4/16/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

appropriate, redevelopment in accordance with the dominant land uses and the health safety and welfare of area residents." The Comprehensive Plan designates parcel "A" as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units per acre). The proposed RM -6 is in conformance with the MXD and LD -2 land use designations, is consistent with the uses that surround the property, and is consistent with the RM -6 zoning to the west. Transportation System The subject property will have access to County Road 510 through the other property owned by the applicant. C.R. 510 is clas- sified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan. The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed RM -6 zoning could generate up to 2908 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). The projected AADT will not decrease the existing level of service "A" for County Road 510. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi- tive nor is it located in a flood -prone area. However, approxi- mately 37.62 acres of the subject property are located on the sand ridge, an important aquifer recharge area. It is the staff's position that the proposed golf course will have less of an impact on the recharge area than if the property were developed industrially as presently zoned. Utilities Neither County sewer nor water is available to the subject property at the present time. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Chairman Scurlock asked how many feet this property is from the railroad, and Engineer Darrell McQueen advised that it abuts the railroad right-of-way. Chief Planner Shearer clarified that some of the property is 600' away, but a lot of it abuts the railroad. The applicant has a large amount of property west of this already zoned multiple family, and they are proposing to take that zoning all the way to the railroad tracks. Chairman Scurlock, at this point, commented on the fact that it seems the Planning 6 Zoning Commission has only three members present at their meetings quite frequently, and he felt possibly it is time this Board was expanded to a seven member board as a decision based on a 2 to 1 vote does not seem fair to the applicant. 23 APR 16 1986 Boor 6 a:cr 15�