8/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 10PAGED ensure that potential incompatibilities are minimized. Since the established development pattern of the area surrounding the subject property is single-family and since single-family is the exclusive use of the area south of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area to Old Winter Beach Road and west of SR AIA, except for the Baytree condominiums adjacent to SR AIA, the RS -6, single-family, zoning district would be more consistent with the existing development pattern in the area than the proposed RM -6 zoning. While single-family and multiple -family are different uses, they are within the overall residential use category. Generally, multiple -family buildings are taller and bulkier, and concentrate activities (such as parking and recreation) to a greater degree than single-family buildings. These differences, however, are not as significant as those between residential and commercial. In fact, multiple -family is often a transitional use, providing a buffer between more intense commercial uses or heavily traveled roadways and adjacent single-family areas. When well designed, multiple -family and single-family uses can complement each other and provide a diversity of residential options for the community. Through the Planned Development (PD) process, multiple -family uses can be compatibly integrated with single-family uses within a residential development project. In this case, staff encouraged the applicant to use the planned development option for the development of the subject property. The PD process requires the applicant to submit a binding conceptual plan which limits uses and sets forth specific development standards on the site. Those standards can include landscaping, buffers, lot size, building design, and others. Thus, the PD process allows the creation of a unique PD zoning district to be developed specifically for each site. Through the use of the PD process, the county can review actual site design standards, and therefore better ensure compatibility among different uses. Because single-family areas are easily impacted, this is particularly important where single-family areas abut other uses. By placing the RM-6/RS-6 zoning district boundary 80 feet east of Jungle Trail and 100 feet north of the subject property's south boundary, the applicant has only partially addressed, not eliminated, the compatibility issues raised in this section. Those issues could be better addressed through the PD process. The applicant, however, has chosen not to take advantage of that option at this time. Therefore, based on the analysis of the existing development pattern surrounding the subject property, the proposed rezoning, as structured, appears to be incompatible with surrounding areas. With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has the following three alternatives: 1. rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS -6 and RM -6 as requested by the applicant. Staff does not support this alternative; 2. deny the request and let the subject property remain zoned A-1. This alternative is not consistent with the subject property's residential future land use map designation. Staff does not support this alternative; or 3. rezone the entire subject property from A-1 to RS -6. Staff supports this alternative. Residential zoning on the subject property is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental quality. The development pattern in this area of the county, however, indicates that only single-family zoning on the entire site can ensure compatibility with the surrounding areas. For these reasons, staff supports Alternative 3. August 25, 1998 MI I