4/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Although no specific bufferyard provisions apply to development on RM -10 or RM -8 zoned sites which abut single-family areas, several land development provisions would serve to mitigate impacts. Among those provisions is a 25 foot rear yard setback in the RM -10 district. This requirement ensures physical separation and constitutes a limited buffer. It is important to note that the RM - 8 zoning, recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, has the same 25 foot rear yard setback as the RM -10 zoning. Another provision is the requirement for multi -family projects to undergo site plan review. Through this process, potential impacts will be minimized with site design. For these reasons, the proposed rezoning can be expected to have only minimal impacts on the adjacent property. Another issue applicable to this rezoning request relates to the size and configuration of the subject property and its potential for development as currently zoned. It is staff's position that a standard RS -6 subdivision is unlikely to be built on this site. Because of the relatively small size of the subject property, its limited depth, and its frontage on two thoroughfare plan roadways, single-family development may not be appropriate for the subject property. If the site were larger, the RS -6 zoning could be appropriate for the property. With its existing size and.configuration,'`however, platting the property would not allow for providing an internal roadway system and establishing deeper and buffered perimeter lots. ALTERNATIVES The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to consider regarding the subject property. o The Board of County Commissioners could rezone the subject property to RM -10, as requested by the applicant. c The Board of County Commissioners could deny the request to rezone the subject property to RM -10. This would leave the property's current RS -6 zoning unchanged. c The Board of County Commissioners could rezone the property to a district less intensive than RM -10. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the property be rezoned to RM -8. Conclusion The request to rezone the subject property to RM -10 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all applicable concurrency requirements, and will not negatively impact environmental quality. Not only is the site located in a developing area of Gifford at an increasingly important intersection, but the subject property has the necessary utilities and roadway access required by multi -family projects. While adjacent land uses are primarily single-family residences, recent development in the area has been mostly multi family. 32