3/10/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ M Potential Impact on Environmental Quality The environmental characteristics of the subject property are suitable for low density residential development, provided that the existing wetland on the property is taken into consideration during site development design and provided that wetland impacts are minimized. Because the site has a diversity of habitats and various environmental constraints, development plans will have to address wetland preservation, upland habitat preservation and wetland protection for the subject property. LDR Chapter 928, Wetland and Deep Water Habitat Protection, provides the necessary regulatory control to ensure that any wetland impacts will be minimized and mitigated, as applicable. For that reason, staff feels that this request is consistent with the county's conservation and environmental protection policies. Compatibility with the Surroundina Area It is staff's position that the proposed request to rezone parcel #2 of the subject property to RS -3 will result in development which will be compatible with the surrounding area. The subject property is on the fringe of the M-1 land use designation with property to the south being in the L-1 land use designation. Since properties to the south are already zoned for single family residential development, --the RS -3 district proposed for parcel 2 would ensure compatibility with the land to the south. While adjacent properties to the west and east are agriculturally zoned, these areas also contain single-family residences. Based upon the analysis performed, staff feels that the requested RS -3 zoning for parcel #2 would be compatible with the surrounding area. As indicated above, staff has concerns regarding the request for RM -8 zoning for parcels 1 and 3. Although the comprehensive plan requires low density development in flood prone areas, staff feels that RS -3 would not be appropriate for parcels 1 and 3. Because of the proximity of high density mobile home developments, a low density district higher than 3 units per acre is probably warranted. Conversely, the RM -8 cannot be justified in terms of the flood prone nature of the property. Also providing- support for a density lower than the land use plan maximum is the county's past policy of assigning lower densities to properties within the State Road 60 corridor which are more distant from State Road 60. For these reasons, staff feels that RM -6 would be appropriate for parcels 1 and 3. ALTERNATIVES The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to consider regarding the subject property. - 0 The Board of County Commissioners could rezone Parcels 1 & 3 to RM -8 and Parcel 2 to RS -3, as requested by the applicant. o The Board of County Commissioners could deny the applicant's request to rezone Parcels & 3 to RM -8 and Parcel 2 to RS -3. C The Board of County Commissioners could rezone Parcel 2 to RS -3 and rezone Parcels 1 & 3 to a less dense zoning category which complies with Drainage Policy 8.1, relating to properties in flood prone areas. Staff supports this recommendation based on the analysis presented above. 49 MM H 17 i�(1K V LD f'r?i�C Y9 8y