Loading...
76-01 - Churches in R-1A ZOA pt 1MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth DATE: December 6, 1976 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Allowance of Churches in R-lA District (Final Reading). This item was discussed and placed on first reading on October 18, 1976. Final reading and adoption was tabled on November 15, 1976, to allow the attorney to complete the definitions section; specifically, the definition of a church. Final approval and adoption is recommended. RusSELL H. I.ARSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 RUSSELL H. LARSON AREA CODE 612 CRAIG M. MERTZ November 12, 1976 TELEPHONE 335-9565 Mr. Donald W. Ashworth City Administrator Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Churches as a Conditional Use in R-lA districts Dear Don: You will recall that on October 18, 1976, the City Council approved an amendment of Ordinance 47 so as to permit churches as conditional uses in the R-lA residence district. The Council's approval stated that the amendment was to incorporate the comments of the Planning Commission (Planning Commission Minutes, Sept. 22, 1976), and the recommendations of the City Planner dated September 28, 1976. There is a conflict between the Planner's recommendations and the Planning Commission recommendations. The Planner's report indicated that churches should not be located outside the MUSA line. However, the Planning Commission action would permit a church outside of the MUSA line if that church were equipped with an effective sanitation system. Enclosed you will find our proposed Ordinance 47-E which would allow churches as a conditional use in the R-lA district. The enclosed ordinance resolves the above described conflict in favor of the Planner. I trust that you will highlight this problem to the Council when you present the ordinance for its final reading. From: City Administrator Referred To: Mayor Council _ Planner_ 1/ Building _ Attol ney CMNI: mep. Engineer _ Enc 1. TrEasurr Polka Parks Street ."a;nt tltilit;es Press _ Other Very truly yours, RUSSELL H. LARSON Craig 4. Mertz Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney 0�4f 1-6-1 NOV197s �Jy' °O 'RECEIVED t VILLAGE OIR `p CHANHASSEMM G '' Aa M�NN9 4 r b CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 47-E AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.02 AND 6.04 OF THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. The definition "churches" as set forth in Section 4.02 of Ordinance No. 47, entitled "The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance", adopted February 8, 1972, and as amended heretofore by Ordinances No. 47-A, 47-B, 47-C and 47-D, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.02 For the purposes of this ordinance, certain terms and words are defined as follows: Church: A building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where people join together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is authorized under the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. Camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses, recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for retrea- tants during spiritual retreats extending for periods of more than one day, Bible camps with live-in quarters, Abattoirs (ritual slaughter houses), radio or TV towers and transmission facilities, radio or TV studios, recording studios, cemetaries, theological seminaries, day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment centers are not churches. A church as defined above may include living quarters for persons employed on the premises of said church. Section 2. Section 6.04 of said Ordinance 47, as adopted and amended heretofore, is hereby amended by adding a paragraph numbered 9 reading as follows: 6.04 Uses by Conditional'Use Permit: 9. Churches, but only if (a) the subject property lies entirely within the metropolitan urban service area, as defined from time to time by the Metropolitan Council in its Development Guide, pursuant to Section 473.145 of Minnesota Statutes; and (b) the subject property abuts a hard -surfaced street which is designated as a minor arterial street or collection street on the City's Transportation plan, as that term is defined in §462.351, Subd. 7 of Minnesota Statutes; FOO s and (c) the subject property is designated as residential on the city's Comprehensive Municipal Plan, as that term is defined in §462.352, Subd. 5 of Minnesota Statutes. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the Council this ATTEST: Donald W. Ashworth Clerk -Administrator day of , 1976. Al H. Klingelhutz, Mayor Public hearing held on September 20, 1976 Publish in Carver County Herald on , 1976. OuUTION Q 1776-1976 CITY OF CHANHASSU 7610 LAREDO DRIVEQP 0 BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317®(612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: August 23, 1976 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Proposed Amendment to Ordinance 47 REF: Ordinance 47, Section 2.4 The City of Chanhassen has been approached by the Valley Community Church to construct a new facility on lands presently zoned R-lA. Specifically, Pastor Hess, from the Valley Community Church, would like to use a portion or all of the Assumption Seminary property for community church activities. As you know, Ordinance 47, was enacted into law in 1972, and excluded churches as a land use category on lands zoned R-lA. The questions before the commission at this time are: 1. Should churches continue to be excluded from the rural part of town? As you know, the city has been following a policy of channelling "urban type"land uses into the areas currently served by municipal services; or, 2. Are there some areas of the city (currently zoned R-lA) where churches would be appropriate? If so, under what conditions should churches be allowed? From a planning perspective, I can see the city's rational for allowing "urban uses" only on lands currently served by municipal services. However, I do believe certain "urban type" uses (such as churches) could be allowed on lands zoned agricultural if the following conditions are met: y Planning Commissio -2- August 23, 1976 1. The subject property is located within the MUSA line -as defined by the Metropolitan Council. 2. The subject property is located adjacent to a minor arterial or collector street on the City's Transportation Plan. 3. The subject property is designated residential on the City's Comprehensive land use plan. 4. Access to the subject property is via an existing.hard surfaced road with adequate sight distances. 5. All other standards of the City and State are met. N',O�-UTION B !V V �Z c� Z Q �' D 1776-1976 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE#P.O BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317«(612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: September 28, 1976 TO: Don Ashworth, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Amendment to Ordinance 47 to allow churches as a conditional use in the R-lA, Residential -Agricultural District. REF: Attached Commission minutes dated September 22, 1976. PETITION: The Planning Commission duly initiated and held a public hearing to consider amending Ordinance 47, Section 6.04 to allow churches as a conditional use in the R-lA, Residential Agricultural T)i_stri_ct- PLANNER'S COMMENTS 1. There are some uses which can be troublesome, obnoxious, or objectional in certain zoning districts unless certain standards or conditions are placed upon their operation. For example, certain land uses may cause excessive traffic or parking problems or may over burden existing utilities. These types of land uses are usually dealt with through the conditional use permit. Examples of such are schools, churches, hospitals, funeral homes, civic uses, gas stations, eating establishments, gravel quarries, etc. These uses are usually closely associated with other land uses such as residential, commercial or industrial, but if uses were allowed as a matter of right in such a district, there would be no opportunity,to consider the "special problems" connected with these uses. 2. The zoning ordinance must list the land uses to be dealt with as a conditional use and also the standards and conditions which must be fulfilled in order for the use to be allowed. Once these ' Mr. Don Ashworth -2- Septergbex 28, 1976 conditions are met, the proposed use must be allowed as a matter of right. Some of the usual conditions found in a zoning ordinance involve increasing minimum lot sizes; limiting building heights; controlling and limiting vehicles access point; requiring more or less parking spaces; requiring additional fencing; screening and landscaping; controlling architectural style; and limiting size, location and lighting of advertising signs. 3. The conditional use permit introduces and allows more flexibility in zoning ordinances in that it allows more intermixture of land uses. However,it should be noted that conditional uses allowed in the district must be compatible with the uses generally allowed in the district and with the comprehensive plan of the community. 4. Care must be used in determining which uses should be included as conditional uses. For example, the temptation may be to include practically all uses under the conditional use permit in order to gain better control over proposed developments. However, it should be noted there must be special problems associated with the particular land use in order for it to qualify as a conditonal use. In relation to the standards, they must also be drafted with care, since they may be interpreted as exclusionary or arbitrary. 5. The case in point is the commission's desire to amend the R-lA, use district to allow churches as a conditional use. The questions to be resolved are: a. Is the use (churches) compatible with the uses generally allowed in the Agricultural Di.stri•ct and with the Comprehensive Plan?; and, b. What are the particular difficulties associated with churches? (e.g. traffic, locational requirements, sewage requirements, etc). 6. From a planning perspective, I believe certain "urban -type" uses, such as churches could be allowed on lands zoned agricultural if: a. The subject property is located within the MUSA line as defined by the Metropolitan Council. On face value this condition stretches the requirements of Ordinance 45, by allowing urban uses in land not currently served by sanitary sewer systems. b. The subject property is located adjacent to a minor arterial or collector street as shown on the city's transportation plan. This requirement would eliminate churches from developing on residential streets or gaining local access through a residential neighborhood where low traffic columns are anticipated. C. The subject property is designated as residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement seems appropriate because of the close association between churches and the City's residential system. On the other hand, it appears redundant to "plunk" down a church in the middle of area proposed to be industrial. Mr: Don Ashworth -3- September 28, 1976 d. Access to the subject property is via an existing hard surfaced road with adequate sight distance. The reasons for this condition are too obvious to even mention, and; e. All other standards of the city and state are met, with particular attention'.paid to the provisions outlined in Ordinance 47, Section 23.06. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION As shown in the attached, the commission recommended that Section 6.04 be expanddd!. to include churches as a conditional use in the R-lA use district. It is interesting to note that the commission did not recommend any conditions to be followed for the issuance of a permit. PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the conditions outlined in number 6, above. Aop by City Administrator st1dorsed_ Mod'died — Rejected_ Dat Date Submitted to CommissiorN Date Submitted to Council /o /y L76 Planning Commission Meeting September 22, • 1976 -3- MINUTES: A motion was made by Les Bridger:and seconded by Walter Thompson to • approve• the September 8 , �_ 19 7 6 , • •minutes as submitted. The following- voted in lauor.� •Mal:.HacAlpine, Hud Hollenback, Les Bridger, and Walter.Thompson. Jerry Nehet abstained,. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING .. - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47,-5J3CTTCN,6.04 , SEPTEMBER .22-, 1976 f, AT, • 9 : 00 P.M, Hud •Hollenback called -the hearing tp ,order with. the ,following members present; Mal MacAlpinef-Walter:ThpTap�3Qn, Les Bridger, and ,Terry Neher. The following persons. -were present,:, Don McCarvill, Country Cl,ean7 Bruce Peterson, Va .ley• Ministries., •Inc. Shakopee The City Planner read.the official: not�ce.ag-published in the Carver County Herald. The purpose of this hearing is,tp-con$ioer�ch rches s a conditional use in an R-lA Use District. The-,Ci.ty.Kanner believes certain urban type uses such as churches could..be Allowed -on lands zoned agricultural if .the following . condit�ong, .?Lre, -met 1) The -subject property is locatgd� witb;L. ,. the . MUSA -line as defined by the Metropolitan Council. 2) The : subject property is l.ocated;,adjacent Ito a ,minor arterial or collector street on the City's Transportation.Plan. 3) The subject property is designated residential -on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 4) Access to the subject property is via an existing hard surfaced road with adequate sight distances. 5) All other standards of the City and State are met. Mal MacAlpine - I would be in favor of recommending an•amendment to allow churches as a conditional use in an R-lA District. I think the advantage - of • doing that is two,-fold.;-1) I don't • think, you 'w+ou,ld• have that manor churches really locating here outside: rthe MUSA line under •normal. . circwastancez o and .2 J:. •1 think by having it •a conditional use it -•has, <t,,o -.come before us to see just what the proposal •is . ,so- each slfuation like this would be taken as a separate issue.And I think -there would ; be a. control factor there that would take into consideration the concerns that you (Bruce) expressed, --no sewer, what would happen to the, soil • absorption,- etc. Bruce Pankonin - if you are going to.consider it as a.conditional use you should give this council and future councils and planning -comm igns, direction -a. ae -,to how to -judge, to give them' some : rapoter�_ • in.;w iqh :.to ; work. In my report ,Z mentioAe41;.a . w Lend itibx •.. They • should be stated in, the, ordi ae ,under 1 -What . conditions -they would ;-be allowed. Thatf V' `.ro aWend4tiQn. Mal MacAlpine - Isn't it also true on any conditional use you could consider eea h pBti iQnpW s '••p .ittQn' as a• separate issue and at;�that;im�_`ktdt eQdi:#.inr under- which we should issue -,a;•,c�� 3.���na�l: uae �perr�tt�,t,• x think, •without- ,spel:li.pg g'et,the it gives theL Planr}i,•ng QommissiQq •fad ':`g;!sater • f lexibility. Les Bridger Could we not amend #J­fnd say: The subject property is Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1976 • -4- located within the MUSA"line"as 'defined by the Metropolitan Council'and if the property is not located within the MUSA line that said property be subject to adequate sanitation facilities as setforth by the City Engineer. Hud Hollenback - I think that's specific. I could add 15 more conditions to churches in an R-lA right now. I think if we try to limit it to 4 or 5 or 10 or 15 I think we are limiting ourselves.' I think each application or petition be considered separately. I don't 'see making it part of the ordinance. Jerry Neher My feeling 'would 'be this, if'"tie list 'a bunch of conditions, if I were'a person asking fora conditional use permit and all of the conditions" that were listed' were 'met, I would feel I would qualify for almost automatic.- It eliminates any power for us to put 'any other cond-itio'ns' onto it I would feel very very put out if I came back in here and there was" another list as ' lonq" as 'my arm of' conditions that we would want to put on. I think it limits our flexibility completely by putting them on. Of those five there is nothing to much that I would'find hard to live with, except that first one -bothers me. There would be less sever usage than a ,home`i4ould. Where you. are just having one 'servicea meek' there would -6e less to prohibit a church' " than a" hontte'.'. A motion was made by Jerry Neher and -seconded by Walter Thompson to close the public hearing. Motiori;tidnanimously approved.' Hearing adjourned at 9:40 p.m':'.. " Don Ashworth Clerk -Administrator PROPOSED AMENDMENT'TO ORDINANCE 47;'SECTION 6.'0404 A motion was made by Les Bridget that the'Plann ng'r-ommiss on recommend an amendment to Ordinance 47 which would include churches as defined by the City as a conditional'use in an R-lA Use Dis'trie't.' The Commission also recommends as a minimal condition'of this conditional use permit the five conditions as submitted by Bruce'Pankonih with the exception of changing item #1 to read: if -the subject property ,is located outside the MUSA line that it be equipped with an effective sanitation system which would meet the requirements as setforth by the City'Engineer.' These would be minimum conditions that would'have to'be set by each Applicant. Motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Jerry-Neher and seconded by Mal MacAlpine to recommend the'Council amend'Ordinance,47, Section 6.04 to include churches'as a conditional use in an R-lA Use District. The following voted in favor: Hud Hollenback;'Jerry Neher',' Walter Thompson, and Mal MacAlpine. Les'Bridger"'Voted'no. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - HERBERT BLOOMBERG: 'Mr. Bloomberg was present requesting a.cond t onal use=_perm t'to u d'a 350 seat theatre in the Frontier Complex.' The'thea.tre'would be built'in the open space between the former post office and former grocery store. The theatre would generate a need for'a 120 car parking lot. The City Planner stated