HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 304CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO.304
RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONING DISTRICT —) EV-1JOUTH RESIDENCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA ILESOLVES AS FOLLOWS_
SECTION 1. Authority.
§ 17.94.010 Medina Municipal Code authorizes the Citf CounciIto review and approve
or deny an application for a reclassification of property from one land use zone to another
land use zone. § 17.941 10 Medina Municipal Code establishes that the Medina City
Council krill make the final decision based on the Plannin.- Commission's
recommendation.
SECTION 2. Findings.
Based on the evidence presented to the Medina Planning Commission and the comments
made to the Planning Commission and the Counsel, the Medina City Council makes the
following findings:
(A)The proposed rezone is not in the best interest of the residents of the City. The
proposed rezone only benefits the subject property. It has no beneficial impacts on
surrounding property or the City as a whole. Increasing, the height of structures
allo« ed on the property would adversely impact at least one neighboring property.
(B) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject have not changed since the NCPD
zoning was established for the area. There have been no chanves in zoning or in
development patterns in the vicinity since the area was included in the NCPD zone.
(C) The rezone will not correct a zone boundary whicll �N as improper when the NCDP
zone was adopted. The previous owner of the property supported the zone chain c for
his property and the area. The NCDP vvas intended to and does include only
properties, including the suhject property, where construction of residences higher
than 20 Beet would interfere with views from other properties in the immediate
vicinity and detract from the historic patterns of devclopment.
(D) The proposed rezone is neither consistent or in consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan only provides for residential zoning in the area. It
does not recommend height limitations.
Krsoltrtion M4 t l
(E) The proposed rezone is not consistent with the provisions of MMC Chapter 17.94 for
the reasons set forth above.
(F) The proposed rezone is not consistent v, ith the public welfare. The proposed rezone
would adversely effect other properties by allmN ing development, xvhich would be
inconsistent with the development allmved in the vicinity.
Any tindinc, which is determined to be a conclusion is hereby adopted as such.
SECTION 3. Conclusions.
Based upon the foregoing findings, the IMcdina City Council makes the follmving
conclusions:
(A) The applicant has failed to establish that the proposed rezone meets the criteria
required for a change in zoning.
(B) The proposed rezone would not benefit the citizens in the immediate vicinity or be in
the best interest of the residents of the City.
(C) The subject property was not included in the NCPD zone in error. It -'vas included
because it was part of a neighborhood in which all of the rezoned properties benefited
from the additional height restriction.
SECTION 4. Decision.
The City Council denies the rezone application for the Wc\mouth Residence based on
the above findings, conclusions. and Planning-, Commissions recommendation.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS Sth DAY OF March,l 2004.
SI ';JED IN,AUTHEN HCATION OF ITS PASSAGE THIS DAY OF
2004.
Mary Oderinat. Mayor i
Resohmwi 304 /W("C'
Approved as to form:
i
Kirk R. Nines, City Attorney
Attest:
Randy Rced'CMC, CityClcrk
Rcr,)Iwton = W pure