Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin '. requirement, the court found. The court further found that with equal application, even when there were varying restrictions and results on properties in the same zoning category, other jurisdic- tions found there were no violations of the uniformity requirement. The court followed the reasoning of these other jurisdictions. The court noted that the Property was one of many to which the C-T zone applied. The court noted that all of the properties within the C- T zone were subject to the same limitations. Addressing Ander- son House's arguments, the court noted that although the Property was the largest in gross lot size zoned C- T, this did not make it a "mini-district." The court concluded there was no unfair or un- equal treatment, and no violation of the uniformity requirement. The court also found that the new C- T zone did not violate the so-called identicality requirement of the city zoning code. The court noted that the zoning ordinance required minimum lot sizes in the C-T zone of 5,000 square feet or existing condition, whichever was greater. The court rejected Anderson House's argument that since the "existing condition" was different for each and every property in the zone; the lot area restrictions were not identical and thus violated the city zoning code. The court said that application of Anderson House's reading of the ordinance would result in an irra- tional conclusion, yielding a uniform result for lot area and build- ing height for every property. The court said that a more "sensible meaning" of the identicality requirement was that regulations must be applied identically to each property within the zone. The court noted that application of the regulations did not need to produce a uniform result for every property in the zone. Finally, the court found that the city properly exercised its pow- ers and did not abuse its discretion when it put the Property in the C-T zone. The court noted that state law required that zon- ing restrictions must promote the health, safety, morals or gen- eral welfare of the community. The court said that since the C- T rezone was part of a comprehensive rezoning, the decision to put the Property in the C- T zone must be strongly presumed to be cor- rect. The court said that under that strong presumption, it must decide whether the city's actions were arbitrary, capricious, dis- criminatory, or illegal. The court noted that the rezone's purposes were: to address residences adapted to office use; to minimize the impact on adjacent residential property; and to preserve the resi- dential character of the neighborhood within: the zone. The court noted that the Property was a historic residential structure that was transformed to office use. The court also noted that it was located 6 158 ---\ ) ""' ! } , ---/. j)