4/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-Housing Policy 6.2 Housing policy 6.2 states that the county shall encourage private and non-profit sponsors to initiate projects and assist in obtaining financial assistance for those sponsors from all available sources. The applicant has received FmHA funding commitments in order to develop affordable elderly housing on the subject property. The proposed zoning of the site will be consistent with policy 6.2, since it allows the development of special housing facilities. Based upon its review of the County's comprehensive plan policies, staff feels that the proposed rezoning is not only consistent with the plan, but will serve to implement several specific plan policies. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Based upon an analysis of the environmental characteristics of the subject property, staff feels that the site is suitable for medium density residential development. As an upland area characterized by pine flatwoods vegetation, the site has good development potential. While the slash pines (4" diameter or larger) on the Property are subject to protection under the county's land clearing and tree protection ordinance, the county's native upland plant community 10-15% set-aside requirements do not apply since the site is less than five acres in size. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area It is staff's position that a multiple -family zoning district would be appropriate for the subject property and would result in development compatible with the surrounding area. While single- family residential uses dominate the area immediately north of the subject property, there has been an increase in multi -family development in proximity to the site. In addition to the Briarwood Apartments to the south, the Victory Park Housing project is approximately } mile north on 40th Avenue. Both the Gifford Community Center and Gifford Park are also located in close proximity to the subject property. Given the land use pattern in this area, the major impact of the rezoning will be on the adjacent single-family lots in the Treasure Coast Village Subdivision. Because the RM -10 District does not require buffering between RM -10 developments and adjacent single family uses, the rezoning could result in some incompatibility between development on the site and the existing, platted single- family lots to the north. During its March 12, 1992 meeting, the Planning *and Zoning Commission discussed the compatibility issue. At that time, a concern was raised about buffering requirements between the Proposed multiple family zoning and the existing single family homes located immediately to the north. As a result of their concerns, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners rezone the property to RM -8, a less intense multiple family zoning district. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the property be rezoned RM -8 because the Commission felt that the RM -8 designation would be more compatible with the adjacent RS -6 property than the requested RM -10 zoning. In addition, the Commission considered that the project proposed by the applicant could be accommodated with a RM -8 designation. ), IF W 1i fff L_ 31 1 6 4"'a moK. �j? j [,.,"E 9.�)