10/21/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 1.03PAGE 22 Future Land Use Element Objective 1 Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. By increasing the density of land currently within the urban service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or sacrificing compactness. For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is looted within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater than the 8 units/acre permitted by the M-1 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.13 and 1.14. Future Land Use Element Objective 4 Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will reduce the number and length of trips on county roads by implementing a land use pattern which places residential areas near commercial and employment areas. The site is located near several employment centers, including the SR 60/1-95 CominercialAndmstrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node Those nodes are two of the county's largest employment centers. Most people who work in those nodes live in moderately -priced, low to medium -density housing. The RM -8 zoning district is intended for such uses. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will increase the opportunity for people who work in those nodes to live near their job, thus reducing the length of their trips to and from work. For this reason, the request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4. Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4 Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4 state that the county will encourage and direct growth into the urban service area and areas near urban centers. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and encourage more development on the subject property, and the subject property is within the urban service area and near an urban center, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4. As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staffs position is that multiple -family residential development is appropriate for the site and that such development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Multiple -family development is already in that area of the county. With RM -8 zoning existing to the east of the subject property, the proposed zoning for the subject property would be an extension of that zoning district Located near the SR 60/58th Avenue commercial/industrial node and the SR 60/1-95 commerciaUmdustrial node, the subject property is particularly well suited to meet the demand for multiple -family housing generated by development within those nodes. In effect, the proposed rezoning will increase the opportunity for people to live near their place of employment. Under the requested RM -8 zoning district, building coverage for multiple -family development on the site would be restricted to a maximum of 25% of the lot, while a minimum of 30% of the site must be open, or green, space. County LDRs require side yards that are at least 10 feet wide (chapter 911), perimeter landscaping (chapter 926), and landscaping of parking lots and open space (chapter 926). For these reasons, staff feels the requested zoning district would be compatible with adjacent residential development Similarly, incompatibilities between the subject property and adjacent A-1 zoned land are not anticipated. With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on property rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation increases. This not OCTOBER 21, 1997 42