1976 Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R-76 I provisions in the zoning ordinance to limit the commercial uses to which the property may be put other than those listed in the zoning ordinance. 16. The lack of any sewer availability is generally not a sufficient reason to deny a request for a rezoning, especially when it has been indicated that sewer service can be made available in the reasonably near future, that the proposed immediate uses of the property would not demand public sewer, and that a large portion of the city presently does not ha%esewer immediately available to it. 17. The lack of adequate fire protection is generally not a sufficient reason for denying a requested rezoning by reason of the fact that the property owner has a constitutional right to put his property to the highest and best use, and the fire pro- tection or lack thereof is no different than that available to virtually all other properties in the city. The denial of a rezoning or a building permit for reasons of lack of fire protection must be applied uniformly to all properties within the city. 18. The final location of I-94 unless the council had, prior to the on all applications for rezoning or on both the northerly and southerly is not a sufficient basis for denying application of rezoning, established for building permits along the entire routes. a rezoning a moratorium I-94 corridor 19. The applicant is entitled to a specific zoning, such as a general business, and such categories as mixed use or PUD are not special zoning categories within the zoning ordinance, but rather flexible tools to allow for deviation from the strict requirements of the zoning ordinance when multiple uses based on specific plans are proposed on a particular piece of property. 20. In order to uphold a denial, it would be incumbent upon the City Council to find that the proposed rezoning was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, that the highest and best use of the property was not General Business,and that the rezoning would have an adverse effect on surrounding property. it appears that a number of the items which concerned the Planning Commission were not a basis for denial of the requested rezoning by reason of the fact that the information re- quested by the Planning Commission was not required by the zoning ordinance. Such information is required and is more properly considered at the time of subdivision of the property or development of the property. 21. since the City Council could not make such findings to support a denial of the applicant's request for a rezoning in view of the facts outlined above in this Resolution, the Council is required by law to grant the rezoning. 22. It is the conclusion of the City Council that the applicant is entitled to a rezoning of said land in accordance with said application herein. 23. The City Attorney is instructed to prepare the necessary ordinance for the rezoning. Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of March, 1976. Maynard . Eder, Mayor Attest: Donald Mehsikomer, Clerk