11/18/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV 181981 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 9, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. County Ne1so e Administrator SUBJECT: Arthur K. Wilson continuance of an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation not to rezone 10.1 acres from C -1A to R -2B REFERENCES: It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the County Commissioners in the form of a public hearing on November 18, 1981, to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of rezoning request. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to rezone approximately 10.1 acres from C -1A, Restricted Commercial District to R -2B, Multi -Family District at 8 units per acre. The original request, as advertised, was to rezone the property to R-3, Multi -Family at 15 units per acre. However, the applicant presented a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the public hearing of August 13, 1981, requesting rezoning to R -2B. The subject property is located east of U.S. #1 with 432.29 feet of road frontage, and south of 79th Street. To the west of the parcel proposed to be rezoned lies a 16.44 acre parcel under the same ownership. This other parcel is currently zoned R-3 and has " received site plan approval of 198 units with a density of 11.2 units/acre. Most of the subject property is located in the 100 year flood zone. Existing uses in the vicinity of the parcel proposed to be rezoned consist of groves, a single family residential development (Hobart Landing) and a commercial building along U.S. #1. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS A. With the owner's consent, rezone the subject property to R -2D, Multi -Family Residential. This action would allow a maximum number of 61 units. B. Approve the rezoning to R -2B as requested.._ This alternative would allow a ��tulti-Family development -With a maximum number of 81 units._ C. Deny the rezoning. This alternative would keep the subject property in C -1A District which allows a number of commercial uses and limited residential uses in conjunction with those commercial uses. RECOMMENDATIONS While staff supports the concept of providing residential use to the subject property, staff recommends against rezoning the subject property to R -2B (8 units per acre). R -2D Multi -Family District is more compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity. The lower density provided by the R -2D District is also a more appropriate classification within flood -prone lands. Staff recommends, the owner's consent, to rezone the subject property to R -2D (6 units per acre). Discussion arose about staff's recommendation to rezone to R -2D, and Attorney Collins stated that he had a real problem with this Commission considering an application for R -2D when the advertisement was for R -2B.