1976 Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R-76-A % 7. The property is within the metro sewer service area as proposed by:the city, and sewer can be made available in the reasonably near future. Based on the proposed uses of the property, there is no apparent need for immediate sewer service. There is no public water system, available to the site for commercial or industrial uses or for fire protection. 8. The Minnesota Highway Department has advised the applicant that it has no ob- jection to revising an opening location from the subject property to Highway 12, and the Highway Department's response was favorable assuming a north alignment for I-94. 9. The Lake Elmo Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing regarding the application, at which hearing no adjacent property owners appeared in opposition to the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning for the following reasons: A. The Planning and Zoning Commission has no final determination of a road plan through the property. B. There is no indication of the future uses of the property. C. The sewer plan is presently incomplete. D. There is no adequate fire protection. E. I-94's final location and its service roads are undetermined. F. General business does not necessarily consist of mixed use as indicated in the proposed comprehensive plan. 10. The only permitted use under the present zoning of the subject property is single family residential. Under the present zoning, a special use permit may be granted for several limited purposes, including commercial greenhouse, dog kennel, veterinarian hospital, drive-in theater, campgrounds, private clubs, rest home, and two family homes. There is no present provision in the zoning ordinance for the per- mitting of any other commercial use. No other use can be made of the property unless and until the property is rezoned. 11. Based on the location of the property proximate to the freeway, the nature of surrounding development, and the comprehensive plan of the city, the highest and best use for the property is commercial. 12. The requested rezoning of the site cannot be considered spot zoning by reason of the fact that the rezoning conforms to the comprehensive plan, the surrounding uses are commercial, and the location of the property all indicate the demonstrated need for the upgrading of the zoning. 13. The proposed rezoning would not adversely affect the use or values of surround- ing properties. 14. There is no provision in the zoning ordinance which requires a layout of a road plan through the property prior to the consideration of the application for rezoning, nor is there any requirement as to the detailing of future uses of the property in the zoning ordinance. These determinations are more properly made and are required in con- junction with the division of the property or the development of the property and prior to the issuance of any building permits. 15. There is no provision in the present zoning ordinance of the city for the issuance of a special use permit for the proposed use of the property, nor are there any