Laserfiche WebLink
. ? <br />Mr. Wooten, a member of the congregation, presented plans and-clarified that <br />these plans had been used for another facility and presented a picture of that <br />building. Building Commissioner Conway submitted pictures of the surrounding <br />area. They now have a church on Grayton Road, and would like a second chapel at <br />this location in order to meet on Sunday morning and for prayer meetings on <br />Monday evening. They will probably have building lights which will illuminate the <br />parking area. They have no architect as yet, and will do most of the construction <br />themselves. Mr. Orlowski questioned the distance from an existing garage on the <br />adjacent 1ot to their property line, but Mr. Tdooten was not sure and estimated 3 <br />or 4 feet. There will only be 7 feet from the chapel to the property line, and <br />there is only 2 feet on either side of the parking lot. They will install a <br />privacy fence at whatever height the Commission wants. Mr. Conway advised that <br />this proposal would have to be approved as a conditional use and 3 variance would <br />be required: a 68 foot variance would be required for the side yards since this <br />is an assembly building; 18 foot variance for the distance between the parking <br />lot and the property line; and since the height of the structure is related to <br />the width of the side yard, only a 7 foot high building would be allowed and <br />would require a 10 foot variance. There are no plans to add to this facility. All <br />access is from the parking lot with a side walk on the east side, and there is <br />only one meeting room on the interior and rest rooms. They have a purchase <br />agreement based on obtaining city approval. Mr. Tallon stated that the magnitude <br />of the variances presented a real problem in a residential district. Mr. Orlowski <br />advised that he had measured the property and there would only be about 3 foot, 6 <br />inches from their fence to the neighbor's garage, and that the neighbor's side <br />door would be al.most opposite the pa.rking spaces. He also noted that it would be <br />expensive to pipe in the open diteh on the lot. Mr. Wooten stated that they had <br />believed that being on a corner lot would be better than being between 2 <br />residences and that they had talked with the Engineering Department about <br />retention. Mrs. 0'Rourke pointed out that the drawing showed the doors on the <br />north and south elevations, and Mi. Wooten stated that the doors were supposed to <br />be on the east and the west. Mr. Conway stated that, imder the conditional use <br />permit, it would be up to Planning Commission to determine if the size of this <br />lot is adequate. Mr. Thomas noted that they were looking for direction prior to <br />spending time and money on the project and questioned if they had any other <br />property in mind. Mr. Wooten stated that they have been unable to find anything <br />else that they can afford, and that the building is about 80 feet from the <br />adjacent home. There are anly 40 people in the congregation and they could use a <br />25 foot wide building. Mr. Thomas advised them that because of the size of the <br />variances, it would be doubtful that the city would grant them because it might <br />set a precedent. He stated that the Commission could not recoirmiend variances <br />based on the nature of their work, whether it is religious or not. Mr. Wooton <br />noted that the two other churches on Clague Road are not 75 feet from their side <br />line. Mr. Conway clarified that these regulations were adopted in 1991, prior to <br />that setbacks were unclear for churches in residential districts. Mr. Thomas <br />stated that because of the nature of the chapel it would not be a rruisance, but <br />as stated before, these variances are large. Mr. Wooten thought he could <br />rearrange the parking, so that the building could be further back. Mr. Conway <br />advised that the 20 foot setback would address both property lines. Mr. Gorris <br />stated that he, too, was sympathetic with their needs, but agreed these variance <br />were large. Mr. Orlowski suggested that they contact other churches to see if <br />they could share space. Mr. Wooten stated that this would not be acceptable. Mr. <br />Thomas explained that they did have the right to seek the variances, but they <br />would have to come ba.ck with more precise architectural plans before the <br />Commission could make recommendations for variances. Assistant Law Director <br />4