Minutes - Council - 08/13/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

density zoning to urban zoned parcels that do not have sewer and water available to them. Therefore, if the church did not become a reality, it is possible that a developer would have the right to develop the property with one acre lots for single family dwelling units. In addition, City Attorney Goodrich has also researched case law, and Minnesota courts have ruled that religious facilities should not be excluded from any residential district unless the City proves that such exclusion or denial is a necessary exercise of the police power in furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare. The simplest solution to facilitate the church's request would be to amend the R-1 Rural Residential District to allow churches as a permitted use. To allow the City more time to pursue a more appropriate avenue to facilitating the church's needs, City staff has invoked the 60-day extension allowed by State Statute for making land use decisions. The City now has until October 10 to make a final decision on the request for rezoning to R-3 Urban Residential. The applicant has indicated that upon a favorable action on the part of City Council to amend the R-1 Rural Residential District, the church feels comfortable in proceeding to close on the purchase agreement for the property and accepting a denial to the rezoning request. Councilmember Beyer inquired if Council can deny-this to which Ms. Frolik replied yes. They applicant is okay with going forward with the purchase amount but they prefer not taking action to deny this until the Planning Commission takes action. City Attorney Goodrich stated that State Statutes favors not excluding churches. We have had them as permitted uses. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the R:I Rural Residential Distract and the R-2 Urban Residential District to facilitate churches and present such amendment to the Planning Commission for a public hearing at their regular meeting in September Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Beyer, Beahen and Peterson. Voting No: None. Case #15: Request to Rezone Certain Property from B-I Business to R-1 Rural Residential; Case of C. Thomas Austin Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that Tom Austin is the owner of a 4.7 acre parcel located south of T.H. #10 and west of the Wayside Park. Although the property is zoned commercial, it has been used for residential purposes for decades. The existing home is vacant and in disrepair and Mr. Austin would like to repair it for use as an accessory storage building and to build a new home on the property. The existing home is considered non-conforming or "grandfathered" and because it has been vacant for more than six months, k loses its "grandfather" rights and redevelopment of the property must be in conformance with its zoning and current regulations. Therefore, Mr. Austin has applied for a rezoning to enable him to build a new home on the property. The existing dwelling does not meet the required setback from the Mississippi River but the new dwelling would meet them. There were no written or verbal comments heard at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to adopt Resolution g96-08-191 adopting Findings of Fact g0405 relating to a request from C. Thomas Austin to rezone certain property from B-1 Business to R-1 Rural Residential. Motion carded. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Peterson, Beahen, Beyer and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to introduce an ordinance rezoning certain property in Section 19 from B-1 Business to R-1 Rural Residential. City Council/August 13, 1996 Page 13 of 22