Laserfiche WebLink
(C) Staff Comments from the Re view Commi-ttec: The staff has indicated that <br />street/thorough fare right—of-way (R.O.W.) is not needed; a 15' utility R,O,W, is required along <br />Collegiate; almost all of the property lies, within the flood plain; and there are no known man— <br />made and/or natural environmental constraints on this subject property. The fire marshal stated <br />that now there are no fire, explosive, or other Fire Department issues related to this subject <br />property. <br />(D) The staff has recommended that this rezoning request be denied based on the following <br />factors: 1. The residential land uses in the immediate area and surrounding environs are <br />characterized by single-family dwelling units. 2. There is no multi—family zoning district within <br />this subject area. 3. The existing zoning within the surrounding areas are indicated by SF- 2, <br />which is a One—Family (Single -Family) Dwelling Zoning District. 4. The Future Land Use Plan <br />within the Comprehensive Plan continues to recommend the surrounding residential areas as <br />Low—Density Residential (LDR), including the subject property, which is identified as, single <br />family residential dwelling units. 5. The existing 2F zoning on the subject property is a more <br />compatible zoning buffer between the existing General Retail (GR) district adjacent to the <br />subject property's southern boundary and the existing SF --2 zoning on the subjects northern <br />boundary, than would be the requested MF—I Zoning District. 6. Approval of this rezoning <br />request would represent the major components of spot zoning as follows: (1) a parcel of land is <br />singled out for special and privileged treatment; (2) the singling out is not in the public interest <br />but rather only for the benefit of the applicant/land owner; and (3) the action is not consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan. 7. The structure that currently exists on the subject property is a <br />viable and functioning duplex residential use; to construct a third residential unit within this <br />existing duplex building would require an MF zoning district, and to approve a multi -family <br />district for that purpose would subvert the purpose and intent of the multi family zoning <br />classification. S. While perhaps not likely, the potential exists for the adjacent vacant land south <br />of this subject property to be rezoned to Multi—Family if this subject rezoning is approved.. <br />(E) Staff Opinion in Relation to The Decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission: The <br />commission stated that approving this rezoning request would not interfere with the character or <br />future development of the area. Nonetheless, the staff believes that by approving this rezoning it <br />would be a clear spot zoning decision, and such spot zoning could have implications regarding <br />future rezoning requests; the stafffurther advances the other reasons stated for denial. <br />(F) In conclusion, staff regrets the mistaken public notice that indicates that this rezoning request <br />is from 2F to MF -2, as opposed to the applicants request for MF -1. Again, the memorandum <br />addresses an MF --I request, as explained in paragraph (A) of this item. <br />4 <br />