|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
7. D.
|
| Planning Board-Rezoning |
|
|
|
| SUBMISSION DATA: |
REQUESTED REZONING:
FROM: LDR, Low Density Residential district (four du/acre)
TO: LDMU, Low Density Mixed-use district (seven 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
Whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and not in conflict with any of the plan provisions
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.
CPP 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, Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U), Commercial (C), and Industrial (I) FLU
categories (with the exception of residential development).
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to LDMU is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Future Land Use (FLU) category MU-S, as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1. The MU-S FLU is intended for a mix of residential and non-residential uses, promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses. The applicant's description of the the intent of the proposed development is identified in the language under MU-S FLU range of allowable uses under retail services. The location of the proposed amendment does not meet the requirements for infill development and based on the existing conditions on the ground, would be incompatible with the low-density residential character of the surrounding area. Granting of the amendment would not serve the purpose of demarcating or enhancing an existing suburban to urban transition, as such transition does not currently exist at this location.
The proposed amendment for the site would promote the efficient use public roads, utilities and of already existing infrastructure, making the request partially compatible with the intent of CPP FLU 1.5.1. |
| Criterion b., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Consistent with The Land Development Code
Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any portion of this Code, and is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of this Code.
FINDINGS
Although the primary intent of the LDMU district is to provide for a mix of neighborhood-scale retail sales, services, and professional offices with greater dwelling unit density and diversity than the Low Density Residential district, and the proposed amendment to LDMU would allow for the proposed use, the parcel is currently part of a platted residential subdivision, First Harvesters Homes.
The parcel is located adjacent to Hwy 297A, designated as a major collector urban roadway; the surrounded intensities and densities are primarily low-density residential development. The applicant did not provide documented compatibility analysis for the location criteria requirement for new proposed commercial development in LDMU, as stated in Section 3-2.6.e, numbers 1 thru 5; therefore, the request is not consistent with the stated intent and purpose of the Land Development Code (LDC). |
| Criterion c., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Compatible with surrounding uses
Whether all land uses, development activities, and conditions allowed by the proposed zoning are compatible with the surrounding conforming uses, activities and conditions and are able to coexist in relative proximity to them in a stable fashion over time such that no use, activity, or condition negatively impacts another. The appropriateness of the rezoning is not limited to any specific use that may be proposed but is evident for all permitted uses of the requested zoning.
FINDINGS
Within the 500' radius area, all properties are within the LDR zoning district. There are 27 vacant residential parcels, 32 single-family residences, seven mobile homes, one church and one improved agricultural parcel. The location criteria standards in the LDC provide a degree of protection for residential uses, ensuring that any proposed non-residential uses could in-time be compatible and complimentary with the low-density character of the district. The proposed amendment is not compatible with the surrounding existing uses in the area.
During the site visit, staff did observed the existence of a commercial grade exhaust vent on the structure roof and also noticed the mural sign on the front wall of the current structure. |
| Criterion d., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Changed conditions
Whether the area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed, or is changing, to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage new uses, density, or intensity in the area through rezoning.
FINDINGS
Staff found no changed conditions that would impact the amendment or property. |
| Criterion e., LDC Sec. 2-7.2(b)(4) |
Development patterns
Whether the proposed rezoning would contribute to or result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment would not result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The LDMU district is intended to rely on a pattern of well-connected streets and provide for the separation of suburban uses from more dense and intense urban uses. Based on the 500' radius analysis, except for the existing religious structure, the remaining existing densities and intensities are all residential in nature; the development pattern of the area continues to be suburban in nature. Approval of the amendment would create an isolated parcel with increased uses and intensities adjacent to low density residential development within the boundaries of a platted subdivision. Inspection of the surrounding parcels and uses does not support the transitional character of the LDMU zoning district.
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. |
|
|
|
|