02/11/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Property 1 and Property 2 are both currently zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The A-1 zoning district is a holding zone until the property owner, based on market conditions, requests a zoning consistent with the property's land use designation. Property 3 is zoned IG, General Industrial District. In this case, the existing IG zoned property is located at the perimeter of a C/I node at a location that does not generally meet the locational criteria of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.43. Rezoning the subject properties to appropriate alternative zoning districts will allow the land owner to use and/or market the properties for uses consistent with their C/I Future Land Use designation. As reviewed in the preceding tables, the three properties appear to meet the criteria to be rezoned to IG, CH, and CG. While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the County Land Development Regulations Rezoning requests must be consistent with all applicable sections of the County LDRs, including Section 902.12(3) standards of review. A copy of those standards are included as Attachment 6 to this report. With this rezoning request, staff determined that the request is consistent with the LDR review standards listed in Section 902.12(3). Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that the requested zoning districts are appropriate for the site and that development under the three zoning districts would be compatible with surrounding land uses. As proposed, the overall +/- 26.76 Acre site will be subdivided into three separate zoning districts in decreasing intensity (IG, CH, and CG) from the railroad tracks to the west to Lateral H Canal. That canal combined with the conservation area to the west of Lateral H Canal provides between +/- 400 and +/- 1,300 feet of separation from residential portions of Waterway Village (the closest residential subdivision) to the nearest point of the proposed CG property (Subject Property 3). Subject Property 2 (proposed CH) is located +/-600 feet from the nearest point of the Waterway Village residential subdivision and Subject Property 1 (proposed IG) is located +/- 1,400 feet from the nearest point of the Waterway Village residential subdivision. Properties to the south are located within the same C/I Node and contain similar industrial uses and another portion of the former Jenkins sand mining operation. The lake on that property has over time been gradually filled in. While the properties to the south have similar characteristics and the same Future Land Use Designation, they are also separate from subject properties by 53rd Street, which is in a public right-of-way of between 150 and 220 feet in width (varies). 53rd Street is also a newer roadway that has been designed to meet current county road standards, and has limited curb cuts and limited access points (limited potential traffic conflict points). The separation distance and the fact that there are similar uses and the same C/I Future Land Use designation suggest that there will be no incompatibilities. 87