|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
7. A.
|
| Planning Board-Rezoning |
|
|
|
| SUBMISSION DATA: |
REQUESTED REZONING:
FROM: Low Density Residential district (LDR) (four du/acre)
TO: Medium Density Residential district (MDR) (10 du/arce)
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 beconsistent with the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan and the Future LandUse Map (FLUM).
CPP FLU 1.3.1 Future Land Use Category The Mixed-Use Suburban (MU-S) Future Land Use (FLU) category is intended for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses while promoting compatible infill development and theseparation of urban and suburban land uses. Range of allowable uses include: Residential, Retail and Services, Professional Office, Recreational Facilities, Public and Civic. The maximum residential density is twenty five dwelling units per acre.
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 redevelopment in underutilized properties to maximize development densities and intensities located in the Mixed Use-Suburban, Mixed Use-Urban, Commercial and Industrial Future Land Use districts categories (with the exception of residential development).
CPP FLU 2.1.2 Compact Development. To promote compact development, FLUM amendments and residential rezonings to allow higher residential densities may be may be allowed in the Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) and Mixed-Use Suburban (MU-S) future land use categories.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to MDR is consistent with the intent and purpose of FLU category MU-S, as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1. The current FLU allows for residential and non-residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses. The proposed development will use the existing roads and 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.
Sec. 3-2.7 MDR, Medium Density Residential.
(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.
(c) Conditional uses. Through the conditional use process prescribed in Chapter 2, the BOA may conditionally allow the following uses within the MDR district:
(1) Residential.
a. Accessory dwellings on lots less than one acre.
b. Group living, excluding residential facilities providing substance abuse treatment, post-incarceration reentry, or similar services.
c. Home occupations with non-resident employees.
d. Townhouses not among the permitted uses of the district.
(2) Retail services. Boarding and rooming houses.
(3) Public and civic.
a. Clubs, civic and fraternal.
b. Educational facilities, excluding preschools or kindergartens independent of other elementary grades.
c. Emergency service facilities, including law enforcement, fire fighting, and medical assistance.
d. Offices for government agencies or public utilities, small scale (gross floor area 6000 sq.ft. or less per lot).
e. Places of worship.
f. Public utility structures exceeding the district structure height limit, excluding telecommunications towers.
(4) Recreation and entertainment.
a. Golf courses, tennis centers, swimming pools and similar active outdoor recreational facilities, including associated country clubs.
b. Parks with permanent restrooms or outdoor event lighting.
(5) Agricultural and related. Horses or other domesticated equines kept on site, and stables for such animals, only as a private residential accessory with a minimum lot area of two acres and a maximum of one animal per acre.
(d) Site and building requirements. The following site and building requirements apply to uses within the MDR district: (1) Density. A maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre regardless of the future land use category.
(1) Density. A maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre regardless of the future land use category.
(2) Floor area ratio. A maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 within the MU-S future land use category and 2.0 within MU-U.
(3) Structure height. A maximum structure height of 45 feet. See height definition.
(4) Lot area. No minimum lot area unless prescribed by use.
LDC 3:37
(5) Lot width. Except for cul-de-sac lots which shall provide a minimum lot width of 20 feet at the street right-of-way, the following minimum lot widths are required:
a. Single-family detached. Fifty feet at the street right-of-way for single-family detached dwellings.
b. Two-family. Eighty feet at the street right-of-way or two-family dwellings.
c. Multi-family and other. Eighty feet at the street right-of-way for townhouse groups and boarding or rooming houses. No minimum lot width required by zoning for other uses. (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. Twenty feet in the front and rear.
b. Sides. Ten feet on each side of a group of attached townhouses. On each side of all other structures, 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. Stables. Stables shall be at least 50 feet from any property line and at least 130 feet from any residential dwelling on the property of another landowner.
b. Chapters 4 and 5. Refer to chapters 4 and 5 for additional development regulations and standards.
(e) Location criteria. All non-residential uses within the MDR district shall be located to avoid nuisance, hazard and other adverse impacts to surrounding residential uses.
(f) Rezoning to MDR. Medium Density Residential zoning may be established only within the Mixed-Use Suburban (MU-S) and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) future land use categories. The district is suitable for suburban or urban areas with central water and sewer and developed street networks. The district is appropriate to provide transitions between areas zoned or used for low density residential and areas zoned or used for high density residential or mixed-use.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment to MDR is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. The applicant is requesting the MDR zoning designation for three parcels totaling 9.45± acres. The existing zoning allowances for the parcel 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 parcel in question, shows that the property is surrounded by LDR zoning. Across Pine Forest Road and north of the subject property there is existing MDR zoning would allow for an increase in 10 dwelling units per acre versus LDR's four dwellings per acre and a lot width difference of 50 feet for MDR versus 60 feet for LDR. MDR zoning will only allow for single family dwellings to be constructed no apartments or commercial uses would be allowed. MDR zoning is the most compatible up zoning change for any LDR existing property all other zoning changes would allow for commercial activity. |
| 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' ft radius area, staff identified properties within zoning districts MDR, HDR and HC/LI. Both parcels are currently surrounded by HDMU zoning and the proposed development will be consistent with similar densities and intensities in the area. The property is surrounded by single family, townhouses and mobile homes. Within the 500ft there is a mini-warehouse, Dollar General, Church, Pine Forest Royal subdivision and Milestone Phase I subdvision. |
| 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
Staff determines that the granting the rezoning request from LDR to MDR would not be considered or reinforce spot zoning as defined in the LDC. The adjacent properties are zoned LDR however, the properties to the north and to the east across Pineforest road are currently already developed with a zoning of MDR and HDR make this a more transistational zoning. |
| 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 parcel 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 and would allow more dense development around a commercial node that is to the south where Pine Forest Road instects West Nine Mile Road.
|
|
|
|
|