Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />RIBRAL RESIDENTIAL TO R-3 URBAN RESIDENTIAL; <br />CASE OF NEW LIFE CHURCH <br /> By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />New Life Church has acquired property on the east side of T.H. #47 at about 172nd Lane. <br />They are proposing to build their new church structure on the property but it is zoned R-1 <br />Rural Resideatial, for which churches are not a permitted use. Consequently, the City <br />received formal application for a rezoning of the property to R-3 Urban Residential, for <br />which church~s are a permitted use. On July 2, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted <br />the public hearing and recommended rezoning the property to facilitate the development of <br />the church. <br /> <br />The case was brought to Council on July 23 and Council did adopt findings of fact and <br />introduced an ordinance to rezone the property as requested. However, during the Council <br />discussion there were concerns expressed regarding the development potential for a high <br />density urban parcel in the rural district if the church did not become a reality. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Staff has met with the City Attorney and it has been determined that City Code is not <br />specific enough to apply 4 in 40 density zoning to urban zoned parcels that do not have <br />sewer and water available to them. Therefore, if the church did not become a reality it is <br />possible that a developer would have the right to develop the property with one acre lots for <br />single family dwelling units. In addition, City Attorney Goodrich has also researched case <br />law and Minnesota courts have ruled that religious facilities should not be excluded from <br />any residentialldistrict unless the city proves that such exclusion or denial is a necessary <br />exercise of the police power in furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare. <br /> <br />The simplest solution to facilitate the church's request would be to amend the R-1 Rural <br />Residential DiStrict to allow churches as a permitted use. (In lieu of the court decisions, it <br />is probably prudent to amend the R-2 Urban Residential District to allow churches as a <br />permitted use also.) However, this would raise some concern that a religious group could <br />convert a pre-existing dwelling into a religious facility. <br /> <br />To allow the City more time to pursue a more appropriate avenue to facilitating the church's <br />needs, City Stiff has invoked the 60 day extension allowed by State Statute for making <br />land use decisions. The City now has until October 10 to make a final decision on the <br />request for rezoning to R-3 Urban Residential. The applicant has indicated that upon a <br />favorable action on the part of City Council to amend the R-1 Rural Residential District, the <br />church feels comfortable in proceeding to close on the purchase agreement for the property <br />and accepting a denial to the rezoning request. <br /> <br />Recommendation' <br /> <br />City Staff recommends that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to conduct a <br />public hearing to consider amending thg regulations of the R-1 Rural Residential and R-2 <br />Urban Residential Districts to allow churches either with a conditional use permit or in non- <br />residential structures only. <br /> <br /> <br />