|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
7. A.
|
| Planning Board-Rezoning |
|
|
|
| SUBMISSION DATA: |
REQUESTED REZONING:
FROM: LDR, Low Density Residential district (four du/acre)
TO: MDR, Medium Density Residential district (10 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.
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.
FLU 1.5.1 New Development and Redevelopment in Built Areas. To promote the efficient use of existing public roads, utilities, and service infrastructure, the County will encourage the redevelopment in underutilized properties to maximize development densities and intensities located in the MU-S, MU-U, Commercial, and Industrial Future Land Use categories (with the exception of residential development).
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to MDR is consistent with the intent and purpose of Future Land Use category Mixed-Use Suburban (MU-S), as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1 Future Land Use Categories. The category is intended for a mix of residential and non-residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses. Range of Allowable Uses are listed as: residential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture. The amendment is also consistent with the intent of FLU 1.5.1, by making use of the existing public roads and the availability of utilities and service infrastructure. |
| 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. 3-2.5 Low Density Residential district (LDR).
(a) Purpose. The Low Density Residential (LDR) district establishes appropriate areas and land use regulations for residential uses at low densities within suburban areas. The primary intent of the district is to provide for large-lot suburban type residential neighborhood development that blends aspects of rural openness with the benefits of urban street connectivity, and at greater density than the Rural Residential district. Residential uses within the LDR district are predominantly detached single-family dwellings. Clustering dwellings on smaller residential lots may occur where needed to protect prime farmland from non-agricultural use or to conserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas. The district allows non-residential uses that are compatible with suburban residential neighborhoods and the natural resources of the area.
Sec. 3-2.7 Medium Density Residential district (MDR).
(a) Purpose. The Medium Density Residential (MDR) district establishes appropriate areas and land use regulations for residential uses at medium densities within suburban or urban areas. The primary intent of the district is to provide for residential neighborhood development in an efficient urban pattern of well-connected streets and at greater dwelling unit density than the Low Density Residential district. Residential uses within the MDR district are limited to single-family and two-family dwellings. The district allows non-residential uses that are compatible with suburban and urban residential neighborhoods.
(b) Permitted uses. Permitted uses within the MDR district are limited to the following:
(1) Residential.
a. Manufactured (mobile) homes only within manufactured home parks or subdivisions. No new or expanded manufactured home parks, and new or expanded manufactured home subdivisions only on land zoned V-4 prior to adoption of MDR zoning.
b. Single-family dwellings (other than manufactured homes), detached and only one per lot, excluding accessory dwellings. Accessory dwellings only on lots one acre or larger. Attached single-family dwellings and zero lot line subdivisions only on land zoned R-3 or V-4 prior to adoption of MDR zoning.
c. Two-family dwellings only on land zoned R-3 or V-4 prior to adoption of MDR zoning, and multi-family dwellings up to four units per dwelling (quadruplex) only on land zoned V-4 prior to MDR zoning.
See also conditional uses in this district.
(2) Retail sales. No retail sales.
(3) Retail services. No retail services. See conditional uses in this district.
(4) Public and civic. Public utility structures, excluding telecommunications towers. See also conditional uses in this district.
(5) Recreation and entertainment.
a. Marinas, private.
b. Parks without permanent restrooms or outdoor event lighting.
See also conditional uses in this district.
(6) Industrial and related. No industrial or related uses.
(7) Agricultural and related. Agricultural production limited to food primarily for personal consumption by the producer, but no farm animals. See also conditional uses in this district.
(8) Other uses. [reserved]
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. The applicant is requesting the MDR zoning designation for both parcels. The existing zoning allowances for the two parcels is currently LDR, which provide limited a range of uses and intensities that are included within the allowances of the requested MDR zoning district. A review of the current zoning map, as it relates to the two parcels in question, shows that the properties adjacent to the south and across Wild Lake Boulevard to the north, are currently zoned MDR zoning.
TTO Staff has reviewed the Rezoning Case (Z)-2018-07, 800 block of Klondike Road, agenda item for the Planning Board meeting scheduled for July 10, 2018. Please see the below comments.
Currently, there are no ongoing or programmed projects on Klondike in the County’s Capital Improvements Program. Likewise, there are no ongoing or programmed projects on FDOT’s Work Program. Recently, however, the county began exploring an expansion (two 12-foot travel lanes with 4-foot paved shoulders) of Klondike Road and Wilde Lake Boulevard. The project would be constructed in three phases: Phase I, Klondike Road from Wilde Lake Boulevard to the Pathstone development; Phase II, Wilde Lake Boulevard from Klondike Road to Pine Forest Road; and Phase III, Klondike Road from Wilde Lake Boulevard south to Mobile Highway. In addition, FDOT indicated that signalization of the intersection of Mobile Highway and Klondike Road will be programed, in the near term.
Klondike Road is classified as a local street and assumed to be functioning within its allowable capacity for traffic volumes. Per the Florida-Alabama TPO’s Congestion Management Process Plan, Mobile Highway is classified as a Minor Arterial. The maximum level-of-service (LOS) for this roadway segment is LOS D (17,700 trips/day), and as of year 2017, this roadway segment had 12,600 daily vehicles.
TTO’s review is solely based off the application submittal packet, so the comments above hold no bearing on any future TTO comments during the Development Review process. |
| 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, staff identified properties with zoning districts LDR and MDR. There is 77 single-family residences, four vacant residential, three non-agricultural acreage parcels, and one RV Park. All surrounding zoning districts range from low-density residential to medium-density residential. The existing uses and intensities on the ground, are compatible with the allowed uses under the requested MDR district. |
| 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 request to MDR would not establish or reinforce spot zoning; based on the LDC definition, the request to rezone both properties from low density, to MDR will actually make those two parcels just as equally compatible with the adjacent zoning and the existing uses and intensities as they currently are. |
| 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 properties have not changed. The development within the area has remained low to mid-density residential. As the two parcels are proposed for rezoning to MDR, the potential uses, densities and intensities allowed by that district would be compatible with the existing surrounding development patterns. The proposed amendment would not create or contribute to urban sprawl.
|
|
|
|
|