Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 <br />Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -9 -165 — CONTINUING THE PUBLIC <br />HEARING AND TABLING ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT TO <br />THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR <br />PARKING OF VEHICLES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS <br />WELL AS STORAGE IN SIDE YARDS UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 28, <br />2012 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. <br />Ayes (4). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />AMEND Montour opened the Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the <br />ZONING Zoning Code relative to the definition of "Assembly ". The Planning <br />CODE — Commission has recommended approval of the amendment as <br />DEFINITION presented by the City Planner. <br />OF <br />ASSEMBLY The City Planner reviewed his September 7, 2012 report wherein he <br />recommends an amendment to the Zoning Code's definition of "Church ". <br />The Planner noted that in recent months there have been conflicts raised <br />over the proposed use of commercial or industrial facilities by religious <br />groups. Cities have had concern with this issue for varied reasons, <br />including economic development and job creation, tax base, and potential <br />for incompatible patterns of use in commercial or industrial areas where <br />traffic and other public facilities may not have been constructed with such <br />uses in mind. <br />The Planner noted that Little Canada's approach on this issue has been to <br />include the religious institution use in the Public /Semi - Public Zoning <br />District where government facilities and schools are allowed. This has <br />worked well for Little Canada historically. He also noted that the City has <br />had some experience with this issue when there was discussion of the <br />potential use of the former Knox property by a church. Although the <br />Planner noted that this has not been as major an issue in Little Canada as it <br />has been in other communities. <br />The Planner reported that there is some Federal Law that essentially states <br />that no city may treat a religious use differently than a non - religious use <br />when considering land use issues. That is, if two uses are the same, the <br />fact that one may be religious in nature cannot be used to prohibit it or <br />place conditions not common to the non - religious use. The Planner noted <br />that the problem is that the 8th US Circuit Court district has decided no <br />9 <br />