The URL can be used to link to this page

AF-V - 45526_ � � �.� � ;, - file after_several months of � �� , +�w� ,y; + �;�� ,,�'!' , ,,�► r� �Rn±e�'�+'r,.�r�. ..�. 1i$1""Y,#1`# 1! �� x '�[C � 4.. "'��` �. x �, �, ��_ �t,, } �. � �B<.: � . ,� a.,� t �., M�= ` � . � s � � � ; �5 � ; a r � .� , , --' � *� , . . �. � . _ • . ' : t . � ' �a . , � -' _ � � : , �.. �� : . � � . � - -� �� .- , , -„ . .' , � . . � . � � ;a� � "'. °�i.. 4. :�,� " .. �:.� , . �'� �i } @ �. . , �. 5 Z . � . � . S } �+� W � § � � � . h +�2r �'i YJ'�Jffi' .. ,3k... ''\.. ,� ... , _ ''.. , .- .., ' "_ ;-., -.,' ' .� _, . e, . , :. . ..: Yt'• t^ � � .. ';� . . . a�� . \Y, { � a yy� l �' ,4, Y� "ffi _ '�' _ { � �#'Y2` �n'�'�, r..;, � t � � , fi � :'` . F's„ � �F �� * � �� ° �.�,xG*��'i' %hy `.�+'n .,� � X r .� �a �� , � ` . �- ~ . . fi y ,4 ` �~� �y �' ' fr,��_', - _ ,' � �.. . . . . . � . � . . ... . � . a.. � . : : . � . ' .�. . _ r . ..' � , . . . �. .. _' a �F'� i `'"`.�-�. " � i .'8 . �. . , x � ., .t . _ . . ; . ,'� , ��, .' ^ , � ' ; } ,: . ' .- , . � ' ...: > 1 > - - . ,� y , �:� .;..� . . .'. ' ' kP �� '. �. . �' . _4 _ � . • � rt� • '� 5 � � � � � -�,.< < �n . �r... .� .. . . � :.� _ . v ., . � � .. . rn .� � . ., . .. " ° , -"'• _ � _ . --: . . :'. _ ,.� ..... . j � .. �� . .. Y '.' - �. :� _' ,. ' y. .. . �. �, . . . : ;.. . _. .. . ,�_ : . ._. :4 . ,� i.� i � . _ } �� :`'�.�: ` �� {� , �• ��s ti, . r - - {; � . _ p . � ,: l �?' ,� aC Q * . ��:. k .,p, � � .r,h . _ , . �� } � � � � f � - . '�� t � � . . � . � . . " � _ �r . ` ' . _ ,... �.... . ._.,. � � '- � �� .� '� . . . .., . , : .. � , .:. -� � ..:� . : � .� ,:.� .,� �:.: .� � _, �,X ' :' , ...: � �. ' �, . . .�, . :� F# 3.�. •, �f d� � j � ti�,�a� z ' '- , -. .. ,. : �r � ,': �, ,,; � . � ;. . �F � � � � � � � � � �w.., �-. sr . � - x {;: "��.X « ds. �`` k " . . . �rs.a.0 .. .. < _ " � � � � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE September 19 , 19 89 CITY OF PLAI�IVING COMNBSSI�V DATE FRIDLEY CITY COUN(�L DATE �� 2, 1989 ,�,,�, G REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION 1201 xathaway Lane SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONWG ADJACENT LAND USES 8� ZONaVG UTL.fTfS PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FUVANCIAL MAPUCAT�NS CONFORMANCE TO C011A�NE PLAN COMPAT�ILITI( WITH ADJACENT IJ�ES 8� ZONIVG EIV�/IRONMENTAL COI�IDERATiONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLAPINING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION VAR #89-17 Father John Magramm To reduce.the reguired lot area from 15,000 sq. ft. to 9,67 To reduce the required side yard setbac]c from 15 ft. to 10 To reduce the required side ya:�d setback where a driveway is to 1� provided from 30 ft, to 20 ft. N/A N/A R-1, Si.ngle Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling, on all sides On site N/A N/A No No Potential fo� increased traffic Denial Denial sq.ft a � � Staff Report VAR #89-17, Orthodox Church " Page 2 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMEPTT: ' \ Section 205.16.03.A requires a lot area of not less than 15,000 sq. ft. . Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of overcrowding of the neighborhood, to avoid an excess burden on the�existing water and sewer services, and to avoid reduction of surrounding property values. Section 205.16.03.D.(2) requires two side yards with a width of not less than 15 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide for adequate open areas, maintain alear access for fire fighting, and reduce the possibility of fire. Section 205.16.03.D.(2).(a) requires a side yard setback for a driveway in the side yard of 30 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide an opportunity to have a 5 foot hard surface setback from the building, which protects both buildings and cars from damage. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Proposing small use of existing single family residence for Monastic house chapel." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Request Father John Magramm, representative of the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ, is proposing to hold church services on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. Site The site is a single family residential lot with a detached two car garage and a lot area of approximately 9,600 square feet. The lot has rolling topography, and a grove of trees separates the site from the neighbors to the north. The petitioner is proposing to construct an 18 foot x 18 foot addition over an existing deck. The addition would be used as part of the worship area, including space for the altar. The proposed addition would also include a bell porch. The proposed addition would occur to the rear of the structure. � " /", ^� Staff Report VAR #89-17, Page 3 Orthodox Church Analysis The variance requests would allow the parcel to conform to the site requirements set forth in the CR-1 District which require that churches have a 15, 000 square foot lot and increased side yard setbacks. However, the lot was not platted to accommodate those requirements. It was platted as a single family home. The petitioner still has reasonable use of the property, such as a place where up to five unrelated persons can live together. The petitioner should have checked with the City prior to purchasing the parcel to see if it would conform to the City's regulations for use as a church. Staff surveyed other churches in the City of Fridley. With the exception of Michael Servetus Unitarian Church, all the churches are located at the edge of R-1, Single Family Dwelling, district near major intersections, and on local arterial and collector streets. Each of the churches exceeds the minimum requirements set forth in the CR-1 regulations (see attached chart). The location of the proposed church neighborhood on a local residential number of people attending the church it will be difficult to monitor over congregation grows. Use of the homE change the character of the home residence to a church. Recommendation is in the center of a street. Although the will be small in number, time, especially if the : as a church begins to from a single family Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission deny the request, VAR #89-17, based on the fact that the lot was not intended to be used as a church and should not be required to meet the CR-1 District regulations. As stated in the memo from Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, dated September 8, 1989, the petitioner can still use the property as a residence for up to five unrelated persons. The petitioner will still have certain basic rights, such as assembling for worship, Bible study, or prayer sessions. However, if the Commission votes to approve the request, the following stipulations should apply. 1. A three foot high hedge shall be planted or a four foot fence shall be constructed from the front of the house to the front property line along the west property line. ! ! 6 � � Staff Report VAR #89-17, Orthodox Church Page 4 2. A seven foot screening fence shall be constructed on the west property line from the front of the house to the north property line and also along the north property line. 3. The parking demand shall not exceed four parking spaces. 4. Variances shall be approved pending approval of the Special Use Permit request, SP #89-11. AAAeals Commission Action The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of all three variances requested by the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ. City Council Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the variance request, VAR #89-17. � �"� °� � � , C111 � FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CEtiTER • 63� 1 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (61'_ � 57 I- I:R7 September 28, 1989 Dear Homeowner: � This is to inform ycu that Father Magraam has asked the City Planning Commission to table the special use pezmit, SP �89-11, until further notice. Father Magraam is not withdrawing his variance request or his special use permit. These requests were originally to be considered by the City Council on October 23, 1989. You will be notified when the special use permit will be considered again by the Planning Commission and when the variance and the special use penait are to be considered by the City Council. Thank you for your interest in this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sin , rel , ,� �'�...` �.�� Barbara Dacy Planning Coordinator BD:ls C-89-627 � � GTYOF fRiDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: BIIBJECT: CO�M/IUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART'MENT MEMORANDUM September 21, 1989 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Variance Request, VAR #89-17, by Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of all three variances within the request, VAR #89-17, to the City Council. Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission's action and deny the variance request. NII+s :1 s M-89-574 �__J c . �� 0 pollutants. There is no har ship. Apparently, the Amoco station across the street does not h ve a variance for its sign. She is opposed to even one sign that would exceed the 80 sq. ft. allowed, and certainly would be oppos d to two of them. She would vote against the variance request. Mr. Kuechle stated he is in a eement. If they have not allowed other stations and businesse in similar situations to have variances, it would be very dif icult to approve it in this case. Dr. Vos stated he certainly did not see the need for two signs. Even one sign at 110 sq. ft. is a 40� increase over what is allowed which seems excessive. Since the e are "quick stop" stations along University Avenue and Highway 65 which seem to do quite well, he felt fairly confident Conoco coul compete in the market with an 80 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Barna stated the Amoco stati n on the northeast corner of Osborne/University is completely w'thin the sign code. The car wash and station at 73rd/Universi y Avenue was given no sign variance, and the SuperAmerica on st River Road/University was given no sign variance, so in this su rounding area, everyone seems to be doing alright with 80 sq. ft. onoco can always put signage on the building even though they do not want to. He stated he would also be opposed to any variance in increasing the allowable square footage for signage. MoTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. K echle, to recommend to City Council denial of variance request, V #89-24, by Conoco, Inc., pursuant to Section 214.11.02.(b) of the Fridley City Code to increase the total square footage of sig age from 80 sq. ft. to 220 sq. ft. (2 pri.ce signs at 110 sq. ft. ach) , on Lot 1, Block 1, Commerce Park, the same being 7600 Unive sity Avenue N.E. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. SANDBLASTING SERVICE. INC.: BARNA DECLARED THE 1. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.A o the Fridley City Code to reduce the required lot area om 65,340 sq. ft. to 14,768 sq. ft.; 2. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.B of to reduce the required lot width feet; 3. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.D.(2) Code to reduce the required side � feet to 5 feet; Fridley City Coc�e 150 feet to 104 f the Fridley City �d setback from 20 �' � - a, _ 4. Pursuant to Section 205.1 .05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the pa ing and hard surface setback from 20 feet to 0 feet; To allow the new construction of a sandblasting business on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Onaway A ition, the same being 7738 Elm Street N.E. Ms. Dacy stated this variance reque t was withdrawn by the petitioner prior to the meeting. Mr. Barna declared a 10 minute recess at :30 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST. VAR #89-17. BY ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST: 1. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.A of the Fridley City Code to reduce the minimum required lot area from 15,000 sq. ft. to 9,675 sq. ft.; 2. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.D.(2) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet; 3. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback with a driveway from 30 feet to 20 feet, To allow the existence of a church in a single family residential district, on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BARNA DECLARED T8E PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:41 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner, Father John Magramm, is requesting three variances in order to allow a church to exist at 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, but the Zoning Code requirements are from the CR-1, Office District requirements. In the R-1, Single Family Dwelling District regulations, it states that in order to allow a church to exist in an R-1 zoning district, certain criteria must be met by the church. Those criteria include: 15,000 sq. ft. lot area; 30 ft. side yard setback where a driveway exists; 15 ft. side yard setback where there is no driveway. These criteria allow for adequate space for parking, green area, separation of building from other adjacent structures, and access for emergency vehicles. � ,'�`� ;''� APPEALS C01�3ISSION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 19. 1989 - 8AG$ 15 Ms. McPherson stated Lot 3 of Block 1 was originally platted as a single family dwelling at a little over 9,000 sq. ft. Currently, the petitioner is using the structure as a single family dwelling for the sisters of the church. The petitioner has filed for a special use permit and the variances to allow the existence of the church so that the church can conform to the Zoning Code and hold religious services, Bible Study, prayer services, etc. Due to the fact that this lot was not intended to be used for a church structure, staff is recommending denial of'all three variances; however, staff has been advised by the City Attorney, Virgil Herrick, that the petitioner still has the right to have up to five unrelated persons living in the home (which is allowed in an R-1 district) and the petitioner can still have religious services, Bible study, and prayer services in the home. Mr. Herrick is at the meeting to answer any questions the Commission members, petitioner, or people in the audience might have. Dr. Vos asked about off-street parking. Ms. McPherson stated the church has to conform with all the standards set forth in the CR-1 zoning district, which also includes off-street parking requirements. The church must provide one parking space for every three seats of the church. Currently, the lot with the driveway can park four cars off street. That does not include the two garage spaces. As part of the special use permit, the petitioner has stated that up to 12 people would be attending the church. That is how the four parking spaces were calculated. However, as stated in the staff report, if the Commission chooses to approve the variances, staff is recommending four stipulations: 1. A three foot high hedge shall be planted or a four foot fence shall be constructed from the front of the house to the front property line along the west property line. 2. A seven foot screening fence shall be constructed on the west property line from the front of the house to the north property line and also along the north property line. 3. The parking demand shall not exceed four parking spaces. 4. Variances shall be approved pending approval of the Special Use Permit request, SP #89-11. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing additions to the rear of the structure and an addition to the front foyer of the building. These additions have no affect on these variances, but the Commission should be aware that these are potential future plans by the petitioner. � �"� APPEALS COI+IIrlISSION MEETING. BEPTEMHER 19. 1989 PAGE 16 Ms. Dacy stated that if the Commission is going to pursue recommending approval of these variances, she would prefer that the Commission recognize that the petitioner is intending to expand the structure, and that the Commission's motion to recommend approval also include authorization for the expansion. Mr. Barna stated that if the Commission recommends to approve the side yard variance from 15 ft. to 10 ft., then they would be talking about the total length of the existing structure including the proposed chapel addition. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. This is to make the record clear so there is no question if the petitioner does add on in the future. Mr. Barna stated that in Mr. Herrick's memo dated September 8, 1989, to the Planning Coaunission and Appeals Commission, was it Mr. Herrick's understanding that the request for variances to conform to the CR-1 zoning would not be necessary to use this structure as a church in R-1 zoning? Mr. Herrick stated that is essentially correct. In his memo he indicated there were three areas to be considered by the Planning Commission and Appeals Commission: 1. Should a variance be granted to the applicant? 2. Should a special use permit be granted? Mr. Herrick stated it is his opinion that if the variances are not granted, then the issue of the special use permit is answered because a special use permit cannot be issued without variances. 3. Assuming that the variance and special use permit are not granted, what activities can the applicant conduct on the subject property? Mr. Herrick stated it is his opinion that the church can continue to function the way it has in the past, unless the number of people who attend the church or visit ttne home becomes a serious public problem. Everyone has a lot of protected freedoms--freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc., and he did not feel, based on codes or statutes or the Constitution, that the present use was something the City can or should prevent. The question for the Appeals Commission to address in their decision on whether or not the variances should be granted is whether the home should be designated as a church. It is a question the Planning Commission should address regarding the special use permit request. However, if neither the variances or the special use permit are granted, in his opinion, the owner of the property still has the right to have five unrelated adults living on the property as per the R-1 regulations and the right to have meeetings, whether V �\ �. APPEALB COMMISSION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 19. 1989 - PAGE 17 political, religious, etc.,, as long as that activity is not unreasonably burdensome on the neighborhood. Mr. Herrick stated another consideration should be given to whether granting the variances would establish a precedent the City might or might not want to have if other similar requests are made in other parts of the City. Father John Magraam stated he felt the question is varied. The law should be flexible. If their church is on a very small scale, it should be recognized as a church and not have to answer to a church that is on a large scale. He felt openness, truth, responsibility, and principle are very important here. They want to do everything with the knowledge of the City and the neighbors. They are asking for acceptance and recognition from the City and the neighborhood. With this recognition comes a responsibility to the neighborhood. They are a religious�institution, and they are functioning as a church, but not on a large scale. As a religious institution, they are asking to be governed by the law and categorized for what they are. They are willing to accept limitations and stipulations accordingly as a church. Father Magramm stated it is difficult to address any specific hardships. He did not know what the legal implications will be for the future as far as what limitations they would have if the house is maintained as a residential house rather than categorizing this as a church. Their Corporation is a perpetual corporation, and they do not plan to abandon or sell the property. They have had the property for a number of years and plan to keep the structure functioning as it is now. Mr. Barna stated when variances are granted, they qo with the property and are forever. Could a stipulation be put on the variance that the variances could only be in effect as long as the special use permit was in effect, and the special use permit would be in effect as long as this corporation has control of this property? Mr. Herrick stated that could be done. Mr. Kuechle stated, however, that the variances would not be needed if the property remains R-1, Single Family Dwelling. Mr. Herrick stated that is also correct. Mr. Kuechle asked what Father Magraam's major objection is to allowing the property to remain residential, since they could still function as a church. Father Magramm stated it is a matter of principle that if they are functioning as a church, they be categorized as a church. He did not know what the future implications might be if they are not L9 �, � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 19. 1989 - PAGE 18 categorized as a church. They are more than residential, and they are asking for that recognition in�the City. Ms. Cherle Pedersen, 1030 Iiathaway Lane, stated they have traffic problems in this particular area. Where Regis Drive meets Hathaway Lane, there is a steep hill and a sharp corner, and it is sometimes difficult to turn the corner. Her objection would be having cars parked on the street, which would increase the traffic problem at that corner and on Hathaway Lane. Ms. Pedersen stated that when they first went before the Planning Commission, Father Magraam said they wanted this house designated as a monastic home. When he moved in, Father Magraam said he moved in because it was such a nice, quiet, residential area. She stated it is, but he wants to change that by having a church. It is changing the structure of the neighborhood from R-1, residential, to CR-1, church. The�e is not enough room for a church. There is no room for parking on the street. Churches do grow, and with growth comes people and cars. Mr. Herrick stated he had also stated in his September 8, 1989, memo that the proposed construction could be done, whether or not the variances or special use permit are granted, including a cross or other symbol. Ms. Pedersen stated many more people would have been at the meeting, but they had a school meeting to attend. She stated about 45 people have signed a petition stating they do not want this residence designated as a church. Father MaGraam wants the neighbors to be happy, and the neighbors are not happy, and the Appeals Commission should take that into consideration. People accept big churches on big pieces of property, but people do not accept a small church on a 75 ft. wide lot. Mr. Robert Otto, 5577 Regis Trail, stated a church has to start out small, but the petitioner already has plans for an addition and an ornate front. He agreed with the increased traffic. In the wintertime, it is often slippery coming down the hill on Regis Drive directly toward the petitioner's property. He did not like the idea of cars parking on the street, and he was sure there will be parking on the street, in addition to cars in the driveway. Mr. Herrick stated that regarding on-street parking, anyone can park on the street, whether it is people from a church, other homeowners, guests, etc. Either parking is permitted on the street for everyone, or it is prohibited for everyone. Councilmember Nancy Jorgenson stated she lives on Polk Street. She stated she would like to address the variance request. She stated they are looking at a considerable variance to the CR-1 regulations from 15,000 sq. ft. to 9,675 sq. ft. That is a reduction of one- a ! 1 !� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. BEPTEMBER 19. 1989 - PAGE 19 third, and the Commission should be very conscious of the precedent that might be set with this variance, if it was approved. Councilmember Jorgenson stated that a"stop" sign will soon be installed at Regis Drive/Hathaway Lane to replace the existing "yield" sign. This will help alleviate some of the traffic concerns expressed by the neighborhood at this intersection. Mr. Jim Bagaason, 1191 Hathaway Lane, stated he lives next door to the west of the petitioner's property. His two concerns are: (1) changing the structure of the home; (2) property values of homes in the area. Who is going to want to buy a piece of property that looks like a church? Mr. Herrick stated he did not know of any authority that says a owner of a single family home cannot put a cross or door on the front of a house to make it look like a church. Mrs. Bagaason stated they bought their home because they wanted to be in a residential neighborhood. They liked the quiet and the privacy. Now they have a church right next door. They are looking at an increase in traffic and a very small lot with an extremely steep driveway. The point she is trying to make is that all of a sudden the residential character is gone and now they have a commercial character in the neighborhood. Mrs. Bagaason stated the proposed addition for the sanctuary will be looking right into their back yard, so their privacy will be gone unless they go to the expense of putting up a privacy fence. Mr. Barna reminded the audience of the two stipulations recommended by staff regarding screening if the Commission recommends approval of the variances: 1. A three foot hedge shall be planted or a four foot fence shall be constructed from the front of the house to the front property line along the west property line. 2. A seven foot screening fence shall be constructed on the west property line from the front of the house to the north property line and also along the north property line. Ms. Alice Abel, 1050 Hathaway Lane, stated there is a water line that runs right under the garage. Has this been taken into consideration regarding the possible future expansion plans? Ms. Dacy stated that point was raised at a Planning Commission meeting, and it has been discussed with the Engineering staff. The line does run under the garage, but if an addition was constructed onto the house, it would be far enough away that it would not affect the safety of that water line. Of course, if the City ever � n APPEALB COMMI88ION MEETINd, BEPTEMBER 19. 1989 - PAGE 20 has to maintain that water line, the garage would have to be removed. Mr. Joe Sallese, 1181 Hathaway Lane, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 17 years. It has been a nice ar►d quiet neighborhood. He cannot understand why Father Magraam insists on making a church on this small lot. Why do they want to change this residential area? There are so many other places for a church. Father Magraam stated they do not want to change the residential character of the neighborhood. They are interested in maintaining the safety of the neighborhood. They do not have cars parked on the street. They are concerned about everything that concerns the neighbors. They just want the same rights and opportunities as anyone else in the neighborhood. They are asking to be allowed to have a church on a small scale. If they are allowed that privilege, the neighbors will see that they will not do anything detrimental to the property values or the street. MoTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:40 P.M. Ms. Savage stated a church in a residential neighborhood can pose some problems. She personally would not like to live next to a church. That is one of the reasons for the CR-1 zoning regulations for a church in an R-1 district. They have three variances that are being mandated by the CR-1 zoning regulations, and any other considerations such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc., should be set aside for now. She stated these variances are extreme, and there appears to be no stated hardship. If they are to follow their duty as Commissioners, they must deny all three variances. She would vote to recommend denial of all three variances. Mr. Ruechle stated he agreed. The reduction from 15,000 sq. ft. to 9,675 sq. ft. concerned him the most, and he would vote to recommend denial of all three variances. Dr. Vos stated that either way the Commission votes is not going to make a lot of difference. He stated there is a reason for a certain kind of separation between neighbors and a church in an R- 1 district. One of those conditions is 15,000 sq. ft. which is to allow for an adequate separation.from the neighbors. This lot does not do that. It is a normal sized, single family dwelling lot. The second condition is a side yard setback from 15 ft. to 10 ft. which is also for adequate separation from the neighbor. The last condition is also separation from the neighbor. A church is allowed in R-1 with a special use permit, but as soon as that special use is requested, there are certain conditions that have � . � /"`�, i'� APPEALB COMMISSION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 19. 1989 - PAGiE 21 to be met, and this variance request does not meet those conditions. One thing that bothered him, however, is that the Commission really has to decide whether this is a church or not. If they do approve these variances, they are setting a variance saying it is alright to have a church on a small lot. Mr. Barna stated Father John Magraam or anyone can hold religous services in their home. There is no need to designate a home as a church to hold religious services. He is concerned with reducing the size of the lot area and side yard setback requirements. He would vote against the variances also. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council denial of variance request, VAR #89-17, by the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ: 1. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.A of the Fridley City Code to reduce the minimum required lot area from 15,000 sq. ft. to 9,675 sq. ft.; 2. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.D.(2) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet; � 3. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback with a driveway from 30 feet to 20 feet, To allow the existence of a church in a single family residential district, on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated the special use permit and variances will go to City Council on October 23, 1989. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, meeting. IIpon a voice declared the Beptember adjourned at io:so p.m. Respectfully submitted, � �L L nn Saba . Recording Secretary seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the vote, all votinq aye, Chairpersoa Baraa 19, 1989, Appeals Commission meetinq � PQBLIC HEARINa BEFORE THE APPEALB CO1rII�IBBION P'� Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Tuesday, September 19, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a variance request, VAR #89- 17, by Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ: 1. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.A of the Fridley City Code to reduce the minimum required lot area from 15,000 sq. ft. to 9,675 sq. ft.; 2. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.D.(2) of the Fridley City Cade to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet; 3. Pursuant to Section 205.16.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback with a driveway from 30 feet to 20 feet, To allow the existence of a church in a single family residential district, on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane, Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the above stated time and place. ALEX BARNA CHAIRPERSON APPEALS COMMISSION Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. _ - - ' � �'`�failinq Date: 9/8/39 MAII.IlVG LIST FOR VAR # 89-17 � Orthalox Church of the Resurrection of Christ 1201 Ha.thaway Lan.e N.E. City Cat�cil Me�nbers Ci-tY Nlanager Alex Barna, Chairpersan Appeals Canmissi:on 560 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, NN Rflger �gstran 5724 Matterhorn Drive N.E. Fridley, 1�+N' 55432 Orthodox Church of t�.e La�rtrenae H�fille R�surrection of Cf�rist, Inc 5712 Ma.tterhorn Drive N.E, 6Q1 - 13tTi Avenue S�.E. �ia7.ey, l�T 55432 MinneapoLis, NN 55414 Orthodox Ciinrch of the Dona,ld Bri�n.er Resurrection of C�irist, Inc 57Q0" 1�latterTiorn Drive N.E. 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, l�T �55432 Fridley, NN 55432 Orthodox QZUx'ch of the �tephen Eggext Resurrection of C�rist, Inc 10�Q �,��,� �,e N.E. Pe O. B� 1460 7 Fridley-, 1�T 55432 Minneapolis, NN 55414 John Evexs 5801 '1'ermison Drive N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Shelley Garber 58QO Tennison Driv� N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Cyeorge �r1oj ack. 1064 Hac�Qnanri Circle N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Carol Eppel �J %21 �CJ1S DY1.�.! Z'1 s E. Fridley, NN �5432 Mi.chael 1�Telsh 12Q2� l�ath�aay Lan.e N.E. Fridley, NY�I 55432 Phillip Venn�.tz 1232 Hathaway Iane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Giuseppe Sallese 1181 Hathaway Iane N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Jaires Bagaasari 1191 Hathaway Lane N.E. �'ridley, NN 55432 Ja�nes Iacon.o 1217 Hathawa� Lane N.E. �'ridley, 1►'.�T 55432 Doyle Mullin 1233 Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Roger Sonstegard 1249 Hathaway Iane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 F.arl Niewald 1180 Hatha�ray Lane N.E. �'ridley, NN 55432 1Michael Odegaard 5740 Regis Drive N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Da.vid Toe�as D�aine 0`verby Douglas Strong 1056 HacTanann Ci.x'cle N.E. �48 �,��r �,e N.E. 5720 Regis Drive N.E. Fridley, N�1 55432 Fridley, 1�T 55432 Fridley, NN 55432 K� I�ee 1091 Hathaway Iane Td. E. Fridley, 1�N 55432 r - - N�aiLing i�.st VAR #89-17 Orthadox C�.urdz Page 2 C.hris Anderson 107Q Hathautay- Larie N. E. Fridley, NN 55432 David Nlatlock 1Q 8Q Hatha�ray Lane N. E. Fridley�, N.�T 55432 Connie and Terry Reyes 106Q Hatha�ray Iane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 I�inda. I�:e 1091 Ha.tha�ay- Lane N.E. F'ridley, NN 55432 Jane Nienaber 1081 Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 Donna [nTelsh 1202 Hath�vay Lane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Lee Sallere. 1181 Hat�awaX Iane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 � Carol Hansen 1051 Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley,NN 55432 Nor.man and Alice Abel 1Q50 Ha.thaway Lane N.E. Fridley,l�T 55432 JoYui Geiger 1061 T3a�X I,ane N. E. Fridle�,r, N�T 55432 Cf�aa:les �edexsen 1Q30 Ii�,tha�ntay� Iane N.E. Fridley=, NN 554�2 . Resident 1Q10 Hatha��` Lane N,E. F'ridle�, N.�T 55432 '��na.s Reed �90 Hatl�.a�nray- Lane N,E, �'ridley=, N�T 55432 Cerald and �ettX Hults 980 Hath�ay Lane N.E. �'ridley, M�T 55432 Jean StinSOn �7Q HatYia�ra,� Lane NeF+s Fridley, NN 5�5432 �'1 J�nes and Coletta Legart 5701 Regis Drive N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 Tniarren and Janioe Nolt 1181 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 HarrY �k 56�0 Regis Drive N.E. Fridley, 1�A�T 55432 Steve Torgrimson 5651 Regis Driv� N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 John Ward 5691 Regis Drive ?�t.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Jaanes & Beverly Wolfe 1265 Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 Nea.l Thompson :'_ 1264 Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 Laura.e Wol�'e 960 tiatnaway Lane N,E. Fric3ley, N�T 55432 Dale and Ellen Farber �e and Tt1en �eterson 1041 I3atfi�aay Iane N.E. �' Ozvi.11e & Jeanni.ne Sachs Fridley, NN 5,5432 1Q21 Hat�'iaway-Lane N.E. 1281 Hathaway Iane N.E. �`ridley, N�T 55432 Fridley, N�T 55432 ` } / \ / � Mailing List VAR #89-17 Orthock�x Church. Page 3 Karen Allard 615 - 54th Avenue N.E. F`ridley, NN 55432 Helen Steinke. 1071 Fiathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, N.�T �5432 Janioe Driggins 128Q Hathaway Lane N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 e COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW � �� FlLE DATE NEETqMG DATE FILE DESCRIPTION �#89-1� 1201 Hathaway C�NOF 39 8-22-89 Orthodox Church - lot area and side : FRIDLEY COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND RETURN TO PLANNING DEPT. ❑ BARB D. 1�►''�1 . . COMMENTS M. d }.� �' °1°° ? r � i ��'�' , JOHN �. �� ` DARREL C. M. , �� M. � -;� H. 8-i s ❑ BOB A. � �/� 1 , i , , , � �, , i , � ,: � � / � / �� i� (�` � s r M�� `�ua�� 1� � ��,�, •�,�..� %'wd . � �,;� � o�� +3� R� ��i� 1.�� I� l�te��. °�� s� "� o� �avus� � � 'R i3� �a�� -i- �r� �a�l�� p R� ��,��c a+�.� � uti� �� M�RT o� 3AS�c w�� l� iJ�� "r'��% 'i � �► ��e i� �� i�� 1� iZrE a��+i� � CITY OF FRIDLEV �Q4S1 t�ilYER61TY AYE.� PRtDLEY, �1 66432 (612) b77-3460 PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS VARIAN(� : REQUEST FORM vaxiaxcE � � �g `� _ VARIANCE FE 1�� RECEIPT ��_ SCHEDULED 6PPEALS MEETING DATE J,� �� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ` LOT � BLOCB �_ TRACT/ADDITION � � � PRESENT ZONING �� VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property showing building, variance(s), where applicable. 1 � /A�A� _ f�! ��. �`�� -��{&� � J, I� ��/, .`.�.�� Section of the Code: �°�' '/1� o �J ..>Tr 1.�'� C.�sJ List specific hardship(s) which require the varianee(s): � � ��, S' °�-�� f r'» � f' Ifl . a L 1 --_ �, @! 'rif��#isffffffif�fifffi��ffffiff�fi�if�ffflfifffif�fffffiififfflf�fffif��lN VF�E OWNER INFORMATION NAME lPlease print) ��'�tt�f�A' ��1� a�� .�i99'�'��'�9?�iPHONE �� '��' ADDRESS ��• � � SIGNATURE �� -° QATE �/� `� fl�i�ii�f•fif! •i��i�'if�tffifff�fi��if��fi�if�f�ffi�ffif��flfiff PETITtONER INFORMATION NAME (please print) _ _________ — _ PHONE ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE •fflifffiiflffiffffffffffiffffffifffiifffffflffffifffifffffififffffifffiiffffiiif! APPEAI.S COA4iISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE CITY COUNCIL: APPa09ED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: � : s �� : M �' �_�. _ � � :� - �� « .�` �� .�� ,�� . � �� 1 r�e�.�4 h',t-`y� �'P'a d�� ' .,'� ... . �.5 :.. ' ' � - �� . � � . . : » , .. .; '.., ." , i .,� . �. � ..� . „ :. , a �. .� ��x. ��`.� �. �:� � � , ,� _ � � ��.,,�. °�� , ��a'�� '= �� . ..� ._ � ,� � _�..�._,.� , �<a, � , ._ : . .�.�, , _...,,.� . . , _ � ' � � �• T�:.t.� +. #� � � � ' �` �' �.s ,��"�� ,�.1t>�� ;-� k��u ..t ��. ". � , x . � � � `� '��t�ti,�er �e�y ,�utkd�ersta�s tbat : w � . � 1 „; . 2 � �3 . . 3 �;��-�-� ��`4�� n, -, ,. , . ; ,...�, .. . . �, .� . �r ��ii�w�i�ia� 1" �ii�c� ��„ ` � � wit�� 2�40 � .. _ l.. ...--�,�: �t'.�t. .taa �i � - �o . � � ,. . , . � .. , � feet af said prop�erty. .. . 4� t.� ...� -:.. . ,. . .. . _. .•i'.i ".. . . _, . ... 'q, ... 'i 1 � T�i � agp�ication t ,b�..�igaed by �11 oxners of �he property, c��an � ''`� ; .. . . �w`' •- 1� i�ca�#.*'�!�'pe ,C�l. �_ ._,r. � � ��-u ' _ _ _ . 3,., : "��raial far subsi�s��-�-a v��#nce ��. : f'< _ - , ��j#��1.;�� I� at+d. �' rt at�'�o� b�►i�d�� s if 1%��b�le. , � �� `"i�`� � � � Y � 8 �PP - ��ee �ul'� �:su��tl cap i e�r� �� 1�� _� � 1 /�" �.. t: �.�� :�teduc t ion . . .. . . �w�:�..�el�aar�r. .�a�- �aa��'- �� x ' as�-�ia$ ��Satt��m� �'o�` ?:� Y. �': -, � ',aC�.ng,. et�e;t�tn tc��e sav�l �nd l�.�at�it�� of new p,l,a�t ��te�1a.al: . }. �:,�`�'�� , �._ �� r��t �y .. �ad_ coadai�t%a��'tti�# r�o=t � ; p � �� • i'��.e �.b � : = �' a p�, �tc� ret ��1 size capies and ' ,,. ; � � _ ti � � � �. �� A., - .:�. , . * Sca2e�i pr�li�inar `�€�a�' �#��ts�l�� " ` a� d�a�i�ta �.. 7i 8'r�###dztrB" g� plan ��t►�riiig .. „existiag aa,d pro�qed co�Lours, d�tention/retentian ponds, drainage -=' ..��,,: b - -- � ., , , _�{ . , ,�F'�� '��+s-y ��raa� . �f.... �tik�s-. • ��e ..€�s� 1 , s��e� C�� end 1eg�le 8 1 j'�" x 1 l" reduction, .,.... ., :_...�..�: :.�:.�. �._..,..�._ �_.��.�. _ ..__ . . . . . _ . , _ v .�. . _ . .. . .:��.., --t-- . __ . . ... . - : �� ... , ,. _ * F c�ar. laaae f� I' e gnd 8 1/ 2" x i}" re�uc t ion . � �:��,��_� `� ��.�� .�c� �.�?�� a��t �:� � � :� � � � � , �.. r. : : ,. .. � � ;ti �� ; ; a : - :; . . �n� - <, a � . . ,, . i , * Bui��ng elevations, full siae az�d.�8� �•� �� ,�'�•� i � ,.,� k 1�4; �� , , -� �� . �� -:�� y _ • �; ` �....F . ;. �*, �pect,�i� shw .j,n h��r ��e pro�►�sal potea,tially 1 ks in the .> �, . ,,. . x _ ,.. - . ; �,.� � ' .. .� , , .. . �? _ ..... :�fi�itil�I� . �<�� i�.<.�;��. -1�2", ��'-i" .r��:�t. ,.. 1 ,'- �..wr� _ , : +t� � t�� ..', f �.. 5� ' t-: ` . . . . , : � . ....w.... ...� � �.«...m_n..uutni.....�..-na..... , ._.�Hy. raa+ :v.a.v . _. _.w.r...�... ._...._ .: .. ... 1 . . . ...... . .. .....E.-_ .r , �,..�a . .^ . .. , . . t-.. . . ..- i .. � _ . � t \ '� �� ... � . ?� z:..,.,.�.�. � ".�. i a'i {:. . . _ . . �' . , . . ... .. ....,..w - t�` . ��,.._. ... ....�._.. .�r. , , x• ts��—._. �. ._., . .. .,.-... . , :, ..>... � ., , ,i : u r .. » . _ _ ?�.� ,... � �� t � ., �. � . , , �`'�'��`�l��%�+��w-��t�s��ar.��c�'.n�';�..�k,"s w„'t;'r�•.v+»��,�`�'�'-�. ��.u.fir�� „�'-! ,.k,� � .+ . }°" � ' -. . . . . � .. � , � � �� , a� .. �" . . . .`' . ., t .n t{ . . .. � � . �'A^'a .y � � � . -. .<-.:...._..<..+r.....:.....�._....:,.-. '�if � .,.......,,��.. . . . .. - � . .. „ . ' f � � . ._.�s:..w:+..-.« ..»..v.-....-.....,-�...,..:...�.�. ...r�.. '+.'w... ..�.. ;.. ..._�_:.. . ......_.. ,w .,.... _«..,._...,,,_. ... ,. W. ,..... .... . . . . , . . . � .. ;. :,_ -... ... .. . . _ . - +v'? . , _ . � . � 'ay f° �j (Y . '. . . 'ir&.�:,fi-�€�k�,'s��EA?i�.uyf��x�.�i+�t-:?l��E��:�si�.`":i:e- s�.;:6�"„ ;;:`3"1 _>.'::-:;:h��,.'�--'.��,�30;.... xs�;s:;�.x�.:,;.:�;< ,.,.. . , . �, _... fi,i��'".> � � + . : �.�''� � � ;, �r 3. � Y? �� `�' � 'z_ � <, - . ,. .........._ _,_...__.. ��_d_-,_.._ . r ,. _ . _..�,F,., _ . _ . , :. ,. 4 y . `- ..... :...,.�.. � .�.a.�.....,9 ......__.�_.:... '��'� . .��.�':�.: ,.., f . _. .� .. . < � ?� ��,c . ..�.�� ......� ^ � SP ��89-1 1 2J Orthodox Church �, � 31 � � �- � � u - - .__ ... ,. �- � R � ° --- — — --- v�s�dN -...-. � _ � I', _ �.— — . _ • ,,, 6 �; "— -- -- � `� . � �j � � � .'„ 8 � I �. � ��., ' .. ..\ . - -1,4 y � ' r �z,. . ' ,� - �,i—• ,r'; ' � . - ' �' ��p.�,,.� ,,� .5:. . : 'S`/ R!/D �S`�- .�_'. � �' � � ! j _� .. ' ..� 1 COYDO NO !9 � ' .. • --• . K7 SUI COMDO �--..._-_-_ .i'- • lIp S�IP ; • . . . _ • .. � � _��a'^`�� /�r ' �_ --�errsr4r � ��wr �,� -.�, �:� .� -; � : .✓�:'`�`° '- -- ■� - — , �, ---.T � � � � � . - � . �..e.� ,.�. �.� y ,... C/TY OF FR/OLEr 24 QMIfA .�L' N � -' �_� e � _ = .-.� � '�—��; � �42 o- • J ' � :� e 4� '� Y �, y �. • �� • �'. ''' - K: �' �' "' NORTN' 's: ;. , z, ..,., � ... - �,' . �:� ' i9L� � 1 PR. • ': ':IVC?l�r IRT+1 , 3' ;-'�:i,y� ' ••, ,� •� ��•;�� , � •�'� , , sr- ' •! " � . � . ; � sY � �.�t�''' �. - .: � , ��; • � ,��y �`,'.�z� �,� =.r�, a..e ��' , � �t� .,� � � �L ,- ,.: � . %.': � E�� . '�s/K ,,, � t � s s.� ,` .. � ; � r� �P _; ,_.� � f •=I� / � ��' :�w`. . �� `� A '�• ' 4 •��: ..�` t�.`_� ' -.... �� _ �e�� p �� . i - ,�. � • �� 43 LOCATION MAI � � 0 • r'• !• •-� K i • � • � • • •.. . . • • • • • • -IR�� -, G' . i � � �� Nn . _ SP 4�89-11 � Orthodox Church � A C��\;� z/` � � N 'S � � �\ �1 rr �� . _ ?y ZONING M�P v ..�� _ ��q��i: I .,i= ��; � i .� "� 0 , �---� y�'T,y,4 �� L�� ,� - �t�ch� tec;f�. �, . f'�PcS� GFt�P6t.._ P►Wr'� cd•� N�RTrt Y`{�=7.Sr�T SP ��89-11 Orthodox Church 2L Nt,z. 11 io�.r,! 5}�a hovs Ko�/ j ei. 3 3 Z— 3�l ti� K t 17 � ( C�- /� A 2cI� ��rccts � �n � MG2Mo�/ ��. SITE PLAN ■ , : : � , � --_�._. — - -� . . . - _ � � . .�_ . :. � / PoRo-1 I l�� ;�� Ki _ , . .- - � . . , 0 _ , .� /--, SP �89-11 Orthodox Church `� I �e" � ;-., _�.�"°� �,� �- - _ � -"'..�� N6� Fo� i r--r °'� -: L I 1 ��,�� , su�+� �=-ti �� Ii�N • — %8�= I:o'� � �1"' . 0 � :. MONuS�� OUS�. C�ta�e ( 120 � NAr��waY � Fr�tl �c�,1 I�IN S, I � o��►��K e��v�k o f�t �.�uY��r oN � Chr�s� �o� �3 �e, sc M e�s . • ■.1� . � • �r. FLOOR PLAN � � � ,� � ____ -- .�-� ; �---� � � �(ArNTE�7 � — — — -N��/ yvoo� yr�P '- - - �J��/ � I r � • _ - � � ' N� y,J r.oNL.�r� . I � � . � � � �i � ' � _ � _ . : ; - � N�1 � � : . - . j - - - �— �. ��o v E ��.c , � (�t�°�� - !; ' i� i L4,.� �:- - -' - , , . y. ��y�i�� G�r DG''�0;,� I , � �CIST��t�o %f�.7�G�= �JF�t7 ' � �� h �l��t`1 - /�� i_ I – O I ' � — i � ' � � � � �, I ' _ �, � i �� : � � . �� i�� . ,. - i; �:.-, ��... � � r �.� , . , f � � t� "�I ; �,,�� , .!I�: �; � o, + �� I� �_.`_"C�/�. �'� JN S� UT'-' �L,�. �= �— 0 � �� EL�VATION