12/11/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D KART NT HEAD CCONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development TDiuctor THRU: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP ' A Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: November 27, 2001 SUBJECT: Elm Development Services L.L.C.'s Request to Modify the Zoning Reverter Provision in the Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for The Colony It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regularly scheduled meeting of December 113 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bruce Barkett, Agent, has submitted a request on behalf of Elm Development Service L.L.C. to modify the zoning reverter provision contained in the Colony PD zoninu ordinance. The existing ordinance has a reverter clause, the effect of which is to revert the project site's zoning from P.D. (planned development, residential up to LS5 units per acre) to RS -3 (Residential single-family up to 3 units per acre) if the developer does not obtain a project construction permit (land development permit) by December 31, 2001. The applicant's request is to extend the reverter date to December 31, 2002 to allow more time to secure issuance of a land development permit. No increase in units or decrease in lot sizes is proposed, and no design modifications are proposed. The Colony is a 279 acre golf course residential project consisting of 550 units on 279 acres. The project site is located between 27`h Avenue S.W. and 43`d Avenue S.W. on the east and west, and 13`h Street S.W. and 17`h Street S.W. on the north and south. P.D. rezoning and conceptual P.D. plan approval was granted for the project by the Board of County Commissioners on October 24, 2000. The reverter provision was placed in the project's P.D. zoning ordinance at the applicant's request, so that the three property owners selling their separate properties to the developer would not be bound by the PD zoning ordinance and PD plan, and would have their old RS -3 zoning back, if the development did not proceed. The Board had no objections to the reverter, since either the PD rezoning/ plan or RS -3 district is appropriate for the site. To modify the project's zoning district ordinance, the applicant must go through the same public hearing process by which the existing P.D. ordinance was approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission is now to consider the request and make a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt, adopt with changes, or deny the requested P.D. ordinance modification. December 11, 2001 31