2010-03-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 03, 2010 Page 3 93 b) PLANNING FILE 10-006 94 Request by Twin City Chinese Christian Church for approval of a ZONING TEXT 95 AMENDMENT to allow contemporary church uses at 2755 Long Lake Road and in 96 General Business (B-3) Districts generally 97 Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for Project File 10-006 at 7:07 p.m. 98 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis of the request by Twin City 99 Chinese Christian Church (T4C) for a ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to allow churches in 100 General Business (B-3) zoning districts, pursuant to Roseville City Code, Section 1016 101 (Amendments); in the former Denny Hecker automobile dealership. 102 As detailed in Section 6 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted that the fundamental question 103 was whether a church was an appropriate use on the identified property or in any B-3 104 District, with all zoning districts currently being reviewed as part of the Zoning Code 105 Update; and whether a church was an appropriate use in areas guided by the 106 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Regional Business uses. 107 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff did not support this specific application when other locations 108 in the community were guided for Institutional or Community Mixed Use; and therefore 109 advised that the Planning Division recommends DENIAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT 110 AMENDMENT for T4C; based on the comments of Section 6 and the findings detailed in 111 Section 7 of the staff report dated March 3, 2010. 112 Discussion included whether the lack of staff support was based on preference to 113 segregate tax exempt uses, with staff advising that the rationale was that with the 114 upcoming Zoning Code update church uses would not be appropriate for areas guided 115 toward Regional Business uses, such as the proposed location intended for revenue- 116 generating, commercial uses; and was not determined on the religious aspect of a church 117 use, but inclusive of a broad range of other typically not-for-profit uses that would fit into 118 “Institutional” land uses (e.g.., churches, schools, theater companies, museums) with 119 those uses directed outside of the primary revenue-generating areas of Roseville. 120 Further discussion included church uses now allowed as Conditional Uses in R-1 Zoning 121 Districts; comparisons to other communities for neighborhood-focused uses; historical 122 tendency to locate churches in R-1 Districts; building code impacts for group-gathering 123 uses and difficulty in retrofitting churches in other areas (i.e., strip malls); and 124 unavailability of other locations in Roseville in which to locate a new church other than in 125 the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area in Community-Mixed designated areas. 126 Commissioner Gisselquist observed that, without the ability to expand on existing church 127 property, unless you had built a church in the 1930’s or 1940’s in Roseville, there was no 128 option for growth of a church or a new church to be started; and opined that this seemed 129 to be a disconnect in the community’s zoning code. 130 Commissioner Boerigter opined that, given potential impacts of contemporary rather than 131 traditional churches on surrounding areas (i.e., traffic), they may be a better fit in a 132 business rather than residential area. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the current 133 Comcast Cable site, guided for multiple-family uses, may be more appropriate for a 134 church location, rather than a location in the middle of a residential neighborhood. 135 Chair Doherty opined that the location of churches as the community developed may 136 have not been a conscious decision and not guided. 137 Mr. Lloyd opined that past land use guidance was intentional and logical, but that 138 limitations in the recent comprehensive planning process precluded full analysis of all 139 properties and land uses. 140 Additional discussion included other locations; logic for churches located in Institutional 141 Zoning areas, but not Commercial or Industrial areas; consideration of the Metropolitan 142 Council’s mandate for accommodating residential growth of all densities (e.g., multiple 143 family zoning at the Comcast site); and a lack of consensus in justifying speculation 144 about a better site for a new church to locate than the one proposed.