Laserfiche WebLink
and would require a 4/5*a vote in order for it to be <br />implemented similar to the current M-6 MFPRD. The <br />advantage to this approach is not only that it requires <br />an extraordinary majority of the Council to approve, but <br />also it is a legislative act which the Courts allow more <br />discretion as to the decision by the Council than they <br />would in a ministerial or administrative act that might <br />be found in a "CUP". In order to condition any <br />development as part of a CUP it must reasonably relate <br />to the specific conditions listed under the CUP. This <br />is not a limitation for a rezoning. Issues related to <br />this are addressed below. The degree of flexibility <br />allowed is subject to type of benefits gained by the <br />rezoning. The burden of proof for a development is on <br />the applicant for a rezoning does not adversely effect <br />the community but is a benefit to the City. <br />Alternatives <br />1. Adopt a broader Planned Development repealing PRD, <br />PID and MFPRD sections. <br />2. Adopt a broader Planned Development leaving PRD, <br />PID and MFPRD in place. <br />3. Leave PRD, PID and MFPRD as they are. <br />4. Combination thereof. <br />3. PROJECT DENSITY/AREAS FOR APPLICATION - As presented <br />at the October 10, 1988 Council meeting the draft <br />density was subject to the most closely associated <br />district. For PRD*s and PID's as presently incorporated <br />in the Ordinance they were tied as an overlay district <br />into the underlining zoning. A Planned Development <br />ordinance can be adopted in a various ways to address <br />the density issues. <br />Alternatives <br />1. Planned Development Ordinance with no density <br />requirements. <br />2. Planned Development Ordinance subject to most <br />closely associated district. <br />3. PUD only in selected areas. <br />a) sewered <br />b) delinated areas