4/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M �J There are, however, some compatibility concerns with the proposed RM -10 zoning of the subject property. Of major concern with the proposed rezoning is the potential impact of a multi -family development on the abutting single-family lots. It is staff's position, however, that these issues can.be adequately addressed by setback and site plan requirements. It is also staff's position that an RM -8 zoning for the subject property would be more compatible with the surrounding area than the proposed RM -10 zoning. Staff feels that the increased density and multi -family designation associated with an RM -8 zoning would be consistent with the land use plan, provide an efficient use of both land and public services, and provide for increased housing opportunities. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners rezone the subject property to RM -8, instead of RM -10 as requested by the applicant. Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the public notice indicated a recommended change from RS -6 to RM -10 because that was the recommendation from the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission. Staff's recommendation is for a change to RM -8. Two proposed ordinances were prepared, one for each density depending on the Board's decision. He also commented that the two opposing votes at the P & Z meeting were in opposition to any change at all because of the single-family subdivision to the north of this parcel. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we do not have the ability to do what is called contract zoning and the fact of the matter is if we change the zoning, the property could change ownership and they could build something other than what is presently proposed. Director Keating agreed and commented that an alternative would be a planned development type of zoning, which was not requested in this case. A planned development allows an applicant to come in and request a zoning district in which he can structure the parameters as long as the density is consistent with the overall cap provided by the comprehensive plan. The advantage of planned development from the perspective of the Board is that we actually get to see and approve a site plan. Commissioner Scurlock asked why the developer has not applied for a planned development, and Chairman Eggert responded that it would add expense to the cost of this affordable housing project. Director Keating agreed that it would have involved costs up front for planning and engineering and if the request were denied the money would be wasted. In answer to a question by Chairman Eggert, Director Keating stated that the built -out density of the single-family residential subdivision north of this property is 8.6 dwelling units per acre. 33 COOK