My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/28/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
4/28/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:31 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:54:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/28/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
M <br />�J <br />There are, however, some compatibility concerns with the proposed <br />RM -10 zoning of the subject property. Of major concern with the <br />proposed rezoning is the potential impact of a multi -family <br />development on the abutting single-family lots. It is staff's <br />position, however, that these issues can.be adequately addressed by <br />setback and site plan requirements. It is also staff's position <br />that an RM -8 zoning for the subject property would be more <br />compatible with the surrounding area than the proposed RM -10 <br />zoning. Staff feels that the increased density and multi -family <br />designation associated with an RM -8 zoning would be consistent with <br />the land use plan, provide an efficient use of both land and public <br />services, and provide for increased housing opportunities. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Based upon the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board <br />of County Commissioners rezone the subject property to RM -8, <br />instead of RM -10 as requested by the applicant. <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the <br />public notice indicated a recommended change from RS -6 to RM -10 <br />because that was the recommendation from the Planning & Zoning <br />(P&Z) Commission. Staff's recommendation is for a change to RM -8. <br />Two proposed ordinances were prepared, one for each density <br />depending on the Board's decision. He also commented that the two <br />opposing votes at the P & Z meeting were in opposition to any <br />change at all because of the single-family subdivision to the north <br />of this parcel. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that we do not have the ability to <br />do what is called contract zoning and the fact of the matter is if <br />we change the zoning, the property could change ownership and they <br />could build something other than what is presently proposed. <br />Director Keating agreed and commented that an alternative <br />would be a planned development type of zoning, which was not <br />requested in this case. A planned development allows an applicant <br />to come in and request a zoning district in which he can structure <br />the parameters as long as the density is consistent with the <br />overall cap provided by the comprehensive plan. The advantage of <br />planned development from the perspective of the Board is that we <br />actually get to see and approve a site plan. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked why the developer has not applied <br />for a planned development, and Chairman Eggert responded that it <br />would add expense to the cost of this affordable housing project. <br />Director Keating agreed that it would have involved costs up <br />front for planning and engineering and if the request were denied <br />the money would be wasted. <br />In answer to a question by Chairman Eggert, Director Keating <br />stated that the built -out density of the single-family residential <br />subdivision north of this property is 8.6 dwelling units per acre. <br />33 <br />COOK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.