3/10/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARI 500Kic PA[E properties with development constraints. These issues were resolved during plan preparation by providing the Board of County Commissioners, through the zoning function, with the authority to limit densities below the maximum allowed by a property's land use designation, if conditions warrant. With the subject request, the applicant seems to have applied this reasoning to the Parcel,2 request. Since parcel 2 constitutes the southernmost part of the M-1 district in this area and abuts property designated as L-1 (low density with a maximum of 3 units per acre) on the land use plan map, the applicant has recognized that a transitional zoning district having a density substantially less than the 8 units per acre maximum of the M-1 designation would be appropriate for this site. For that reason, staff agrees with the applicant's request to rezone Parcel 2 to RS -3. Parcels 1 and 31 however, have characteristics which may justify a lower density than the 8 unit per acre maximum allowed by the property's M-1 land use designation. One such characteristic is the property's flood designation. Since most of Parcels 1 and 3 are located within the 100 -year flood plain, drainage policy 8.1 applies. That policy indicates that only low density and low intensity uses should be allowed in flood prone areas. Conservation policy 4.3 is even more restrictive, indicating that only low density land use designations having a maximum density of 3 units per acre or less should be allowed in flood prone areas. In considering conservation policy 4.3, it is staff's position that this policy addresses only land use map designations and therefore would only apply to future land use plan map amendments. Since the county used flood maps in setting plan densities and there are land use densities higher than 3 units per acre applied to the subject property and other land designated as flood prone, it is recognized that other factors, including infill objectives and land use compatibility concerns, were responsible for those designations. Conservation policy 4.3, however, prohibits any future land use plan map amendments that would establish a land use designation higher than 3 units per acre in flood prone areas. Drainage policy 8.11 however, is different. This policy indicates that only low density uses should be allowed in flood prone areas, regardless of the underlying land use designation. Since the comprehensive plan identifies low density as 6 units per acre or less, it is staff's position that parcels 1 and 3 could be rezoned to a district allowing -residential development up to 6 units per acre and still be consistent with drainage policy 8.1. In analyzing the site and surrounding area, several factors provide guidance as to the appropriate zoning for parcels 1 and 3. First, the high density mobile home developments directly to the north and relatively close to the east of parcels 1 and 3 would justify a higher density for compatibility purposes. Second, the fact that the flood maps show that part of the parcel 1 and 3 site is outside of the 100 -year floodplain and the portion within the floodplain is on the edge indicates that the area is transitional and may accommodate densities on the higher end of the low density range. Finally, the fact that a multi -family zoning classification would provide more opportunities for clustering, preserving open space, and limiting impervious surface than a traditional subdivision under single-family zoning provides justification for a multi- family district. Based upon the above analysis, staff feels that the RM -8 zoning district requested for parcels 1 and 3 is inappropriate and inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. It is staff's position,. however, that the property could be rezoned RM -6 and comply with the plan's provisions and intent. 48