2/26/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r � F E [21) 621PP00 PACE 76 addressed: compatibility with the surrounding area, consistency with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of public facilities. Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. It is likely that any development north or south of this property would be similar in intensity or density, having the same multi -family designation. The agricultural development to the west is parkland. Since multi -family developments undergo either site plan or PRD review, specific buffering and compatibility would be addressed at that time. A review of this rezoning with the future land use map and Policies, as well as the policies of the other plan elements, does not reveal any inconsistency. Policy 1.12 of the Future Land Use Element allows multiple -family development at 6 units/acre in Low - Density Residential areas. The rezoning would further the housing element objectives of providing a diversity of housing types and densities. Residential development of this area would also facilitate the development of non -residentially designated land along Old Dixie Highway and U.S. #1 to the east. Concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste and parks has been met with the proposed zoning. Since capacity for water and wastewater services is not available, the applicant has signed a developer's agreement to ensure these facilities will be provided. This is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.7, which requires development projects to maintain established levels of service. CONCLUSION The subject property is located in an area designated for low density residential development. The proposed change in zoning is consistent with county policies and existing land uses. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -6. Commissioner Scurlock questioned whether the increase in trips would require paving of Hobart Road. Mr. Keating confirmed that it will and this would be looked at during the development review process. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that on page three of the memo it was indicated that capacity was not available for water or wastewater service. His first question related to requiring a five percent prepayment of impact fees from the developer and his second question related to capacity; as he understood there is capacity available now even though it may not have been available earlier. Director Keating agreed to check that point. As to the 5% prepayment, he explained that policy was intended to cover the costs of changing the master plan and because this particular request required no changes in the master plan, since there was capacity even after the rezoning, the County could not charge the fee and not do any work. 26