|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
7. B.
|
| Planning Board-Rezoning |
|
|
|
| SUBMISSION DATA: |
REQUESTED REZONING:
FROM: MDR, Medium Density Residential district (10 du/acre)
TO: HDMU, High Density Mixed-use district (25 du/acre)
RELEVANT AUTHORITY:
(1) Escambia County Comprehensive Plan
(2) Escambia County Land Development Code
(3) Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)
(4) Resolution 96-34 (Quasi-judicial Proceedings)
(5) Resolution 96-13 (Ex-parte Communications)
APPROVAL CONDITIONS |
| Criterion a., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Consistent with Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use (FLU) category as prescribed in LDC Chapter 3, and with all other applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. If the rezoning is required to properly enact a proposed FLU map amendment transmitted for state agency review, the proposed zoning is consistent with the proposed FLU and conditional to its adoption.
Comprehensive Plan (CPP) FLU 1.1.1 Development Consistency. New development and redevelopment in unincorporated Escambia County shall be consistent with the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).?
CPP FLU 1.3.1 Future Land Use Categories.? The Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) Future Land Use (FLU) category is intended for an intense mix of residential and nonresidential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses within the category as a whole. Range of allowable uses include: Residential, Retail and Services, Professional Office, Light Industrial, Recreational Facilities, Public and Civic. The maximum residential density is 25 dwelling units per acre.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to HDMU is consistent with the intent and purpose of Future Land Use category Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1. Residential is allowed within the MU-U area. The request is consistent with the current FLU, not requiring a FLU change, and will not change the existing allowed uses within the Mixed-Use category. |
| Criterion b., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Consistent with zoning district provisions.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent and with any other zoning establishment provisions prescribed by the proposed district in Chapter 3.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. The proposed zoning of HDMU is a zoning that is for a mix of high density residential with compatible non-residential uses within the urban. The change is a more intense use but will allow for all forms of single-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings. |
| Criterion c., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Compatible with surrounding uses.
All the permitted uses of the proposed zoning, not just those anticipated by the rezoning applicant, are compatible, as defined in Chapter 6, with the surrounding uses. The uses of any surrounding undeveloped land shall be considered the permitted uses of the applicable district. Compatibility is not considered with potential conditional uses or with any nonconforming or unapproved uses. Also, in establishing the compatibility of a residential use, there is no additional burden to demonstrate the compatibility of specific residents or activities protected by fair housing law.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding existing uses in the area. Within the 500' radius impact area, staff observed properties with zoning districts MDR and HDMU. In the area, there are single-family residential, a church, a school, and a condominium. |
| Criterion d., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Appropriate if spot zoning.
Where the proposed zoning would establish or reinforce a condition of spot zoning as defined in Chapter 6, the isolated district would nevertheless be transitional in character between the adjoining districts, or the differences with those districts would be minor or sufficiently limited. The extent of these mitigating characteristics or conditions demonstrates an appropriate site specific balancing of interests between the isolated district and adjoining lands. As per LDC Chapter 6, Spot Zoning is: Zoning applied to an area of land, regardless of its size, that is different from the zoning of all contiguous land. Such isolated or “spot” zoning is usually higher in its density or intensity of use than the adjoining zoning and may, therefore, extend privileges not generally extended to property similarly located in the area. Spot zoning is not by itself prohibited, but due to its potentially adverse impacts on adjoining zoning it carries a higher burden of demonstration that, if authorized, it will contribute to or result in logical and orderly development.
FINDINGS
The isolated district would nevertheless be transitional in character between the adjoining districts, or the differences with those districts would be minor or sufficiently limited. The parcel currently has a single-family home and the proposed request allows for a range of residential uses from single-family to multi-family dwellings. This appears to be consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. It will still remain residential and will contribute to or result in logical and orderly development. |
| Criterion e., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Appropriate with changed or changing conditions.
If the land uses or development conditions within the area surrounding the property of rezoning have changed, the changes are to such a degree and character that it is in the public interest to allow new uses, density, or intensity in the area through rezoning; and the permitted uses of the proposed district are appropriate and not premature for the area or likely to create or contribute to sprawl.
FINDINGS
The land uses or development conditions within the area surrounding the property of rezoning have not changed to such a degree that the proposed rezoning would be inappropriate. There is HDMU zoning to the north and to the east of the subject parcel and the permitted uses of the proposed zoning will make for compatible development in the area.
Criterion f., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4)
Effect on natural environment.
Whether the proposed rezoning would increase the probability of any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
FINDINGS
According to the National Wetland Inventory, wetlands and hydric soils were not indicated on the subject property. When applicable, further review during the Site Plan Review process will be necessary to determine if there would be any significant adverse impact on the natural environment. |
|
|
|
|