Laserfiche WebLink
CC Regular Session <br />Date: 01/25/2011 <br />By: Chris Anderson <br />Community Development <br />Item #: 7. 2. <br />Information <br />Title: <br />Request for Final Plat and Site Plan Review of Cross of Hope Addition Related to a Proposed Addition to the <br />Existing Church Located at 5730 179th Lane NW; Case of Cross of Hope Lutheran Church <br />Background: <br />Cross of Hope Lutheran Church has applied for final plat and site plan review for Cross of Hope Addition relating <br />to a proposed building expansion to the existing church. The applicant has also applied for an easement vacation <br />that will be considered at a future meeting. <br />January 25th represents the last opportunity for the City to review the Site Plan under MN Statute 15.99 (60 Day <br />Rule). On November 8, 2010, the City invoked a sixty (60) day extension for the final plat, site plan, and easement <br />vacation requests, giving the City until February 2, 2011 to make a decision on the final plat and site plan and <br />February 12, 2011 to make a decision on the easement vacation request. The Applicant must approve of additional <br />sixty (60) day extensions; should the applicant not grant an extension, the City will have to take action on the <br />requests or they will be automatically approved. Due to the submittal date of the plans, the City was unable to <br />schedule Public Hearings regarding vacation of easements and conveyance of property, which will be reviewed by <br />the City Council separately in February. The City Council can take action on the Final Plat, Site Plan, and <br />Conditional Use Permit this evening, contingent on said contingencies. <br />Observations: <br />Cross of Hope Lutheran Church owns two adjacent parcels, one with their existing building and the second that is <br />vacant. The City owns a small strip of land between the church parcel and CR 27, which was deeded to the City by <br />the Church in the early 1980s, for a future service road (that is no longer considered necessary). The final plat <br />proposes to combine a portion of the vacant lot to the east and a portion of the City -owned parcel to the north with <br />the parcel containing the existing church, creating one buildable lot and one outlot. The purpose of the proposed <br />plat is to accommodate an addition to the existing church. It appears the City -owned parcel was conveyed during the <br />site plan review process for the existing structure with the intention of roadway purposes as noted above. Rather <br />than conveying as a permanent road easement, the area was conveyed as a separate parcel, and thus, must be <br />conveyed through normal property transaction requirements. <br />The proposed plat will result in one buildable lot totaling 6.56 acres and one outlot. The proposed plat would <br />dedicate sixty (60) feet of public road right-of-way along County Road 27 (in lieu of the road easement and the land <br />deeded to the City by the Church in the 1980s). <br />The property is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) and religious institutions are a conditional use in this <br />district. A conditional use permit application is being processed concurrently with this request. Although the <br />property is zoned residential, due to the required conditional use permit, the request is being reviewed using the B-1 <br />Business District standards, which is a better representation of the bulk standards for this use. The proposed <br />addition, which totals 11,070 square feet, complies with all required setbacks and combined with the existing 9,360 <br />square foot building is still well below the maximum permitted building coverage for the lot. <br />The exterior finish of the existing building consists of wood lap siding. The exterior finish of the addition is <br />proposed to match the existing siding in appearance but the material would consist of steel rather than wood. There <br />is also an alternate option for a stone veneer finish at the main entrance should the church be able to raise enough <br />funds for this finish. Staff is supportive of either finish but, since neither complies with the permitted exterior <br />