12/14/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 FAGE304 The Vice Chairman announced that the consensus of the Board was to follow staff's recommendation. SECTION 7: CLARIFICATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT ON SINGLE LOTS Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation: 7. SECTION 7: CLARIFICATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT ON SINGLE LOTS In multi -family zoning districts, current county LDRs allow both single family and multi -family residences on individual lots, subject to certain dimensional requirements. These dimensional requirements include: maximum density, minimum lot size, minimum yard width, and minimum setbacks. Within the multi -family districts, current LDRs establish different lot size and lot width standards for multi -family lots vs. single family lots. In staff's opinion, the different lot size requirement is reasonable since it helps to ensure conformance with zoning density. requirements. However, the greater minimum lot width requirements for multi- family lots (e.g. 70' for single family vs. 100' for multi -family) are not necessary since lot size, density, and site plan review requirements are already applied to multi -family lots. Therefore, the greater lot width requirements for multi -family lots are not needed and should be eliminated to allow greater flexibility for property owners and developers. Sections_ 7A, 7B, and 7C of the proposed amendments would do the following: A. Replace the word "family" with the word "unit" in a nonconformities chapter regulation dealing with single-family and multi -family development on non -conforming parcels of record. - B. Delete requirement for increased lot width for RT -6 zoned lots upon which multi -family development occurs or is proposed. C. Delete requirement for increased lot width for RM -3, RM -41 RM - 6, RM -B, and RM -10 zoned lots upon which multi -family development occurs or is proposed. Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the .proposed amendment, as presented. No motion by the Planning and Zoning Commission carried 4 or more votes; therefore, no official recommendation was made. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommgnd adoption of the proposed amendment. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he closed the public hearing. The Vice Chairman announced that the consensus of the Board was to follow staff's recommendation. 32