2009-004 Council Ordinances - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

AGENDA ITEM 6 A i. and ii. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser C. C. MEETING DATE: August 10, 2009 TOPIC: i. Second Reading, Ordinance No. 04-09 Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Amending General Business and Limited Business Zoning Districts to Allow Public, Educational, and Religious Buildings As Conditional Uses and City Code Amendment: Required Distance for Liquor License Shall Not Apply if School or Church Is in Limited Business or General Business Zoning District ii. Resolution 09-54, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 04-09 For Publication ACTION: 3/5 vote on Ordinance No. 04-09 4/5 vote on Resolution No. 09-54 BACKGROUND The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on July 27. This is the second reading. Once adopted, all ordinances must be published in the official newspaper. However, state statute allows the City by a 4/5 vote to publish a summary of an ordinance as long as the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. This saves on publication costs. Resolution No. 09-54 approves a summary of the ordinance. The zoning ordinance creates zoning districts to regulate the use of land and structures in the city. We have received an application to amend the zoning ordinance to allow churches in the GB district, which currently is not allowed. This led to examining other business districts and as well as other statutes that might be relevant. This research led to the recognition that under federal law, if similar uses are allowed in a zoning district, churches must be treated equally. In addition, the existing City Code regulations for liquor licenses creates a separation of 1000 feet between a liquor license location and a church or school. If a church or school locates in an LB or GB zone and this separation is applied, it would eliminate most of the city's commercial zones as locations for restaurants or other uses that need a liquor license. The application was submitted by a church planning to acquire the vacant site formerly owned by the VFW. However, it is important to recognize that the submitted application only includes