Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 63 rkgGE 7.87 <br />cial development zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District <br />(up to 4 units/acre), and CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. <br />East of the subject property are citrus groves, a church, and <br />undeveloped land zoned A-1, Agricultural District. South of the <br />subject property are citrus groves and undeveloped land zoned <br />A-1. West of the subject property are single-family residences <br />and vacant land zoned RS -6. <br />Future Land Use Pattern <br />The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject. property and the-. <br />land northeast, east, and west of it, as LD -2, Low -Density <br />Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land northwest of the <br />subject property is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residen- <br />tial 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The land south of the subject <br />property is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up to 1 <br />unit/ 2.5 acres). <br />The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the LD -2 land use <br />designation. Staff also feels that the proposed rezoning is <br />appropriate, considering the amount and nature of development <br />activity which has occurred in the State Road 60 corridor. <br />During the past three years, this activity has been predominantly <br />commercial and multiple -family development. <br />Transportation System <br />The subject property has direct access to State Road 60 (clas- <br />sified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan) <br />and to 16th Street (classified as a secondary collector street on <br />the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject <br />property under RM -6 zoning could generate up to 2,870 average <br />annual daily trips (AADT). This additional traffic would not <br />lower the current level -of -service "A" on State Road 60. <br />Environment <br />The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi- <br />tive nor is it in a flood -prone area. <br />Utilities <br />A County watermain <br />Road 60 in front of <br />$750,000 in utility <br />capacity. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />and a County wastewater line run along State <br />the subject property. The applicant has paid <br />impact fees to reserve water and wastewater <br />The Planning and -Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -0, with one absten- <br />tion, to deny this rezoning request for. the reasons given in the <br />description and conditions section of the memorandum. While the <br />Planning Department respects the Planning and Zoning Commission's <br />opinion, the staff feels that this rezoning is consistent with <br />the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for this area and staff <br />recommends approval. <br />12 <br />