The church is pretty well limited to what they have unless they were going to move the garage. This would be very expensive to increase the parking. r-•� Mr. Saba stated that one thing that could be done is to put up no parking signs on either side of the street. Ms. Sherek stated this would affect everyone's parking in t�ie area. Mr. Saba stated, if that is a hazard, it may be somethinq that should be looked at anyway. Mr. James Legatt asked, if the City restricts the parking and parking was a problem there, the church would move the parking and then it would be a concern of his. It would also be a problem that people do come down Regis Drive �ast. If there was a restriction on parking, then it would probably affect all of the neighbors on Regis Drive. Mr. Kondrick stated this is just discussion of ideas and has not happened yet. These expressions will be forwarded on to those tho make the final decisions later on. Ms. Alice Ebel stated she understood that the larger gatherings are held in Dinkytown, except on Sundays. Would the meetings then be held in the house? How many would be attending? Father Magramm stated that if he stated "except", he did not mean to. The members meet in Dinkytown on Sundays at 601 13th Avenue which is a large complex owned by the University Lutheran Church � of Hope. The church has used this facility for the main church gatherings. He stressed that the major gatherings would not be at �„\ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 16 ''�`� /"`, the residence. Ms. Ebel asked who would using the monastic chapel? Father Magramm stated there are 20 in the congregation. Unfortunately, not everyone comes to church every Sunday. Take that number minus four, and the number that attend regular services in Dinkytown, that means there would be about 8 people that might come. Ms. Cherle Pedersen asked if the Brothers already had a home on the end of Hathaway with a chapel, and now you need another home with another chapel. Why did the church need two homes for one chapel for eight people? Father Magramm stated the chapel at the other end of Hathaway is in the basement, is very small and is used for storage. The church wants a chapel at 1201 Hathaway so it can be on the upper level. Ms. Pedersen asked, if you are going to have a chapel at 1201 Hathaway, then would you go back to paying taxes for the other home. Father Magramm stated they have always paid taxes on the first home and will continue to do so. Ms. Pedersen asked if they then will move congregation to this facility. Father Magramm stated they are not moving the congregation to this home. They are moving pictures, icons, and the Sisters into 1201 Hathaway. The difference is to move a chapel to a living room space. The house at 1201 Hathaway is larger home than the other one. The other chapel is a small room in the basement. Ms. Pedersen asked why physically change that house for only eight people. Father Magramm stated that was the purpose of the open house. They wanted the neighbors to come so they could answer questions. Anyone is welcome to come at any time to see what they are doing. The chapel is very small there. It is as living room space and they want to expand it to have enough room to put the painted panels that they have on the walls. Ms. Pedersen stated that churches are set up to increase congregations. When this is done to a home for increasing congregations, it is not conducive to the neighborhood quietness. Father Magramm stated he understood that concern. He again stressed that any large gatherings that are held for dinners, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 17 r''� Christmas, etc., would all be held in Dinkytown. If the neighbors had not seen problems up until now, they wouldn't in the future. Father knows that churches want to grow, but this church is not planning to grow at Hathaway Lane. Any growth will be at Dinkytown. Hathaway Lane is where they want to have a prayer life and a chapel in the home. The Sisters will live in one home and the Brothers in the other. Ms. Pedersen stated she nearly had an accident at that intersection and with additional traffic and cars parked at that part there would no way to stop accidents on that corner. Residents know to watch that corner, but others are not going to know and that will create a problem. Ms. Jule Bagaason stated she lived next door to the parcel. They have lived there 1 1/2 years and chose the home for privacy. They had lived in apartments and duplexes and bought the house for privacy. They do not have privacy with additional people and an addition that will look directly into the backyard. There is a huge cross nailed on front of the house which has caused some problems with traffic on that corner from those who drive by, stop and back up to take another look. Changing the look of the home will only complicate the problems at that intersection. Ms. Bagaason feels as if she is losing what they have worked for and ,� would want to be compensated. Ms. Eppel stated they were not given notice of this request. When something like this comes up, she would like the City to notify the neighbors of the change. She would like to recommend that all those who have signed the petition be notified on further happenings. Mr. Matlock asked if the addition they were planning over the existing deck, to enclose deck for chapel, why not put a chapel on back of other house. Father Magramm stated that the structure at 1201 Hathaway is the structure that they want for a bit more room and because they have chosen not to do so on that property. Expansion at that property would not be feasible. Councilmember Jorgenson asked if the property that you are planning to modify would be used for weddings, funerals, baptisms? Father Magramm stated the addition is to expand 18 feet. In the past four years, they have had one wedding and one funeral. The funeral was held in the funeral home and the wedding was held in Dinkytown. Councilmember Jorgenson asked if they planned to have baptisms, '� weddings, etc., at this location. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 18 r�\ Father Magramm stated they may have a baptism. He did not think they would have a wedding or a funeral. Ms. Jorgenson asked if it was correct that the a special use permit was to bring in icons for chapel. Father Magramm stated they want to expand for icons. Mr. Strong asked to clarify that the Dinkytown chapel will be used for special events. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Dinkytown facility will be used every Sunday for worship. Ms. Strong stated they had conflict with their open house. Taxes are not a problem. The property was not going to affect her property that much. She had no problem with the beliefs and way of their life. Ms. Strong did not buy property to live near a church. She did not want not live across the street from any church. Nor did she want to live across from a residence that looks like a church. Mr. Ned Thompson asked if the special use permit would allow the City to put on more restrictions on the property than the present �� building code would allow. Mr. Kondrick stated yes. Mr. Barna stated there are things you could do a house that they would not be allowed to do. You can put an entrance on the front of your house or a deck on the back as long as you don�t exceed the lot coverage or eliminate 25� of your backyard or 25 feet from the back lot line. The restrictions here are with the special use permit, but on the residence we don't have those. You would have more flexibility through the building code than through the special use permit. Mr. Thompson stated that, if a special use permit could restrict the front of the house, this could then be better for the neighborhood. Ms. Karen Allard asked how many will be living in the house. Father Magramm stated no more than 5 persons. Ms. Bagaason stated that, if she wanted to live next to a church, she would have bought a home next to a church. She feels it is no longer her choice. She stated that they did not want to live next door to a church. �` Ms. Sherek asked Father Magramm, in looking at the plans, was there going to be a structure to the entry for the chapel which is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 19 � �, going to at the back? Father Magramm stated there was a back door and a front door. Ms. Sherek asked if there was a reason why the entry could not be placed at the back of the property where the deck is now. One objection is to the structure that the church is putting on the front of the house. Was there a reason why an entrance could not be placed at the back? People could walk along the driveway and enter the chapel at the back. That could answer the question of not creating a distraction, not making it look to the neighborhood as if they are living adjacent to a church. If the primary purpose is to be a monastic residence, and the chapel is to serve the Sisters living in the house and others in the neighborhood, certainly both could be satisfied. Father Magramm stated he could see this as a possibility but he did not know if this would be practically feasible. Ms. Bagaason stated the people next door would still have to look at it. Ms. Sherek stated they would not if it were hidden from view by the garage. Mr. Wolfe stated that it would not be hidden by the garage. Mr. Barna stated that the garage is less than 10 feet from the rear of the house. Mr. Kondrick stated this is a possibility that can be explored. Ms . Eppel stated that some of the things that she is hearing is that the neighbors to the sides of the parcel are objecting to the lack of their own privacy. Having the entrance in the back would not satisfy this objection. Could the front of house be left alone like a residential structure? Mr. Barna stated there is the option of screening. Ms. Garber asked why do they not use the living room. A living room can be decorated any way a person wants. If you want your articles and icons, why not you get a permit to expand your living room. Father Magramm stated they thought it was the proper thing to do, to notify the neighborhood and go through the City. The church could have done that as Ms. Garber suggested, but the church decided to go through the City. �� Ms. Driggins asked if this then gets back to the original question of whether the special use permit is necessary. Would they have �. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 20 the option to do the changes. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he thought, if the City Attorney renders a decision that a special use permit is not required, then potentially that is the case. MOTION by Paul Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated the information presented would be reviewed and an opinion rendered by the City Attorney. At that time, all of the neighbors would be re-advised the next meeting. Before the Planning Commission would be re-discussing this, he would presume that the church would be discussing ideas presented during the meeting. Father Magramm stated he was glad to have met their neighbors tonight and appreciate the neighbors' recommendations. They will do whatever they could to make everyone happy and comfortable. They did not plan to give out any more information. Anyone who ,,.-� wished to see the chapel and house was welcome to do so at any time. They will answer the neighbors' questions. Father Magramm stated the neighbors should feel free to be their friends. Mr. Dahlberg asked for informal discussion. It would be useful if the Planning Commission could bring up other issues that the City Attorney could use as he rendered an opinion. In summary, there are several issues that need to be addressed relative to parking and traffic; use of this facility as a church, home, monastic residence, or combination; and the tax exempt status. He felt that the tax exempt status was not an issue here. Any home owned by a church facility for its pastor is tax exempt or can be, so he did not feel this was an issue. Mr. Dahlberg thought that there was several things that should be addressed relative to not only use of the facility but also relative to its appropriateness in the neighborhood. Mr. Dahlberg heard and agreed that this home should not have a character architecturally that is different from the rest of the neighborhood. He would be hard pressed to vote for any kind of a project where that type of entrance was used. The architectural design must be very sensitive to the neighborhood. He thought it would be in the best interests of all concerned to remember that this still needs to be resolved. Mr. Dahlberg hoped that the Planning Commission and the neighborhood could all look at this objectively, and he thought that the use of this facility as a residence can remain that irrespective of potentially not allowing the addition. Mr. Dahlberg thought a church was a good "�, neighbor and could remain so if this should not be allowed as a worship facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 21 � r-�, Mr. Saba thought the Planning Commission should also take a look at what could be there. In his neighborhood, a house was sold and turned into rental property. The people that live there party every weekend and there are 15-20 cars on both sides of the street. A church can improve a neighborhood and there are benefits. Mr. Saba agreed regarding the front of the building. The architecture should be compatible with the neighborhood, and he would oppose a structure that would make it different from the other homes in the neighborhood. There may be a more compatible feature that would be okay. Mr. Barna stated that basically anyone can build a front porch on the front of the house not to exceed 10 feet into the front yard without designated design. Anyone could expand their house as long as they did not exceed the side yard, rear yard, lot coverage without a special use permit, with a building permit. That is all that is needed for the front porch and for the covering of the deck. With a special use permit, the design can be restricted. If the Planning Commission did not issue a special use permit, the architectural design cannot be restricted. A cross on the front of the house cannot be restricted. There are controls under a special use permit, but these expansions would likely be allowed for an R-1 house. Ms. Sherek stated there are concerns being expressed regarding parking and traffic. If indeed the number of people attending services averaged 8 to 12, she did not believe the traffic was going to be significant. Parking in the neighborhood is a problem. When looking at the house last week, she found that all along that street it was hazardous to have cars parked. She did not think that the impact of having 3 or 4 more cars on Sunday would be a significant change. One concern is that anything placed in the front yard that attracts attention or stops traffic. She would see that as a hazard. If the house is really like a convent with a chapel, then she didn't see that as a serious problem. However, if it became a primary church, then it becomes a problem. Mr. Kondrick asked when this item would be coming again before the commission. Ms. Dacy stated the tentative date for the Planning Commission meeting on September 13th. Al1 those who have signed the sheet at the meeting and those who signed the petition will be notified. Mr. Kondrick thanked all for coming to the meeting. All are welcome to come back to the September meeting to re-discuss the issue. � Mr. Barna stated that the related variance for this property is scheduled for the Appeals Commission on August 22. This item would be tabled at that meeting. �"' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 22 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to re-open the public hearing. UPOPT A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:30 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, #89-11, until review by the City Attorney and for further discussion on September 13, 1989. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIATG AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:33 P.M. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,�,, Ms. Dacy stated staff prepared a potential outline for the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Analyzing what is in the Comprehensive Plan now, essentially outside of the goals and objectives, there are three to four pages left. The recommendations are summarized on page 3A of the agenda. There are issues that are larger in scope and issues for 90's, which will be expanded and could be discussed in the overview section. When staff is done with the plan, staff will re-write the Overview section. The intent was to get comments on the outline for the Land Use chapter if there is anything the Commission wants to see done in this chapter. Mr. Barna asked if staff intended to make up a large map which gave a listing of major parks, major businesses, and more or less gave the utilization for the entire city and a zoning map designating zoning areas. Ms. Dacy stated staff would be doing the land use plan through the land use process once staff gets a confirmation as to what land uses should be where. Staff will identify any inconsistencies between the land uses on the land use map and zoning map. Then, as staff proceeded, rezoning would occur to make both maps consistent. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the outline on 3b and 3c were the same as the present land use plan. �'"'� Ms. Dacy stated this was completely different. The existing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 23 � Comprehensive Plan stated what the existing land use inventory was, it had a map identifying major commercial centers, had an existing land use map, and a few pages on goals and objectives. Under II, the Existing Land Use Inventory was being significantly expanded. The City would be talking about apartment densities, townhouse densities which would help in making future decisions. Mr. Dahlberg requested a change in wording under II. D. to read "Public/Semi-Public". Mr. Barna asked, regarding II. H. Inventory Blighted Areas, how would staff determine what is a"blighted" area? Ms. Dacy stated staff will use the State's definition of substandard. Mr. Dahlberg suggested having definitions incorporated into the introductory statements. Mr. Dahlberg requested additional information about VI. Visual and Aesthetic Policies. Ms. McPherson stated the City Attorney has recommended the City adopt the Urban Design Standards. � Mr. Saba thought Fridley already had these. Ms. Dacy stated the standards were being re-done. Mr. Dahlberg asked if what was done was not adopted. Ms. McPherson stated the only standards were those that had been generated by the City Manager's office. There are some problems with the language and procedural questions so they were being reviewed. Mr. Dahlberg thought the standards seemed excessive. Design standards can be defined and incorporated without being excessive. The City can run into difficulty if the standards are too specific. Ms. Dacy stated these design standards would be for commercial and industrial zones, and the City is looking at an ordinance in order to enforce these standards. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to accept the Larnd Use Chapter as outlined with the changes in wording as noteda UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Mr. Dahlberg asked if the plan was on schedule. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 � PAGE 24 Ms. Dacy stated staff and the Planning Commission were pretty much on schedule. Through the end of the year staff will be presenting outlines identifying what needs to be changed. The first draft is expected to be printed at the first of the year. 4. CONSIDERATIOIJ OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHURCHES IN CONIl�lERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Ms. Dacy state both commercial and industrial districts are being looked at in consideration of this ordinance. In looking at the existing churches, staff found that St. Williams is located in a commercial zone. Staff came up with the recommendation for a commercial district that a free standing church could be allowed. If it was part of a multi-tenant building, staff would consider a special use permit with several standards attached and included in the ordinance. Mr. Barna stated the Code presently allowed in an M-1 district a certain area for recreational facilities for support of the M-1 use of that particular property. By that definition, how can staff say that a church would not be included. What is a church? Ms. Dacy stated that staff had to go by the definition in the ordinance. What staff told Steiner Development was that if the �. word assembly was included in the M-1 language staff may have had an interpretation issue. Mr. Barna stated that a church could be considered a service. Ms. Dacy stated that a church did not fit into the code definition of service. There was no room for any interpretation for a church. Mr. Saba indicated that the definition of a service has changed over the years. Mr. Barna stated that any business that did not produce a product was a service. Ms. Dacy indicated that in some cases the interpretation may be taken that these are office uses. If the office uses are in an M-1 area; they are related to the facility, and typically these uses are not in commercial zones also. Mr. Barna stated that, if the Planning Commission opens up the ordinance, all sorts of things could come up. Ms. Dacy stated that, if the Planning Commission looked at the lis� of standards and most have standards, one could be trying to �aY_e something work that should not be. ��"`� Mr. Barna felt churches could be allowed in commercial districts. but he was not in favor of altering the M-1 and M-2 to allow uses �.�.< PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, �UGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 25 over and above what is out there. Mr. Dahlberg felt that, if this was allowed, there would be so many restrictions and stipulations, that it may not make any sense. In terms of location, hours of operation, not being able to do certain things on the premises at certain times, if there was a way you could cover every situation or occurrence, then it may be acceptable, but does it make sense to have those stipulations. Mr. Kondrick agreed. Ms. Dacy stated there are some of the opinion that there are not enough negatives to not allow an ordinance amendment. Mr. Dahlberg stated that John Uban is a cons�ltant who wor➢cs for communities. Does his recommendation reflect only his clients� wishes. Ms . Sherek stated there didn' �C seem to be a lot of strony arguments against this particular church. But in other circumstances, it could be much different. What the Planning Commission could see is what the Planning Commission saw tonight. There are enough other places for churches to go. If the purpose of an industrial zone is to locate together so roads, etc. are together, the City �.� shouldn't take another use and put it there because there is room. Mr. Saba agreed. Once the City starts allowing other uses in industrial zones, the City takes it away from industry. Mr. Dahlberg stated, that by the same token, you take it away from other districts. Mr. Saba stated people are really upset with the amount of indust�y there is in the City and the City is lucky to have it zoned and located as it is. There are different levels for indus�rg. Commercial is less objectionable. Mr. Dahlberg stated that commercial is higher traffic at different hours and is not as predictable as industry. He felt it didn�t make sense to have churches in commercial areas. It didn'� make sense to put churches in resialential districts. He thought it made more sense to put them in industrial rather than comme�rc�.a.... Ms. Sherek felt the character was more similar to comi,�.ercialo Ms. Dacy stated the only similarity staff came up w:..th was the assembly. What was the difference between that and a churr.h? A church could have a daily service. Are we hurting ava3�.able lancl, the tax base, and industrial growth. The City cou�d sa� there are hazards in industrial areas. �� Mr. Dahlberg suggested creating a new district. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAG� 26 � Ms. Dacy suggested an institutional district. Mr. Barna stated an industrial district could •�hen be restricted to only manufacturing. Ms. Sherek stated that is what our industrial area was originally meant to be. Our society is moving away from industrial. Mr. Saba stated that heavy manufacturing is moving out of this country. Services and light industrial is what is now being done in this country. Ms. Dacy asked where would institutional distric�a be� Yocated, at the edge of neighborhoods. The City may als� jt�st come full circle. Ms. Sherek stated that the kind of churches we a�a seeing are not the "main line" community churches. These new churches want a existing facility for small congregatio�s. Ms. Dacy requested a motion, if the Planning Conimission agrees or disagrees. Staff would then take the amendment bac;c to th� City Council, discuss it and see if they want a pub�.�c hearinge � Mr. Barna requested this be tabled until the comprehensive �lan is ` more complete so it can be included in the plan. Mr. Dahlberg agreed since this is not an issu� rigi�t ;��r�o Ms. Dacy stated there was no pressing neEd z�t this tia�e. Staff will try to follow up and get direction. Mr. Saba stated he did noit want to drop a� mu�h as gostpone as part of the comprehensive plan. MOTION by Mr. Barna, se�onded '�y Ms. She��k, to delay action on this until it can be included in the Compr:Y;ensive P�an. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIYG AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERS�N KONDRICIt DECLARED THE MOTIOIJ CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Saba left the meeting at 1Os25 p.m.j 5. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDIIJAN�'� �IENDMENT REDTJCIAT�u �+'FgE RF;��JIRED REAR YARD SETBACK ON CORT ; LOTS FRON: 25 k�E�T T� Y� F�ET Ms. McPherson stated this is in response t� s�veral rear yard variances within three months . The reasora staf f? s proper� ing this is that often times when looking at a survey o� existing hauses, �. there will be three or four interpretations on whicTn is �he sid�, � front and rear yard. It makes determ�nation of the rear yard ,� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 27 difficult if not impossible. Staff looked at other cities (chart on 5B) and the only language would be an addition to the rear yard definition in R-1 which states on 3A there is to be an addition that the rear yard on corner lot would be 10 feet. Ms. Dacy stated that language would be added that, on a corner lot, a rear yard will be 10 feet. A definition of a corner lot is in the definitions. Mr. Barna stated the zoning definition is confusing. Ms. Dacy stated that what would happen in the case where a house is situated with the front on the long side of the lot, the long side becomes the front and the opposite the rear. There is still a definition needed to define the front. It comes down to two front and two sides. Ms. McPherson stated the setbacks between living structures would be 20 feet. There could be a living space 10 feet from the property line and an attached accessory structure 5 feet from the lot line. There is the issue of detached accessory buildings which is 3 feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Dahlberg asked if 2 detached buildings could be within 6 feet of each other? Ms. McPherson stated yes. Ms. Dacy stated the other option is why change it. Staff could keep the language as is and continue to handle it through variances. Mr. Dahlberg asked if a person could state the front yard or does this cause difficulty. Ms. McPherson stated it did. There was one variance where both corner sides had a 35 foot setback. There was also a variance request for a garage and there were 3-5 interpretations that staff could determine through the address file. That can be a problem. If a house is fronting the long side, the code states the short side is the front. Mr. Dahlberg stated that sometimes the maximum is reached and nothing more can be done. Why did the City have to bend? Why couldn't the City just say we don't think you need it? Mr. Barna stated the code cannot cover everything. Codes are general. Ms. Dacy felt the issue is whether the ordinance was frivolous or �� was there a need. Staff was of the opinion that it was worth while to pursue. The City could continue to process variances and look � PL�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 28 at it on a case by case basis. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there was a way to change the language so that there still are front and side yards on a corner lot and make it easy to determine even though the house orientation may be inappropriate. Ms. Dacy stated the rear yard setback is which is the side yard dimension. Both streets are front yards and both interiors are side yards. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to concur with the Appeals Commission action for front and rear setback requirements on corner lots. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KOATDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 10, 1989 This item was tabled for the next meeting. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS CONIlKISSION MEETING OF JULY r--.� 18 , 1989 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the July 18, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UATANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1989 MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the August 1, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9 . OTHER BUSIATESS : Senior Housing Memorandum Central Avenue Corridor Memorandum Ms. Dacy stated these were information items and referred to the respective memorandums included with the agenda. �'", ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 29 � meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE AUGUST 16, 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �a� � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � �� r�°1 r"� B I a N- IN 8 H 8 E T PLANNING COZII�lI88ION MEETING, C� �� �T 1�� %�. Z