5/7/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C Initially, Mr. O'Haire approched staff with the intent of submitting a rezoning request for the entire 11 acres. Staff, however, informed Mr. O'Haire that, pursuant to Section 902.12 of the county's land development regulations, an individual may petition for a rezoning only for property which he owns or for which he has.the owner's authorization. To change the zoning on property where the owner is not a party to the request, the Board of County Commissioners would need to initiate the process. For that reason staff told Mr. O'Haire that to pursue rezoning of some other person's property he would have to request that the Board initiate the process. This is Mr. O'Haire_'s request for that action. .:..Alternatives and Analysis This rezoning request is unusual because it involves rezoning of a property owned by someone other than the applicant. Staff can find no record of a similar request, where one or two property owners regeust that`a'neighbors property be rezoned to a lower density. ..There have, however, been situations where an entire neighborhood had requested that the Board rezone the area to a lower density. One example is the 16th Street area, which was rezoned from RS -6 to RS -2 -at -the -request of residents. In this case the subject property is located in the area of the county designated as L-1, Low -Density Residential (up to 3 units/acre). The existing RS -3 (residential district up to 3 units/acre) zoning of the property is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. All adjacent properties are zoned RS -3. -So as zoned, the subject property is consistent with its land use plan designation and is compatible with the zoning of adjacent properties. Usually, the purpose of a county initiated administrative rezoning Is to make the zoning of a property consistent with its land use designation. Since no inconsistency exists here, there would need to be another reason to warrant such action. . One circumstance which 'could justify a county initiated rezoning would be characteristics of the property which warrant a reduced density. The -applicant feels that the riverfront nature of the property :justifies a reduced density for environmental protection purposes. This property, however, is not substantially different from other riverfront tracts which are designated RS -3. Changing the density of this property'then would require similar action on comparable tracts. Staff feels that this is unnecessary and that current local, state, and federal requirements provide adequate protection. Conclusion The existing zoning of the property is consistent with the Future Land 'Use Map- and does not require an administrative rezoning. While the proposed zoning would also be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, no justification to treat the subject property differently than similarly situated properties exists. Recommendation Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request for the county initiated administrative rezoning. r'7 , ., - A