Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

February 10, 2004 -- Page 3 who were homeless and disabled because of mental illness, chemical depen- dency, or ADS. The Foundation considered the location unique and did not believe an acceptable alternative location e,,dsted. The property was located in an office residence district. Supportive hous- ing was allowed in such districts as a conditional use. The city approved the necessary permits. However, a local citizens group challenged the permit approval and sued. The court ruled in favor of the Foundation. The citizen's group appealed, claiming the city's approval of the new cility was unreasonable. DECISION: Affirmed. The Foundation was entitled to a permit. Denial of a conditional use had to be based on something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expressions of concern for public safety and well'are. Supportive housing was permissible in the district so long as the use com- plied with all other applicable provisions. The proposed facility did so. Supportive housing for permanent tenancy was a relatively new concept and not widely available in the cry. it was expected many of the prospective tenants were people who were already living in temporary housing in the neigh- borhood. The proposed facility was directly across the street from the sponsoring church, which would make management of the facility more efficient and ef- fective. Finally, the proximity of the location to the central business district, community retail services, several major bus lines, recreational and cultural venues, and government and social service providers was important to the viability of the facility for tenants in need of those types of services, and who were expected to rely heavily on public transportation. Citation: Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church, Court of Appeals of Minneso~a; No. A03-190 (2003). see also: Oconomowoc Residential Programs [nc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F. 3d 775 (2002). see also: Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 457 N.W. 2d 398 (1990). Re:~oning -- Split-zoned land surrounded by commercial uses Town denies rezoning request based on traffic concerns INDL~X[A (12/18/03) -- Borsuk owned a parcel of land, hall' of which was zoned for residential use, half of which was zoned for commercial use. The entire surrounding block was zoned commercially. Borsuk filed a petition to rezone rt~e entire parcel tO commercial use. How- ever, 52 demonstrators filed a petition opposing the request. The demonstra- tor:~ claimed traffic in the area was too congested akcady, and the rezonmg 117