8/14/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a more detailed concurrency review will be conducted during development approval. The M-2 land use designation permits residential densities up to 8 units per acre; however, the designation is not intended to confer that density by right. In this case existing zoning on three sides of the property is both less in intensity and density. It is also unlikely that these areas will undergo redevelopment at higher density. CONCLUSION The proposed rezoning has been reviewed for compatibility, consistency and concurrency. It has been determined that the subject site could be adequately served by public facilities and services; however, issues of compatibility and consistency cast a doubt on the proposed rezoning. Since the surrounding residential development is in place in low and very law densities, new development must be similar. It is doubtful that multifamily development at densities of 8 units per acre can be compatible with single family development at densities of 1-6 units per acre unless part of a unified development. The land use map provides guidelines for future development by providing density maximums for residential development; however, it is clearly the intent of the comprehensive plan that the actual development of property be controlled by zoning. Thus, while the RM -8 district may be justified by the M-2 land use, a closer look at the subject parcel and surrounding property would suggest that a lower designation would be more appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve a rezoning of the subject property to RM -6 instead of the requested RM -8. Director Keating noted that this rezoning is unusual from the perspective that when it first went to the P&Z Commission, staff recommended RM -6 and that is what the P&Z Commission ended up approving even though the applicant is requesting RM -8. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. Attorney Ralph Evans came before the Board representing the applicant. He stressed that they asked for a rezoning to RM -8 when they started out, and they still want the RM -8. The reason for having RM -8 instead of RM -6 is that it gives you flexibility. They are aware of the properties that are adjacent and want to make this development compatible with the uses surrounding it. Mr. Evans noted that success' -is based on the ability to market your product, and while the plan that has been specifically developed at this point does not contemplate an 8 unit use, they AU C 141990 54 Boor 80 P' u.906 I