Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-22 Work Session Agenda PacketCouncil Work Session Agenda October 22, 2020 - 6:00 pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Address Non-Residential Users in the Residential Zoning District* 3. Unscheduled Items 4. Adjournment Due to the COVID-19 health pandemic, the City Council’s regular meeting place is not available and is not open to the public. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.021 the one or more members of the City Council may participate by telephone or other electronic means. *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Meeting Held Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions Call: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 847 0483 8903 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Instructions Click this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84704838903 OR visit www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 847 0483 8903 Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to peak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. For more information on options to provide public comment visit: www.corcoranmn.gov 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 2 TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: October 15, 2020 for the October 22, 2020 City Council Work Session RE: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Address Non-Residential Uses in the Residential Zoning Districts REVIEW DEADLINE: NA 1. Request The Council asked staff to prepare information for consideration of an ordinance amendment to limit structure size in the residential zoning districts. 2. Background Council asked staff to present options for possible changes to the City Code to address non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. At the July 23, 2020 City Council meeting, staff provided preliminary research on how different cities address these types of uses and provided options for how the Council could continue to allow a full range of appropriate uses in residential districts. There were public comments asking that the Council only allow places of worship/assembly in the Public/Institutional district and require a rezoning for each application. The Council discussed the possibility of considering different standards for these types of uses in the urban and rural areas. Council members also discussed a desire to use performance standards to manage the impact of these types of uses in residential districts. These issues are discussed in this staff report. 3.Analysis Staff prepared a table summarizing the uses allowed in each district. This Use Matrix is attached to the staff report. The analysis was valuable as it showed which uses are allowed in each district and identified some inconsistencies in how the different assembly uses are treated. What are Places of Assembly? The current ordinance defines Places of Worship/Assembly as “Any place of worship, including any church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other building or facility, primarily engaged in religious worship. The term does not include uses, such as schools, recreational facilities, day care or child care facilities, kindergartens, dormitories, or other facilities, for temporary or permanent residences, which are connected or related to the worship facility or the principal buildings on the site, or are located on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 2 October 22, 2020 same site, even if the curriculum or services offered as part of such use includes religious services and/or training.” This definition specifically excludes certain assembly uses like schools. While staff believes it may be valuable to separate some types of assembly in the definitions if the Council wishes to adopt performance standards that vary for the types of assembly, there is case law to suggest that anywhere places of assembly for things like schools, private clubs, etc. are allowed, places of worship must also be allowed. The first 10 items on the use matrix are all different types of places of assembly: 1. Places of Worship/Assembly. 2. Community Centers 3. Conference centers and reception halls. 4. Educational facilities, K-12. 5. Public and Private Clubs and Lodges. 6. Schools, Private 7. Schools, leasing space 8. Technical, vocational, business and college/university satellite facilities/schools. 9. Theatre 10. Trade Schools, Seminaries and other Higher Education Facilities As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance updated identified as a Comprehensive Plan implementation goal, staff recommends that this list of assembly uses be updated and refined along with the other uses identified in the ordinance. Can the City permit Places of Assembly only in the Public/Institutional district? It was suggested that places of worship/assembly only be allowed in the P-I zoning district. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney on this issue and we do not recommend limiting Places of Worship to the Public Institutional (P-I) district only. We believe that this would be inconsistent with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires places of worship to be treated similar to other institutional and assembly uses. RLUIPA is founded on the Constitutional principal that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” and adopted protections for places of worship. Limiting places of worship to the P-I district raises two primary issues: 1. If places of worship are only allowed in the P-I district and no vacant land is currently zoned P-I, it could be argued that this places a substantial burden on these uses by requiring every application to rezone property, which is something that is not required for other similar uses. 2. The ordinance allows other types of assembly uses in a variety of other zoning districts and it could be argued that treating this type of assembly use differently than other uses that are permitted is discriminatory and in violation of the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA, which provides that: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 3 October 22, 2020 Staff recommends that the Council identify zoning districts that are appropriate for assembly uses and consider adopting additional performance standards to address potential conflicts with adjacent uses. Where should Places of Assembly be Allowed? The City Code allows different types of places of assembly in different districts. As noted earlier, some effort to better align like uses in the districts for consistency should be part of an ordinance update (this goes beyond just the assembly uses—our use matrix shows a few other areas where some consistency updates are needed), but for the purposes of this discussion, staff focused on the non-residential uses allowed in residential districts. The City allows places of worship/assembly in all residential districts except UR (Urban Reserve), MP (Manufactured Home Park) and TCR (Transitional Rural Commercial). Education facilities (K-12) are permitted in all residential districts except UR, RR (Rural Residential), MP and TCR. Staff notes that there are some assembly uses that are allowed in C-1, BP, I-1 and DMU, but where places of worship are excluded. This could be problematic unless the City establishes specific defensible standards for why places of worship cannot be allowed in areas where other assembly uses are permitted. As noted earlier, we recommend addressing this with the larger ordinance update. Most cities surveyed do allow places of worship/assembly in residential areas and these non-residential uses frequently come into cities after homes are built because the new homes drive demand for these services. It is true that churches and schools today are often larger than they were 50 years ago. Originally, churches and schools were built to serve the immediately adjacent neighborhoods and many people walked to the facility. While school districts still locate schools to serve a geographic area, that area is significantly larger and most students do not walk to school. Similarly, with easy transportation access, churches serve a much larger geographic area. Can we limit the Size of Places of Assembly? While it is difficult to find any empirical data regarding the size of new churches and schools, staff did evaluate some facilities in the area simply as a point of reference. It is important to understand the size of typical facilities when considering performance standards. Places of Worship/Assembly Staff was unable to identify a central data source for places of worship/assembly like MDE provides for schools. Places of worship/assembly have been evaluated based on information that is available online and approximate building area calculated using tools available on County GIS websites and CAD. School Building Footprint* Built Surrounding Uses Church of the Open Door 61,557 sq. ft. 2001 Residential Grace Free Lutheran Church 58,797 sq. ft. 2004 Commercial, Places of Assembly, Residential Plymouth Covenant Church 36,669 sq. ft. Unknown Commercial, Places of Assembly, Residential, School Advent Lutheran Church 32,368 sq. ft. 1968 Commercial, Places of Assembly, Residential, School Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 4 October 22, 2020 Hindi Temple of Minnesota 36,653 sq. ft. 2005 Agricultural, Residential *Exact data is not available for churches. Square footage estimated from GIS measuring tools and only includes the building footprint. The average square footage of the places of worship/assembly listed above is 45,209 sq. ft. Schools School size was gathered from data the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) has available on their website. Data was gathered based on the 2020 fiscal year. The following schools were specifically included because they are part of one of the five school districts in Corcoran or because they are near Corcoran and would be familiar to City Council members. The table below summarizes the data for each of these schools: School Square Footage Built Expansions Surrounding Uses Rockford Magnet Elementary School 147,000 sq. ft. 2002 - Agricultural, Place of Assembly, Residential Rockford Middle School 110,500 sq. ft. 1959 1979, 1992 Commercial, Park, Place of Assembly, Residential Rockford High School 215,000 sq. ft. 1975 1992, 2002, 2014 Agricultural, Place of Assembly, Residential Rogers Elementary 88,839 sq. ft. 1968 1973, 2000, 2004, 2017 Place of Assembly, Residential Rogers Middle School 143,727 sq. ft. 1998 2004 Commercial, Park, Residential, School Rogers High School 301,258 sq. ft. 2003 2016, 2017 Commercial, Park, Residential, School Providence Academy 119,943* sq. ft. Unknown Unknown Industrial, Parks, Residential Ave Maria Academy 34,547* sq. ft. 2013 Unknown Public, Residential Heritage Christian Academy 58,797* sq. ft. 2003 Unknown Commercial, Places of Assembly, Residential Basswood Elementary 102,648 sq. ft. 1995 2002 Commercial, Places of Assembly, Residential Rush Creek Elementary 102,648 sq. ft. 1995 2002 Parks, Residential Woodland Elementary 101,555 sq. ft. 2002 - Commercial, Parks, Places of Assembly, Residential *MDE does not provide data for private schools. Square footage estimated from GIS measuring tools and only includes the building footprint. The data for the size of elementary, middle and high schools was compiled from the table above and averaged in the table below: Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 5 October 22, 2020 School Types* Average Square Footage Elementary Schools 108,538 sq. ft. Middle Schools 127,114 sq. ft. High Schools 258,129 sq. ft. *Schools that were combinations of elementary middle or high schools were not included in the calculations of average school size. Limitations on building size would likely need to apply to all non-residential uses in these districts in order to comply with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires places of worship to be treated similar to other institutional and assembly uses. Any restriction on places of worship would require similar conditions on schools in these districts. The Council should consider whether size limits on churches and schools would further a compelling government interest that could not be addressed in a less burdensome manner. If the Council has specific concerns, it may be possible to address them with performance standards other than building size. While there are a few commercial districts in Corcoran where the size of a building is limited, staff believes that those relate to very specific types of uses and are consistent with the district purpose. However, the numbers are somewhat arbitrary and staff generally recommends the use of performance standards (such as setbacks, architectural treatment, landscaping) to address the size concerns: 1. In the CR (Rural Commercial) District, “Commercial recreation and entertainment (not to exceed 5,000 square feet)” is a conditional use. 2. In the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District, “Retail goods and service uses of a similar nature within a fully enclosed building (without drive-through and not to exceed 50,000 square feet)” is a conditional use. 3. In the C-2 (Community Commercial) District, “Grocery Stores (not to exceed 50,000 square feet)” is a permitted use. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a number of implementation steps and staff recommends review these commercial building limits as part of the Land Use implementation item #6 to “Review and update zoning districts with associated uses and all site and design requirements.” Overall, places of worship/assembly appear to have been increasing in size since the mid-20th century. However, to select a maximum building size limit for places of worship/assembly and schools is difficult to do using empirical data. For example, if a 50,000 sq. ft. size limit were to be established, you would need to provide data to show that a 49,999 sq. ft. building is appropriate but a 50,000 sq. ft. building is not. Staff does believe that an arbitrary size limit really addresses concerns raised by the Council and the public. Performance Standards Staff recommends continuing to allow places of worship/assembly and education facilities in the residential districts, but consider adding performance standards to ensure appropriate transitions to adjacent homes. Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 6 October 22, 2020 It is unusual for cities to limit the size of non-residential buildings in residential districts. A preliminary review several Minnesota communities and some other cities that were noted for establishing good performance standards found that none restrict the square footage of structures to a maximum size. Many of the cities had no specific performance standards for either schools or places of worship/assembly. Those that did generally said access needed to be on a collector or arterial street and sometimes increased the setback (50 foot minimum setback was typical) or limited impervious surface (60-70% of the lot area typical). The table below provides a summary of how different cities process applications for places of worship/assembly in residential districts: City Permitted Use Conditional Use With Specific CUP Use Standards Blaine x no Brooklyn Center x no Brooklyn Park x yes Duluth x (50,000 sq. ft. or less) x (50,000 sq. ft. or more) yes Greenfield X no Hugo x yes Maple Grove x yes Maplewood x no Medina X yes Minnetonka x yes Otsego x yes Plymouth x no Rogers x no White Bear Lake x yes Charlotte, NC x yes The City of Corcoran typically manages building massing through a combination of setback and height requirements. The required parking, landscaping and stormwater ponds also limit developable area on parcels to help manage building size. We did not find any examples that limited building size, but we did find cities that adopted performance standards. As noted in the table above, nine of the 15 cities surveyed allows places of worship/assembly in the residential districts with adopted performance standards. Any Zoning Ordinance amendment needs to be reasonably related to the purpose and intent of the Code. Any change should be based on an identified problem preventing us from meeting the purpose of the Code and amendment made to resolve the identified problem. Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 7 October 22, 2020 Suggested Performance Standards For example, Medina allows churches as a conditional use in the Suburban Residential district, the Urban Residential district and the Multi-Family Residential districts, subject to the following standards (and similar standards for schools): 1. located with direct access to a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the comprehensive plan; 2. buildings set back a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines; 3. parking areas set back a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines; 4. no more than 50 percent of the site to be covered with impervious surface and the remainder to be landscaped or left in a natural state; 5. exterior lighting must be designed and installed so that the globe is recessed and enclosed on all sides except the bottom and no direct light is cast on adjacent residential property or rights-of-way; 6. roof top or outside mechanical equipment must be screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way; 7. any exterior storage must be screened from view with an opaque material architecturally compatible with the building; 8. no exterior bells or loudspeakers; and 9. the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. Minnetonka has the following standards for places of worship (and similar standards for schools): 1. direct access limited to a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the comprehensive plan or otherwise located so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets; 2. buildings set back 50 feet from all property lines; 3. parking spaces and parking setbacks subject to section 300.28 of this ordinance; 4. no more than 70 percent of the site to be covered with impervious surface and the remainder to be suitably landscaped; and 5. site and building plan subject to review pursuant to section 300.27 of this ordinance. The standards from these two cities reflect typical standards for communities that do adopt standards and are reasonable conditions to attach to a non-residential use in a residential district. If the Council wishes to adopt additional performance standards, staff recommends the following standards for Council consideration: 1. Access. Direct access onto a major roadway (this is defined elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance as “Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways”). a. Council could discuss whether that means that only access to one of those streets would be allowed or that access could also be allowed on Collector or local streets. Major roadways are the roads where a 100 foot setback is required by the Zoning Ordinance, but should these types of uses also be allowed to access Collector streets like Larkin, Stieg and Hackamore? The major roadways are State and County roads, where access Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts 8 October 22, 2020 is very limited; therefore staff recommends that Minor Collectors also be allowed to provide access. 2. Setbacks. Structures and parking lots shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines. 3. Impervious Surface Coverage. A maximum impervious surface coverage of 70% shall be permitted. All other areas shall be landscaped or left in a natural state. a. The Code does not currently provide impervious surface coverage limits in the residential districts, but does limit impervious surface coverage to 50% in the CR district, 70% in the BP, I-1 and P-I districts and 80% in the C-1, C-2 and GMU districts. 4. The project shall comply with all conditional use permit standards in Section 1070.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. If performance standards are adopted for places of worship/assembly, staff recommends that similar standards be adopted for educational facilities and other assembly uses in the residential districts as well. Conclusion Staff believes that allowing non-residential uses in Corcoran’s residential districts is appropriate, but that the creation of more specific performance standards for individual uses may be warranted. One could argue that the Eagle Brook Church review showed that the conditional use permit standards adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance provided the Council with the tools needed to review a request to allow a place of assembly/worship and denying such a request if the CUP standards are not met. However, providing more specific performance standards would provide residents and developers a clearer preliminary understanding of the development expectations. A review of the options with the City Attorney leads staff to recommend adoption of performance standards to better define development expectations for non-residential uses in residential districts rather than eliminating them from residential districts or allowing them only in the P-I district. 4. Recommendation The Council should provide direction to staff on the proposed performance standards and direct staff to prepare an update for a public hearing in January 2021. Attachments a. Use Matrix b. Future Land Use Map c. Zoning Map d. 2040 Roadway Functional Classification Map e. “Zoning for Religious Institutions” article dated Fall 2009 f. Places of Worship/Assembly and School location exhibits City of Corcoran Zoning Ordinance Use Matrix USE UR RR RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 RMF-1 RMF-2 RMF-3 MP CR TCR C-1 C-2 BP I-1 DMU GMU PUD PI Places of Worship/Assembly.C C C C C C C C C C P Community Centers C Conference centers and reception halls.P Educational facilities, K-12.C C C C C C P Public and Private Clubs and Lodges.P P Schools, Private C Schools, leasing space AP Technical, vocational, business and college/university satellite facilities/schools.P Theatre C C Trade Schools, Seminaries and other Higher Education Facilities C C Accessory buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal commercial or business use provided such structure does not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor space of the principal use.AP AP AP Accessory Dwelling Unit I I I I I I I I I Accessory structures as regulated by Section 1030.020 of this Chapter.A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Accessory uses incidental and customary to uses allowed in this Section.A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Adult Entertainment Business, subject to Chapter 113 of the City Code.C Agriculture and Tree Farms.P P P Allowed Home Occupations as regulated by Section 1030.100 (Home Occupations) of this Chapter.A A A A A A A A A A A Assisted Living Facility.C C C Automobile Retail (tires, batteries, etc. No body work or repair work).P C C Automotive detailing shops.P Bakery, retail P P P P Banks, savings and loan, credit unions and other financial institutions, with or without drive-through.P P P Banks, savings and loan, credit unions and other financial institutions, Without drive-through.P P Barbers, Beauty Shops and similar personal service uses.P P P P Car Washes.C C Cemeteries and Memorial Gardens.C C Civic Buildings, such as City Hall, libraries, fire stations, etc.P P P P P P P P Commercial Feedlots, subject to MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) requirements.C Commercial Kennel, subject to Chapter 81 of the City Code.C C C Commercial printing establishments.P P Commercial recreation and entertainment (not to exceed 5,000 square feet).C Commercial recreation and entertainment.C C Commercial Riding Stables, subject to Chapter 81 of the City Code.C C Conditional Home Occupation License (CHOL) I I I I I I I I I I Contractors Operations P Contractors Operations, including accessory outside storage.C Page 1 of 5 City of Corcoran Zoning Ordinance Use Matrix USE UR RR RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 RMF-1 RMF-2 RMF-3 MP CR TCR C-1 C-2 BP I-1 DMU GMU PUD PI Copy/print shop P P P Day Care facilities accessory to educational facilities or Places of Worship/Assembly.C C C C C A Day Care Facilities, County licensed, 12 or fewer individuals.A A A A A A A A A A A A Day Care Facilities, State licensed, as defined by statute.P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Day Care, Commercial, accessory to permitted uses in this district C Day Care, Commercial.P C C Department Stores P Development in the MUSA prior to availability of municipal sewer and water I Drive-through businesses, subject to the standards outlined in Section 1060.060, Subd. 12.C C C Drive-through lanes serving permitted or conditional uses, except for restaurants, for which drive-through lanes are not allowed in the Downtown Mixed Use District,C Drug Stores, Variety Stores, etc.P Dry cleaning and laundry pick up, incidental pressing and repair without dry cleaning processing.P P P P Dwelling, Attached P Dwelling, Detached P Dwelling, Multiple Family with a minimum density of 10 units per net acre, which may include units combining living and working space within the unit, if all units on the same floor of a building are the same P P Dwelling, Multiple Family.C P P C Dwelling, Senior (age-restricted).C P P P Dwelling, Single Family Detached.P P P P P P P Dwelling, Single-Family Attached - 8 units per building maximum with each unit having a separate entrance;P P Dwelling, Single-Family Attached with no more than six (6) dwelling units per structure in a row (and no back to back townhome units)P Dwelling, Two Family.C P P Equipment rental P Essential services and structures.P Essential Services, as allowed by Section 1030.090.AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP Event Centers I C Farmers Market I I Fences as regulated by Section 1060 (Performance Standards) of this Chapter.A A A A A A A A A Funeral Homes and Mortuaries.P C C C Golf Courses and other outdoor recreational facilities of a commercial nature.C C Greenhouses and Nurseries, subject to the following:C C I I C C C Grocery Stores (not to exceed 50,000 square feet).P Hardware Stores.P Health clubs and fitness centers C Page 2 of 5 City of Corcoran Zoning Ordinance Use Matrix USE UR RR RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 RMF-1 RMF-2 RMF-3 MP CR TCR C-1 C-2 BP I-1 DMU GMU PUD PI Health clubs and fitness centers less than 5,000 square feet in size.C C Hobby and Craft Stores.P Home Furniture and Home Furnishing Stores.P Hospitals, nursing home and similar care facilities.C C C Hotel, inns and bed and breakfast establishments C C C P P Household Appliance Stores.P Indoor sports and recreation (commercial) provided the structure and use is located at least one hundred feet (100’) from any residential zoning district.P Keeping of Animals, subject to Chapter 81 (Animals) of the City Code.A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Laboratories/research facilities.C P P Land reclamation, mining and soil processing I Laundromats.P Liquor—Off-sale/On-sale.P Living quarters, which are provided accessory to a principal agricultural use C C Lumber Yards/building material sales.C P Manufactured homes P Manufacturing or assembly of products that produce no exterior noise, glare, fumes, obnoxious products, byproducts or wastes or creates other objectionable impact on the environment.P P Mini Storage/Self Storage Facilities.C C Mining and Soil Processing.I Motor Fuel Stations.C C C C Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Repair.C C Motor Vehicle, Boats and Equipment Sales.C C Museum C C Nursing Home C C Office/Warehouse.P P Offices, medical and professional.P P P P P P P C Open or outdoor services, sales and equipment rental.C Other uses as approved by the City Council I Outdoor seating accessory to a restaurant A Outdoor seating within the public right of way or public open space for a permitted or conditional use,A Outside Storage, accessory to an allowed use C Parks, playgrounds, trails, other recreational facilities of a non-commercial nature and directly related buildings and structures.P P P P P P P P P Play and recreational facilities, including swimming pools and tennis courts, for use of the property owner and guests.A A A A A A A A A A Printing and publishing P Private Recreational Facilities A Public open space plaza, square or other related uses A A Public Parking Ramp P Radio and television stations or studios.P P Recycling facility-indoor P Page 3 of 5 City of Corcoran Zoning Ordinance Use Matrix USE UR RR RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 RMF-1 RMF-2 RMF-3 MP CR TCR C-1 C-2 BP I-1 DMU GMU PUD PI Residential Facility in a single family detached dwelling, serving 6 or fewer individuals and licensed by the State.P P P P P P P P P Residential Facility with seven to sixteen individuals, licensed by the State.C C C C C C Restaurants and cafes (without drive-through).P P P P Retail goods and service uses of a similar nature within a fully enclosed building (without drive-through and not to exceed 50,000 square feet).P Retail goods and service uses of a similar nature within a fully enclosed building (without drive-through).P P Retail goods and service uses of a similar nature.P P Retail sales related to the processing of product on site so long as it does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the floor space of the principal building.P Retail Uses accessory to permitted development limited to 10 percent of the gross floor area of the building.C Seasonal Outdoor Retail Sales.AP AP AP AP Seasonal Produce Stands.P P I I P Signs as regulated by the City Code.A A A A A A A A A A Special Home Occupations as allowed by Section 1030.100 of this Chapter.AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP Sporting Goods and similar retail sales.P Street Vendors I Structured parking A Tailoring services, shoe repair and similar services.P Taverns P P P P Temporary living quarters I I Temporary real estate offices.AP AP AP AP AP AP Temporary structures, subject to the standards in Section 1030.040 (Temporary Structures) of the Zoning Ordinance.I I AP AP AP AP I I I I I I I Temporary trailers and construction equipment for the duration of construction only where temporary lavatories are provided in compliance with City and State requirements.A A A A A A A A Tenant restaurants, cafeterias, and retail service limited to tenants of the building, provided that they be essentially limited to providing service to the users of the permitted use, and that no signs or other evidence of these uses are visible from the exterior of the building.A A Towers and Antennas (freestanding) as regulated by Section 1060.100 (Telecommunications Services) of the Zoning Ordinance.C C C C C C C C Towers and Antennas as regulated by Section 1060.100 (Telecommunications Services) of the Zoning Ordinance, only when co-located on an existing structure.AP AP AP AP AP AP AP Veterinary clinic, Animal Hospital and related indoor kennel; and pet grooming.C C C C Warehousing and indoor storage used in conjunction with offices or manufacturing facilities.P Page 4 of 5 City of Corcoran Zoning Ordinance Use Matrix USE UR RR RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 RMF-1 RMF-2 RMF-3 MP CR TCR C-1 C-2 BP I-1 DMU GMU PUD PI Warehousing/distribution and indoor storage.P Wholesale Showrooms.P P Page 5 of 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPio n e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Ro a d 1 0 Horseshoe Trl C o u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersR d Stie g R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd MorinLake ScottLake JubertLake GooseLake CookLake R u sh CreekRushCreek South F o rk R u sh Creek SouthForkRu shC reekThe method and timing of regional wastewater service to be determined through future study. 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 1/25/2026 1/25/2026 1/22/2023 6/21/2022 4/28/2021 1/22/2023 1/22/2023 1/21/2021 10/2020 12/13/22 4/27/2022 4/27/2022 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: \\MSPFSV02\DesignDepot\Library\Software\GIS\Client\City of Corcoran\City wide maps\2040 Future Land Use.mxd Date: 6/16/2020 Time: 10:58:05 AM User: KShay Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water Municipal Boundary 2040 MUSA Future MUSA Expansion Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Future Study Area Parcel Boundaries Streams Lake/Open Water Wetlands Map 2-12040 Future Land Use Source:Revised National Wetland Inventory (MN DNR, 2009-2014) !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!î î î s s òñð òñð ñ ñ ï ï î î s ñ ï ROAD SCHUTTE GLEASON ROAD JUBERT LAKE MEISTER ROAD O L D S E T T L E R S R D HORSESHOE TRAIL STIE G R D WILLOW DRIVEHACKAMORE ROADTRAIL HAVEN ROADCAIN ROADOAKDALE DR STREHLER ROAD PIO N E E R T R COUNTY ROAD 117 ROLLLING HILLS RDLARKIN RD TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN CITY OF GREENFIELDCITY OF MAPLE GROVESCOTT LAKEBECHTOLD ROAD$+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ MORIN LAKE GOOSE LAKE COOK LAKE RUS H C R E E K Official Zoning Map 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet Zoning Districts: UR Urban Reserve RR Rural Residential RSF-1 Single Family Residential 1 RSF-2 Single Family Residential 2 RSF-3 Single and Two Family Residential 3 RMF-1 Medium Density Residential RMF-2 Mixed Residential RMF-3 High Density Residential MP Manufactured Home Park P-I Public / Institutional TCR Transitional Rural Commercial CR Rural Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Community Commercial DMU Downtown Mixed Use GMU General Mixed Use BP Business District I-1 Light Industrial PUD Planned Unit Development ï Cemetery î ChurchsGolf Course ñ Government Building òñð Public Park !! !!!2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area City Limit Open Water Shoreland Overlay District Adopted June 2011 19 10 30 116 101 50 19 10 ± Updated September 2020 City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPio n e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Ro a d 1 0 Horseshoe Trl C o u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersR d Stie g R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd Morin Lake Scott Lake Jubert Lake Goose Lake Cook Lake R u s h C reekRushCreek South F o r k R u sh Creek S outh F orkRushCreekRushCreek 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\2040 Roadway Funtional Classification.mxd Date: 1/30/2019 Time: 2:01:05 PM User: shujc0243 Principal ArterialA Minor RelieverA Minor ExpanderProposed A Minor ExpanderA Minor ConnectorProposed A Minor ConnectorMajor CollectorProposed Major CollectorMinor CollectorProposed Minor CollectorMunicipal BoundaryParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 6-72040 Roadway Functional Classification 103 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 76 / FALL 2009 PLANNING LAW PRIMER Zoning for Religious Institutions by Eric Damian Kelly, Esq., FAICP Many communities have long allowed “churches” in most or all zoning districts. Such an approach worked well when many people walked to services and when many religious institutions were built to accommodate residents of a neighborhood, not those of a whole community. Today, a reference to “churches” is not adequate to conform with the U.S. Con- stitution. Moreover, there are a number of religious institutions that bear little resemblance to the typical “neighbor- hood church.” With facilities that can seat 2,000 or 3,000 people and include bookstores, coffee shops, movie theaters, gymnasia, and broadcasting facilities, a number of communities have prohibit- ed religious institutions in some zoning districts and/or have imposed new restrictions on them. The evolving nature of religious insti- tutions has also led to a variety of zoning responses and legal challenges, including: • limitations on the expansion or remod- eling of religious institutions under local historic preservation ordinances.1 • prohibitions against the use of houses of worship for such social service activi- ties as soup kitchens and temporary sleeping space for the homeless.2 • limitations on such religious practices as animal sacrifices3 or the activities of a particular religious facility because of cultural and language differences between members of the group and the dominant population in the community.4 THE LAW Religious freedom is, of course, one of the core values on which the United States was founded. The first words of the First Amendment to the Constitution read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Beginning in the 1980s, however, a series of (largely unrelated) federal court decisions upheld local zoning reg- ulations that excluded churches and other religious institutions from one or more zoning districts in particular com- munities. Reacting in part to those deci- sions and in particular to a peripherally related decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress intervened in the field. Its first attempt, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.5 Congress subsequently adopted the Religious Land Use and Institutional- ized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. To date, all courts that have con- sidered the constitutionality of RLUIPA have upheld it. There are two relevant parts of the law. The first part establishes a very heavy burden of proof for a “substantial burden” imposed on the practice of reli- gion by requiring that such a burden be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” Part of the definition of “sub- stantial burden,” however, specifies that the “substantial burden” test applies only to a land-use regulation “under which a government makes, or has in place for- mal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the pro- posed uses for the property involved.” The second part of RLUIPA contains provisions prohibiting governments from discriminating in their land use 1 City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P.F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, and United States, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L. Ed. 2d 624 (1997). The Supreme Court held the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) unconstitutional and upheld the city’s denial (under its historic preser- vation ordinance) of a church’s plans for expansion. Congress then replaced RFRA with RLUIPA, as discussed in this article. 2 Stuart Circle Parish v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Richmond, 946 F. Supp. 1225 (E.D. Va. 1996). The court granted an injunction against the zoning board, thus allowing the church to expand a meal program for the homeless beyond what was apparently allowed by the zoning ordinance. 3 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 124 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1993). The Court found that an ordinance prohibit- ing animal sacrifices was targeted at the Santeria religious group and struck it down as unconstitutional. This was a complex decision dealing with a complex subject, and it is difficult to draw major conclusions from the holding. 4 Ira Iglesia de la Biblia Abierta v. City of Chicago and Banks, 949 F. Supp.637 (N.D. Ill. 1996), reversed 129 F.3d 899 (3rd Cir. 1997), reh’g denied. Here the City of Chicago, led by a district alder- man, changed the zoning ordinance to prohibit the use of specific property for religious purposes after the church had acquired it. The zoning was ultimately upheld, after much litigation. For later proceedings, see C.L.U.B. v. City of Chica- go, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17213 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2001), motions denied, at 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17213 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2001). 5 City of Boerne (see footnote 1). THE EVOLVING NATURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS HAS LED TO A VARIETY OF ZONING RESPONSES AND LEGAL CHALLENGES. Those words also limit states and local governments, through the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment in extending the basic freedoms of the Bill of Rights to address all government action. It has long been clear that the First Amend- ment prohibits a local government from granting a preference to one religion over another. The “free exercise” clause has also consistently been interpreted to pro- vide relatively broad protection for the establishment of facilities in which to worship. “Storefront” Religious Institutions Some communities have dealt with concerns about “storefront” religious institutions. Start-up and other small congregations often seek under-used spaces that are available for relatively low rents; such spaces can range from vacant downtown retail buildings to closed supermarkets. The reuse of closed supermarkets or “big box” stores as places of assembly typically causes few public concerns. Such facilities are usually found along arterial or collector roads with good access and lots of parking. Use of such a building for worship space one day and a couple of nights a week generally has less impact on the neighborhood than the former retail use. Storefront facilities in downtown or other older retail areas, however, raise a different set of issues. Communities that adopt revitalization plans for such areas typically try to encourage a streetscape that is lively and interesting for pedestri- ans. If a religious institution takes over a 150-foot storefront and uses it only on Saturdays or Sundays and just one or two evenings a week, that storefront becomes a relatively long dead space along the sidewalk during the prime hours for downtown shopping, dining, and entertainment. This concern can be addressed with- out violating RLUIPA’s provisions against discrimination. Along a specific street corridor designated for redevelop- ment, a local government could legiti- mately prohibit any place of public assembly – including religious ones – from occupying more than 25 (or 30 or 35) feet of first-floor space fronting on the street. Many small-town downtown theaters once had similar frontage on main streets, with only a lobby and a hallway fronting on the sidewalk, and the main part of the theater at the back of the building, tucked behind retail stores. Many fraternal organizations occupy the upper floors of downtown buildings, with only a main entrance sharing space with retail on the first floor. Those provide good models for integrating places of assembly into lively pedestrian streets. 2. Excluding Religious Institutions from Zoning Districts in General As the case law under RLUIPA is evolving, it is clear that a local govern- ment can exclude religious institutions from some zoning districts, but not from the entire community. In regulating uses that have Constitutional protection, it is always wise to document the govern- mental interest involved in a particular regulation, even if that governmental interest does not rise to the level of “compelling.” Thus, one can imagine excluding reli- gious institutions from: • an industrial park zone (to protect the availability of land for uses that will build the economic base), • an exclusive agricultural zone (to pro- tect farming and limit sprawl), • a densely populated residential area with narrow streets (to prevent parking and congestion problems), or • a downtown district (to prevent store- front churches that are used only a day or two a week from creating large dead spaces along major downtown side- walks). It seems more difficult to make the case to exclude religious institutions from multi-family residential districts and from most commercial districts, although a few communities have done so. 3. Distinctions Based on a Religious Institution’s Size Some local governments may want to recognize the land-use differences between the traditional neighborhood place of worship and some of today’s mega-institutions by continuing to allow only the smaller, more neighborhood- scale institutions in residential districts. There are three different ways that a local government might make such a distinc- tion without violating RLUIPA or the Constitution: 1. By distinguishing between the types of institutions based on the seating capacity of the principal worship space. Traditional neighborhood institu- tions seat between 100 and 250 people in that space; so institutions with seating capacity in that range could be allowed regulations against religious institutions. The law’s non-discrimination provisions read (in full): “(b) Discrimination and Exclu- sion. (1) Equal terms. No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a reli- gious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. (2) Nondiscrimination. No government shall impose or imple- ment a land use regulation that discrimi- nates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination. (3) Exclusions and limits. No government shall impose or imple- ment a land use regulation that – (A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.” IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Basic Terminology “Church” is a term generally applied to institutions of the Christian religion. Thus, a provision in an ordinance allow- ing churches but not allowing other types of religious institutions on its face could be construed to violate both the First Amendment and the non-discrimi- nation provisions of RLUIPA. As a practical matter, most zoning administrators seem to have allowed mosques, temples, and other institutions in the same locations where churches are allowed. Some local governments have adopted new definitions of “church” that include other types of religious institu- tions. The safer course is to use a phrase like “house of worship,” “place of worship,” or “religious institution,” and to define it as follows: “Any building used for non- profit purposes by an established reli- gious organization holding either tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or under the state property tax law, where such build- ing is primarily intended to be used as a place of worship. The term includes, but is not necessarily limited to, church, tem- ple, synagogue, and mosque.” 2 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 76 / FALL 2009 continued on next page the rationale for the city’s unique treat- ment of houses of worship under the ordinance. Any local government consid- ering such an unusual distinction should include in the ordinance clear statements of purpose, ideally with references back to a planning or policy document. 5. Regulating Religious Institutions as Special or Conditional Uses The “substantial burden” test of RLUIPA expressly applies to local regula- tions that involve an “individualized assessment.” A requirement that a reli- gious use obtain a special use permit, conditional use approval, or special exception is clearly an “individualized assessment.” Thus, risk-averse local governments should simply make hous- es of worship uses by right in a reason- able number of zoning districts. A local government that fails to do so will find its ordinance tested under the “com- pelling governmental interest” test imposed by the “substantial burden” clause of the act. It would seem to be a fair reading of the law that if a local government does allow such uses by right in a number of districts, it could allow them as uses by review (special uses) in one or more other districts – particularly if there are clear guidelines for when the special use will be approved. 6. Accessory Uses & Religious Institutions Religious institutions in all zoning districts should certainly be allowed to include such traditional accessory uses as: reasonable signage; housing for a principal worship leader; classrooms for accessory religious education; and a sep- arate assembly hall for social and educa- tional gatherings. But local governments may want to consider limitations on other types of accessory uses in cer- tain residential zoning districts. For example, some religious institu- tions today run fleets of buses, and both store and repair the buses at the main worship centers. Large religious institu- tions may also include bookstores, gyms, movie theaters, and recreational and activity centers. The full range of such in a location where it does not allow a house of worship is likely to face a major problem defending the limita- tion on religious institutions under the non-discrimination provisions of RLUIPA. A New Jersey community, however, raised an interesting issue and succeeded in prohibiting religious institutions in a downtown district where it allowed the- aters and nightclubs.6 The City of Long Branch had adopted a redevelopment plan that called for making its downtown “Broadway corridor” an entertainment center. The concern was that if a reli- gious institution were to locate within this corridor, it would trigger a state law limiting the issuance of liquor licenses 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 76 / FALL 2009 in all residential zoning districts, while taking a more restrictive approach to the larger ones. 2. By basing the distinction on the total floor area of buildings located on the site (probably excluding the resi- dence of the principal worship leader). 3. By significantly limiting the acces- sory uses to a house of worship in less intensive residential districts (see sepa- rate discussion in Section 6). An ordinance making distinctions like those suggested here should allow the larger institutions either in commer- cial and multi-family districts or where they have direct access to an arterial road, or direct access to a major collector, adjoining an arterial. Most of the modern mega-institutions recognize the market- ing value of such locations and actively seek them out. It would be very unusual for a congregation to propose to build a major institution in a quiet residential neighborhood. Conflicts sometimes arise, howev- er, when an existing neighborhood reli- gious institution grows, gradually buying and tearing down nearby homes to build new facilities. A local government that attempts to limit such growth may face a backlash from the institution’s members, but allowing such an institution to grow without restraint can lead to significant neighborhood protests. 4. Non-Discrimination Regulating Religious Institutions & “Places of Assembly” In our work consulting with local governments, we often find commercial districts that allow theaters but do not allow places of worship. We also some- times find residential zoning districts that allow community centers but do not allow places of worship. Theaters, ar- enas, auditoriums, community centers, civic centers, fraternal lodges, and many types of clubs fall under a general catego- ry of use considered “places of assembly.” Regardless of whether a local ordinance uses that phrase, the concept is familiar to the courts. A commu- nity with an ordinance that allows a theater, civic center, or fraternal lodge 6 Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. N.J. 2007) RISK-AVERSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD SIMPLY MAKE HOUSES OF WORSHIP USES BY RIGHT IN A REASONABLE NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICTS. continued from previous page within specified distances of churches and other religious institutions – in effect, undermining the city’s goals in creating the district. To avoid this outcome, the City pro- hibited religious institutions in the corri- dor district. The city persuaded a federal court of appeals that it was not discrimi- nating between similar types of places of public assembly – it was allowing only those places of assembly that would not trigger the provision of state law limiting the issuance of liquor licenses. This issue has not arisen frequent- ly, and local governments should not assume that other courts will reach the same conclusion. There are, however, two important lessons that can be drawn from the court’s City of Long Branch rul- ing. First, the city’s decision was based on a carefully considered plan. Second, both the plan and the ordinance showed PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 76 / FALL 2009 uses are certainly appropriate at religious institutions located in business zoning districts, but because of their traffic, noise, or other impacts, may not fit with- in single-family and, possibly, some other residential districts. As a result, accessory uses that local governments might want to prohibit in some residential districts might include: storage of more than one or two buses; bus maintenance and repair; bookstores; coffee shops; digital electronic signs; broadcasting studios; television and radio broadcast towers; movie theaters; gymnasiums; and bowling alleys or other kinds of recreation facilities typically offered by commercial establishments. Accessory uses that ought to be con- sidered carefully are soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Many religious insti- tutions have a theological commitment to helping others, and some want to do it on their home turf. Although neighbors are unlikely to object to a church or syn- agogue opening its doors to the homeless on the very coldest nights of the year or offering an occasional food give-away or dinner, establishing permanent facilities that attract large numbers of those in need day after day and week after week is likely to lead to conflicts, particularly in exclusively residential areas. The law on limiting accessory uses at religious institutions is not entirely settled, but at this time it appears that two rules would explain many of the decisions: First, if the local ordinance says noth- ing about accessory uses, a court is likely to accept an argument from a religious institution that any sort of accessory use is a part of its normal pattern of worship and thus should be allowed. Second, if, on the other hand, the local ordinance clearly allows religious institutions with only limited accessory uses in some locations, while allowing those institutions with a full range of uses in others, the courts appear willing to enforce the ordinance as written. Thus, any effort to update a zoning ordinance dealing with religious institu- tions should include a serious discussion of what accessory uses are appropriate and acceptable for them – in each zoning district. The fleet of buses and mainte- nance garage will hardly be noticed in a highway-oriented business district, but may lead to many complaints in a single- family residential district. 7. Parking, Landscaping, and Signs Remember that the “substantial bur- den” rule under RLUIPA imposes the “compelling governmental interest” test only on local regulations that involve an “individualized assessment.” The corol- lary of that principle is that laws of gen- eral applicability will not be considered substantial burdens. Requirements for off-street parking, landscaping, buffering, site lighting, and other amenities are, in almost all com- munities, rules of general applicability. Limitations on flashing signs and on building heights are also rules of general application and thus are not subject to the “substantial burden” test. There has been some litigation over the theological significance of steeples and similar vertical extensions of reli- gious buildings. The law is not clear on that, but some zoning ordinances allow a religious institution to exceed height limits otherwise applicable to the zoning district with “non-habitable” space or something similar. The fact that it is probably both lawful and Constitutional to impose a full-range of site development restrictions on reli- gious institutions does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate to do so, how- ever. For a small, neighborhood institution with no significant accessory uses, it may make more sense to allow most people to park on the streets than to add an acre or two of paved parking to the neigh- borhood. Where off-street parking is necessary, a community should con- sider requiring that only a portion of it be paved, allowing people to park on grass or other porous surfaces during the four or five busiest hours a week. Most residential districts include significant restrictions on signs. Those rules make perfect sense for residences, but it is unreasonable to expect a church or school to operate without signs. The ordinance, however, should not provide for “church” signs – it should provide for “accessory signs at institutional uses permitted in residential districts.” Many local ordinances have some sort of provision for at least one freestanding sign, but they often miss other important issues. For example, if a religious institu- tion or school does not have some changeable copy space on its sign, it will probably make extensive use of banners and temporary signs to promote vacation religious schools, pot luck dinners, and other events; and religious institutions need wall signs, as well as freestanding signs, to provide information on worship schedules and contact information. SUMMING UP: Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques are all subject to reasonable local zoning regulations. A community updating its regulations or facing a potential controversy over such an insti- tution, however, should check its ordi- nance to be sure that: • the ordinance on its face and local practice treat religious institutions in the same way, regardless of denomination or name of the building, • houses of worship are allowed in all zoning districts that allow other places of assembly, unless there are very unusual and well-documented circumstances jus- tifying a particular distinction, • religious institutions are allowed in many districts by right and do not require special use permits or other dis- cretionary reviews, and • site development requirements – which are generally enforceable against reli- gious institutions – are reasonable and practical for those institutions. ◆ Eric Damian Kelly, Ph.D., FAICP, a lawyer and planner, is a professor of urban plan- ning at Ball State University and vice president of Duncan Associates, a consulting firm. He is a past president of the American Planning Association and General Editor of Matthew Bender’s 10-volume Zoning and Land Use Controls. 4 Rockford Elementary School Building (Sq. Ft.):147,000 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Rockford Middle School Building (Sq. Ft.):110,500 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Rockford High School Building (Sq. Ft.):215,000 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Rogers Elementary Building (Sq. Ft.):88,839 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Rogers Middle School Building (Sq. Ft.):143,727 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Rogers High School Building (Sq. Ft.):301,258 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Providence Academy Building (Sq. Ft.):119,943 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Ave Maria Academy Building (Sq. Ft.):34,547 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Heritage Christian Academy Building (Sq. Ft.):58,797 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Basswood Elementary Building (Sq. Ft.):102,648 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Rush Creek Elementary Building (Sq. Ft.):102,648 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Woodland Elementary Building (Sq. Ft.):101,555 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Church of the Open Door Building (Sq. Ft.):61,557 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Grace Free Lutheran Church Building (Sq. Ft.):58,797 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Plymouth Covenant Church Building (Sq. Ft.):36,669 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Advent Lutheran Church Building (Sq. Ft.):32,368 NORTH 0 250’ 500’ Hindi Temple of Minnesota Building (Sq. Ft.):36,653 NORTH 0 250’ 500’