|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
7. B.
|
| Planning Board-Rezoning |
|
|
|
| SUBMISSION DATA: |
REQUESTED REZONING:
FROM: Agr, Agricultural district (one du/20 acres)
TO: RR, Rural Residential district (one du/four acres)
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.
FLU 1.3.1 Future Land Use Categories. General descriptions, range of allowable uses, and residential densities and non-residential intensities for all future land use categories in Escambia County are outlined below.
POLICIES FLU 3.1.1 Infrastructure Expenditures. Escambia County will limit the expenditure of public funds for infrastructure improvements or extensions that would increase the capacity of those facilities beyond that necessary to support the densities and intensities of use established by this plan unless such expenditures are necessary to implement other policies of this plan.
FLU 3.1.2 Water Facility Extensions. Escambia County will coordinate with potable water providers on any extensions of potable water facilities in the rural area.
FLU 3.1.3 FLUM Amendments. During consideration of FLUM amendments, Escambia County will consider the impacts of increased residential densities to the agriculture and silviculture industries as well as public facility maintenance and operation expenditures (i.e., roads, water, sewer, schools,) needed to serve the proposed development.
FLU 3.1.4 Rezoning. Escambia County will protect agriculture and the rural lifestyle of northern Escambia County by permitting rezonings to districts, allowing for higher residential densities in the Rural Community (RC) future land use category.
FLU 3.1.5 New Rural Communities. To protect silviculture, agriculture, and agriculture-related activities Escambia County will not support the establishment of new rural communities.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to Rural Residential District is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) category, as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1. Based on the application language, the owner is proposing to develop the 210 +/- acres parcel, as identified in the signed and sealed survey produced by KJM Land Planning, LLC, dated 5/24/18, submitted as part of the applications, into lots ranging from four to twelve acres to accommodate a 38 lot single-family residential subdivision. Under the AG FLU the maximum residential density is one dwelling unit per twenty acres; however, the applicant is concurrently applying for a FLUM amendment from AG to RC. If the concurrent FLUM change is approved, then the proposed amendment would be compatible with CPP FLU 1.3.1, as the RC FLU has a residential maximum density of two dwelling units per acre.
Highway 97 is designated as a County minor arterial road and access to the site will be provided from this existing roadway; based on the general application language from the owner and the remote location of the proposed development major infrastructure improvements will have to occur within the parcel to support the type of development proposed as is not available at this time, using the allowance for increased residential units under the proposed RC FLU; however, staff is not able to analyze or determine the level of impact or the necessary infrastructure improvements that will be required as identified in FLU 3.1.1. The applicant described the future need for septic tanks, as the area lacks public sewer service and also identified ECUA as the potential solid waste provider. Ultimately, any proposed development allowed under the permitted uses for the requested zoning will require review and approval thru the established Development Review process. The applicant did provide a letter from a representative of Molino Utilities, Inc, Randy Weaver, Operation Manager, that states that adequate pressure and volume exist to provide potable water and fire protection for the new housing development, addressing the requirements under FLU 3.1.2.
Based on the application language, this area was originally owned by the St. Regis Paper Company; research reflects that the Company's primary objective is to manage and sell timberland. If the property is identified as containing prime farmland, using the current County's definitions, at the time of review for any proposed development, the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code regulatory language that supports the protection of such farmland will be implemented, in order to address the requirements under FLU 3.1.3. Spatial analysis of the surrounding area, does show the transitional development pattern in the area; a considerable amount of the parcels located South of Highway 97 appear to be smaller in size, trending into a more dense development character; conversely, parcels North of Highway 97 are larger in size, creating a less dense development pattern.
If the FLU amendment to RC is approved and adopted, then the request for the RR rezoning would be compatible, as specified in FLU 3.1.4, by protecting agriculture and the rural lifestyle of northern Escambia County and permitting a rezoning to districts, allowing for higher residential densities in the RC FLU category.
An analysis of the overall long-range development trends and needs for the County suggest that future areas of development have already been identified and addressed by the adoption of the Escambia County Mid-West Sector Plan. The Sector Plan layout results from analysis of demographics, market data, environmental resources, zoning and land uses, as well the identification of available infrastructure and public services. Based on those analysis, the existing adopted Sector Plan and the location of the proposed development, it is staff's opinion that supporting this amendment would be in contravention with the guidance of FLU 3.1.5. |
| Criterion b., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Consistent with The Land Development Code
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.
Sec. 3-2.2 Agricultural district (Agr).
(a) Purpose. The Agricultural (Agr) district establishes appropriate areas and land use regulations for the routine agricultural production of plants and animals, and such related uses as silviculture and aquaculture. The primary intent of the district is to avoid the loss of prime farmland to other uses, its division into smaller parcels of multiple owners, and other obstacles to maintaining or assembling sufficient agricultural acreage for efficient large-scale farming. Other than agricultural production, non-residential uses within the Agricultural district are generally limited to rural community uses that directly support agriculture, and to public facilities and services necessary for the basic health, safety, and welfare of a rural population. The absence of urban or suburban infrastructure is intentional. Residential uses within the district are largely self-sustaining, consistent with rural land use and limited infrastructure. Single-family dwellings are allowed at a very low density sufficient for the needs of the district’s farm-based population.
Sec. 3-2.3 Rural Residential district (RR).
(a) Purpose. The Rural Residential (RR) district establishes appropriate areas and land use regulations for low density residential uses and compatible non-residential uses characteristic of rural land development. The primary intent of the district is to provide for residential development at greater density than the Agricultural district on soils least valuable for agricultural production, but continue to support small-scale farming on more productive district lands. The absence of urban and suburban infrastructure is intentional. Residential uses within the RR district are largely self-sustaining and generally limited to detached single-family dwellings on large lots, consistent with rural land use and limited infrastructure. Clustering of smaller residential lots may occur where needed to protect prime farmland from non-agricultural use. The district allows public facilities and services necessary for the basic health, safety, and welfare of a rural population, and other non-residential uses that are compatible with agricultural community character.
(b) Permitted uses. Permitted uses within the RR district are limited to the following:
(1) Residential.
a. Manufactured (mobile) homes, excluding new or expanded manufactured home parks or subdivisions.
b. Single-family dwellings (other than manufactured homes), detached only, on lots four acres or larger, or on lots a minimum of one acre if clustered to avoid prime farmland.
See also conditional uses in this district.
(2) Retail sales. No retail sales except as permitted agricultural and related uses in this district.
(3) Retail services. Bed and breakfast inns. No other retail services except as permitted agricultural and related uses or as conditional uses in this district.
(4) Public and civic.
a. Cemeteries, including family cemeteries.
b. Clubs, civic or fraternal.
c. Educational facilities, K-12, on lots one acre or larger.
d. Emergency service facilities, including law enforcement, fire fighting, and medical assistance.
e. Funeral establishments.
f. Places of worship on lots one acre or larger.
g. Public utility structures 150 feet or less in height, excluding telecommunications towers.
See also conditional uses in this district.
(5) Recreation and entertainment.
a. Campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks on lots five acres or larger.
b. Golf courses, tennis centers, swimming pools and similar active outdoor recreational facilities, including associated country clubs.
c. Marinas, private.
d. Parks without permanent restrooms or outdoor event lighting.
e. Passive recreational uses.
See also conditional uses in this district.
(6) Industrial and related. [Reserved]
(7) Agricultural and related.
a. Agriculture, including raising livestock, storing harvested crops, and cultivation of nursery plants. A minimum of two acres for keeping any farm animal on site and a maximum of one horse or other domesticated equine per acre.
b. Aquaculture, marine or freshwater.
c. Farm equipment and supply stores.
d. Kennels and animal shelters on lots two acres or larger.
e. Produce display and sales of fruit, vegetables and similar agricultural products. All structures for such use limited to non-residential
farm buildings.
f. Silviculture.
g. Stables, public or private, on lots two acres or larger.
h. Veterinary clinics. A minimum of two acres for boarding animals.
(8) Other uses. [Reserved]
(c) Conditional uses. Through the conditional use process prescribed in Chapter 2, the BOA may conditionally allow the following uses within the RR district:
(1) Residential.
a. Group living, limited to nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospice facilities, and other uses providing similar services, assistance,
or supervision.
b. Manufactured (mobile) home parks on land zoned VR-1 prior to adoption of RR zoning.
c. Two-family dwellings (duplex) and multi-family dwellings up to four units per dwelling (triplex and quadruplex) on land zoned VR-1 prior
to adoption of RR zoning.
(2) Retail services. Medical clinics, including those providing out-patient surgery, rehabilitation, and emergency treatment.
(3) Public and civic.
a. Community service facilities, including auditoriums, libraries, museums, and neighborhood centers.
b. Educational facilities not among the permitted uses of the district.
c. Hospitals.
d. Offices for government agencies or public utilities.
e. Public utility structures greater than 150 feet in height, and telecommunications towers of any height, excluding any industrial uses.
f. Warehousing or maintenance facilities for government agencies or public utilities.
(4) Recreation and entertainment.
a. Hunting clubs and preserves.
b. Off-highway vehicle commercial recreation facilities on lots 20 acres or larger.
c. Parks with permanent restrooms or outdoor event lighting.
d. Shooting ranges.
(5) Industrial and related.
a. Borrow pit and reclamation activities 20 acres minimum and subject to local permit and development review requirements per Escambia
County Code of Ordinances, Part I, Chapter 42, article VIII, and land use regulations in Part III, the Land Development Code, chapter 4.
b. Mineral extraction, including oil and gas wells.
c. Power plants.
d. Salvage yards, not including any solid waste facilities.
e. Solid waste collection points and transfer facilities.
f. Wastewater treatment plans.
(6) Other uses. Airports, private only, including crop dusting facilities.
(d) Site and building requirements. The following site and building requirements apply to uses within the RR district:
(1) Density. A maximum density of one dwelling unit per four acres.
(2) Floor area ratio. A maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 for all uses.
(3) Structure height. No maximum structure height unless prescribed by use.
(4) Lot area. No minimum lot area unless prescribed by use.
(5) Lot width. A minimum lot width of 40 feet at the street right-of-way for cul-de-sac lots and 100 feet at the street right-of-way for all other
lots.
(6) Lot coverage. Minimum pervious lot coverage of 30 percent (70 percent maximum semi-impervious and impervious cover) for all uses.
(7) Structure setbacks. For all principal structures, minimum setbacks are:
a. Front and rear. Forty feet in the front and rear.
b. Sides. On each side, five feet or 10 percent of the lot width at the street right-of-way, whichever is greater, but not required to exceed 15
feet.
c. Corner lots. Will have one front setback and one side setback.
(8) Other requirements.
a. Farm animal shelters. Stables or other structures for sheltering farm animals shall be at least 50 feet from any property line and at least
130 feet from any dwelling on adjacent property.
b. Chapters 4 and 5. Refer to chapters 4 and 5 for additional development regulations and standards.
(e) Location criteria. The following location criteria apply to uses within the RR district:
(1) Prime farmland. All new or expanded uses shall be located to avoid the loss of prime farmland. Where such loss cannot be avoided, it
shall be limited to five acres or 10 percent of the development parcel area, whichever is greater.
(2) Non-residential uses. All non-residential uses shall be located to avoid nuisance, hazard and other adverse impacts to surrounding
residential uses. Retail sales and services shall be located along collector or arterial streets. Industrial uses shall be on parcels that comply
with the location criteria of the Industrial (Ind) zoning district.
(f) Rezoning to RR. Rural Residential zoning may be established only within the Rural Community (RC) future land use category. The district is suitable for rural areas not used to support large farming operations due to economic viability, soil productivity, surrounding development, or similar constraints. The district is appropriate to provide transitions between areas zoned or used for agriculture, conservation, or outdoor recreation and areas zoned or used for rural mixed-use or low density residential.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. The current request to amend the zoning and assign RR is not compatible with the existing AG FLU, as stated in Sec. 3-2.3 Rural Residential district (RR), (f) Rezoning to RR Rural Residential zoning may be established only within the Rural Community (RC) future land use category. If the request to change the FLU to RC is approved, then the proposed rezoning to RR could be consistent. Based on staff's analysis of the surrounding areas, it appears that the proposed rezoning would allow for this area to become transitional in nature, between the existing agricultural uses and the proposed low density residential development.
Based on public records the primary use for this parcels is timber production; furthermore, the proposed RR district intent is to provide for residential development at greater density than the Agricultural district, on soils least valuable for agricultural production, but continue to support small-scale farming on more productive district lands. The absence of urban and suburban infrastructure is intentional. Residential uses within the RR district are largely self-sustaining and generally limited to detached single-family dwellings on large lots, consistent with rural land use and limited infrastructure. The predominant surrounding zoning districts are Agr and RR.
Sec. 3-2.3(a) does contain language that requires the clustering of smaller residential lots where needed to protect prime farmland. The district also also provides language in Sec. 3-2.3(b) allowing for lots a minimum of one acre if clustered, to avoid prime farmland.
Under Sec. 3-2.3(e)(1) Prime farmland, all new or expanded uses shall be located to avoid the loss of prime farmland. Where such loss cannot be avoided, it shall be limited to five acres or 10 percent of the development parcel area, whichever is greater. The guidance for prime farmland in the LDC specifically identify several classes of land defined in the Soil Survey of Escambia County, Florida, U. S. Department of Agriculture, as having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and available as cultivated land, pastureland, forestland or other lands not built upon or urbanized. As shown in the provided soils map the entire area to include the parcel contain farmland, as defined. The application did not address prime farmland development, as required in the LDC, or any of the current zoning district requirements to protect such areas. |
| 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 search area, all parcels are zoned Agr. The following land uses were identified; three improved agricultural, four timberland, two single family, three vacant single family and one miscellaneous residential. Analysis of the surrounding area shows that North of Highway 97 there are large tracks of land and South of Highway 97 the predominant trend is for smaller tracks of land with single family uses intermixed. |
| 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
Approval of the amendment as requested would create spot zoning, as defined in Chapter 6 of the LDC, by creating an isolated zoning designation different from all adjacent land. Analysis of the surrounding uses within the contiguous lands identify that the agricultural zoning is prevalent. The primary intent of the district is to provide for residential development at greater density than the Agr zoning district on soils least valuable for agricultural production. As discussed early, the definition of prime farmland and the protection of agricultural activities to include silviculture, are clearly identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC. The applicant did not address the protection of agricultural activities or prime farmland. The applicant did state that the proposed use of the property would not have an adverse impact on adjoining zoning categories as it will be single-family residential homes. |
| 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 changed. Historical records show three approved rezonings between 2006-2007, on parcels located South of Hwy 97. All approved rezonings granted a higher development density than what is allowed under the original zoning:
Rezoning case Z-2006-52, 9100 Sunshine Hill Road, changing the zoning of a parcel from VAG-1, Villages Agriculture Districts (5du/100 acres on 1-acre parcels) to VAG-2, Villages Agriculture Districts (1du/5 acres). Resulted in the platted subdivision of Sunshine Hill Estates.
Rezoning case Z-2006-78, 9601 Sunshine Hill Road, changing the zoning of a parcel from VAG-1, Villages Agriculture Districts (5du/100 acres on 1-acre parcels) to VAG-2, Villages Agriculture Districts (1du/5 acres).
Rezoning case Z-2007-12, 9651 Sunshine Hill Road, changing the zoning of a parcel from VAG-1, Villages Agriculture Districts (5du/100 acres on 1-acre parcels) to VAG-2, Villages Agriculture Districts (1du/5 acres).
Although the rezonings were approved at that time, it is staff's opinion that the semi-rural character of the area still trends towards the large agricultural use parcels North of Hwy 97. |
|
|
|
|