Agenda


Planning Board-Rezoning		5. A.
Meeting Date:	09/02/2014
CASE :	Z-2014-13
APPLICANT:	Tim Kelly and Debra Perry, Owners
ADDRESS:	1170 Blue Oval Lane
PROPERTY REF. NO.:	29-1N-31-3301-000-000
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban
DISTRICT:	5
OVERLAY DISTRICT:	NA
BCC MEETING DATE:	10/09/2014

SUBMISSION DATA:
REQUESTED REZONING: FROM: V-1, Villages Single-Family Residential District (one du/acre) TO: VR-2, Villages Rural Residential District (one du/.75 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)
CRITERION (1)
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Suburban (MU-S) Future Land Use (FLU) category is intended for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses. Range of allowable uses include: residential, retail and services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic. The minimum residential density is two dwelling units per acre and the maximum residential density is ten dwelling units per acre. FINDINGS The proposed amendment to VR-2 is consistent with the intent and purpose of FLU category MU-S as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1. The current future land use allows for residential uses and promotes compatible infill development.
CRITERION (2)
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 The proposed rezoning request to VR-2 is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning district. The VR-2 designation reflects more affordable lot sizes for single family development although rezoning to a category with larger lot size requirements would be more consistent with the neighboring parcels currently zoned VR-1. The VR-1 and VR-2 districts allows for agricultural, farm animals, and other agricultural related activities.
CRITERION (3)
Compatible with surrounding uses. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area of the subject property(s). FINDINGS The surrounding parcels are zoned VR-1, VAG-2, and V-1. The current zoning of the subject parcel is V-1 with a density of one dwelling unit per acre and the requested zoning to VR-2 has a density of one dwelling unit per .75 acres. Keeping consistent with the surrounding zoning, a VR-1 zoning would be more compatible, allowing one dwelling unit per four acres and would be consistent with the current densities in the area, having more allowable uses including farm animals and agricultural-related activities.
CRITERION (4)
Changed conditions. Whether and the extent to which there are any changed conditions that impact the amendment or property(s). FINDINGS Staff found no changed conditions that would impact the amendment or property(s). The subject parcel was rezoned in 2005 from VAG-2 to V-1 at which time the large parcel was split and sold, making the existing parcels smaller and unable to go back to the original zoning designation of VAG-2 because of density.
CRITERION (5)
Effect on natural environment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in 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. CRITERION (6) Development patterns. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. FINDINGS The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The use on the subject parcel is residential reflecting rural development patterns, which is consistent with the surrounding residential uses.

Attachments
Z-2014-13


Planning Board-Rezoning		5. B.
Meeting Date:	09/02/2014
CASE :	Z-2014-14
APPLICANT:	Christopher Carmen, Agent for David and Andrea Saguan, Owners
ADDRESS:	8400 Blk Cedar Springs Road
PROPERTY REF. NO.:	25-3N-32-1400-000-000
FUTURE LAND USE:	AG, Agriculture
DISTRICT:	5
OVERLAY DISTRICT:	NA
BCC MEETING DATE:	10/09/2014

SUBMISSION DATA:
REQUESTED REZONING: FROM: VAG-1, Villages Agriculture District, Gross Density (five du/100 acres on one acre parcels) TO: VAG-2, Villages Agriculture District, Gross Density (one du/five 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)
CRITERION (1)
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Agriculture (AG) Future Land Use (FLU) category is intended for routine agricultural and silvicultural related activities and very low density residential uses. Also allows for commercial activity limited to those endeavors ancillary to agricultural and silvicultural pursuits or in support of agricultural activities such as seed, feed and food outlets, farm equipment and repair and veterinary services. Range of allowable uses include: agriculture, silviculture, residential, recreational, public and civic, limited ancillary or supportive commercial. The maximum residential density is one dwelling unit per twenty acres. FINDINGS The proposed amendment to VAG-2 is consistent with the intent and purpose of Future Land Use category AG as stated in CPP FLU 1.3.1 since VAG-2 is intended for low density residential uses while supporting agricultural activities the same as the current zoning of VAG-1.
CRITERION (2)
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. Land Development Code (LDC) 6.05.22 VAG Villages Agriculture Districts. The villages agricultural districts are typically characterized by agriculturally-assessed parcels held for agricultural production and very low density residential development in agricultural communities. Single-family residential and rural community uses that directly support agricultural activities are allowed. Home occupations are considered permitted uses. Mobile homes are allowed as single-family dwellings. Residential density bonuses are available for clustering residential lots outside areas of prime farmland. When residential lots are created, small lot sizes are encouraged in order to protect viable farm production activities and curb premature conversion of prime farmland acreage to nonagricultural uses. FINDINGS The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. VAG-1 allows for large farming operations and to keep large parcels of land from being broken up making it harder to have enough acres for agricultural activities. VAG-2 is for smaller rural land areas with a mix of farm operations and rural residential densities. Both zoning designations have the same permitted uses.
CRITERION (3)
Compatible with surrounding uses. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area of the subject property(s). 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 VAG-1 and VAG-2. The parcels are residential and agricultural in use and comparable in size to the subject property.
CRITERION (4)
Changed conditions. Whether and the extent to which there are any changed conditions that impact the amendment or property(s). FINDINGS Staff found no changed conditions that would impact the amendment or property.
CRITERION (5)
Effect on natural environment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. FINDINGS According to the National Wetland Inventory, wetlands and hydric soils were indicated on the subject property and is in an "A" Flood zone. 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 and a wetlands survey will be required. CRITERION (6) Development patterns. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. FINDINGS The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The surrounding properties are currently zoned either VAG-1 or VAG-2 with residential uses therefore the granting of this rezoning would allow this parcel to remain compatible with the neighboring properties.

Attachments
Z-2014-14


Planning Board-Rezoning		5. C.
Meeting Date:	09/02/2014
CASE :	Z-2014-16
APPLICANT:	Wiley C. "Buddy" Page, Agent for Daniel and Rhonda Cobb, Owners
ADDRESS:	2840 Pine Forest Road
PROPERTY REF. NO.:	38-1N-31-2301-000-000
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban
DISTRICT:	5
OVERLAY DISTRICT:	None
BCC MEETING DATE:	10/09/2014

SUBMISSION DATA:
REQUESTED REZONING: FROM:VR-2 Villages Rural Residential District (one du/ 0.75 acre) TO:V-3 Villages Single-family Residential District (five 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)
CRITERION (1)
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CP Policy 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). CP Policy FLU 1.3.1 Future Land Use Categories. 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 the separation of urban and suburban land uses. The range of allowable uses includes: residential, retail and services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic. The minimum residential density is two dwelling units per acre and the maximum residential density is ten dwelling units per acre. CP Policy FLU 2.1.2 Compact Development. To promote compact development, FLUM amendments and residential rezoning to allow higher residential densities may be allowed in the Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) and Mixed-Use Suburban (MU-S) future land use categories. FINDINGS The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and FLUM. The permitted uses of V-3 are consistent with the stated intent and purpose of the MU-S future land use category. The increased maximum residential density is consistent with that allowed by MU-S and with the allowance of higher residential densities to promote compact development. Consistency with other applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan would be confirmed during review of proposed development for compliance with implementing Land Development Code regulations.
CRITERION (2)
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. LDC 6.00.01. Legislative intent of residential districts. The residential districts established in this section (AG, RR, SDD, R-1, AMU-1, AMU-2, R-1PK, R-2, R-2PK, R-3, R-3PK, R-4, R-5, R-6, V-1, V-2, V-2A, V-3, V-4, V-5, VR-1, VR-2, VR-3, and residential portions of GMD, VM-1 and VM-2 and PUD/PUD-PK districts) are designed to promote and protect the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and other aspects of the general welfare. The general goals include: H. To promote the most desirable use of land as well as the appropriate location and density of development, to promote stability of residential areas by providing for smooth transitions in residential density, to effectuate and maintain adequate levels of public services, to conserve the value of land and buildings, to protect the county's present and future tax revenues and to achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. LDC 6.05.24. V-3 Villages Single-Family Residential District, Gross Density five units/acre. A. Intent and purpose of V-1 through V-3 districts. Single-family detached residential district characterized by urban land development patterns with residential subdivision densities varying from one unit per acre to five units per acre. Mobile homes are not allowed. No minimum lot size is required for new subdivisions with the exception of V-1, which has a minimum lot size of one acre, but development must meet overall maximum density requirements. V-2A may be used in any AIPD overlay area with a compatible future land use designation. Density will be determined by the accident potential zone density allowed for their property, not to exceed three du/acre. In AIPD-2, density is limited to three du/acre. Refer to article 11 for uses and densities allowed in V, villages single-family residential areas located in the Airport/Airfield Environs. Structures within Airport/Airfield Environs, Zones, and Surfaces remain subject to the height definitions, height restrictions, and methods of height calculation set forth in Article 11. FINDINGS The proposed amendment appears to be in conflict with the LDC and not consistent with the general goal to promote appropriate density of development and smooth transitions in residential density. All land directly adjoining the subject parcel, and a majority within one-half mile of the parcel, shares its VR-2 zoning and maximum density of one dwelling unit per 0.75 acres (1.33 du/acre). All other lands within the half-mile radius are zoned for single-family residential use: VR-1 (0.25 du/acre), V-1 (1 du/acre), V-2 (2 du/acre), and V-3 (5 du/acre). The V-3 areas that have been developed as single-family subdivisions typically have an actual developed density of about three dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment would increase maximum density from 1.33 to five dwelling units per acre and allow a potential increase from 16 to 59 single-family dwellings on the subject parcel based on its 11.76 acres. Subdivision would likely require some of the developed acreage to be exclusively used for streets, stormwater ponds, and other infrastructure, but there is no V-3 minimum lot area or other effective limit to developing the maximum density on the remaining acreage.
CRITERION (3)
Compatible with surrounding uses. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area of the subject property(s). FINDINGS The proposed amendment allowing medium density single-family residential development is not compatible with existing low density single-family residential uses in the area of the subject property. Although the amendment retains the primary single-family residential use of the area, it proposes a residential density significantly greater than the maximum allowed density of all adjoining and many surrounding parcels. At that higher density the potential exists for the creation of lots significantly smaller than the one acre or larger that is typical of surrounding lots. As suggested to the applicant during the rezoning preapplication meeting, rezoning to V-2 or V-2A would be more compatible with surrounding zoning and developed lots.
CRITERION (4)
Changed conditions. Whether and the extent to which there are any changed conditions that impact the amendment or property(s). FINDINGS No changed conditions were identified that significantly impact the amendment or property. The two most recent subdivisions developed in the area appear to be ones whose final plats were recorded in 2011 and 2009.
CRITERION (5)
Effect on natural environment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. FINDINGS Wetlands and hydric soils covering an acre or more are indicated within a central portion of the subject property according to the National Wetland Inventory. The proposed amendment would not likely result in impacts to the natural environment more significant than the current zoning. The presence and extent of adverse impacts from future development on the parcel allowed by zoning would be evaluated through review of that development for compliance with applicable Land Development Code regulations. CRITERION (6) Development patterns. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. FINDINGS As identified on the zoning map, the pattern of development within the 500' radius allows for a density of one unit per .75 acre. Basically, this reflects a semi-large lot rural development pattern. Since this is appears to be the case, the proposed amendment would not result in a logical and orderly development pattern, but would create a generally isolated zoning district having maximum residential density and potential residential subdivision incompatible with all adjacent and many nearby zoning districts.

Attachments
Z-2014-16


Planning Board-Rezoning		5. D.
Meeting Date:	09/02/2014
CASE :	Z-2014-18
APPLICANT:	Wiley C. "Buddy" Page, Agent for Doris Minchew, Owner
ADDRESS:	7170 Blue Angel Parkway
PROPERTY REF. NO.:	25-1S-31-2101-001-002
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-U, Mixed-Use Urban
DISTRICT:	1
OVERLAY DISTRICT:	N/A
BCC MEETING DATE:	10/09/2014

SUBMISSION DATA:
REQUESTED REZONING: FROM: R-R, Rural Residential (cumulative) (two du/acre) TO: C-1, Retail Commercial District (cumulative) (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)
CRITERION (1)
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 minimum residential density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre and the maximum residential density is 25 dwelling units per acre. Policy FLU 2.1.2 Compact Development. To promote compact development, FLUM amendments and residential rezoning to allow higher residential densities 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 C-1 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 The existing land use of MU-U allows for a mix of residential and commercial development promoting compatible infill development.
CRITERION (2)
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 The proposed amendment appears to be in conflict with a portion of the LDC. Generally, one of the primary goals of separate zoning districts is to protect the residential development from nonresidential land uses. More specifically in this case, a rezoning of the parcel in question from RR to C-1 would increase the allowable uses and the associated impacts significantly. From an objective review of the pertinent regulations for Criterion 2, this could be deemed as inconsistent with the intent and purpose. But equally important is the fact that the Land Development Code does allow for screening and buffering standards that would allow for residential and commercial development to co-exist in close proximity to each other; therefore minimizing or even eliminating any adverse impacts commonly associated with commercial development. Another factor to consider is that the parcel is fronting on Blue Angel Parkway, which is a major arterial road. Particularly on the south side of the Blue Angel Parkway, there are parcels already in existence with C-1 zoning designations in close proximity to the subject property; likewise, commercial zoning along major arterial roads, i.e. Blue Angel Parkway, is somewhat encouraged by the locational criteria regulations per Article 7.20.00 Land Development Code.
CRITERION (3)
Compatible with surrounding uses. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area of the subject property(s). FINDINGS The proposed amendment is not compatible with surrounding existing uses in the area because it would allow a full range of retail sales and service development which would be a more intense use as compared to the existing single-family and multi-family residential developments in the area of the subject property. Within the area of the subject parcel there are properties with zoning districts RR, C-1 and C-2. Rezoning to a less intense zoning category would provide for a smooth transition and be more compatible with the developed lots.
CRITERION (4)
Changed conditions. Whether and the extent to which there are any changed conditions that impact the amendment or property(s). FINDINGS Staff found no changed conditions that would impact the amendment or property(s).
CRITERION (5)
Effect on natural environment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. FINDINGS According to the National Wetland Inventory, wetlands and hydric soils were 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. CRITERION (6) Development patterns. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. FINDINGS From staff's site visit of the subject parcel and the surrounding areas, there appears to be a pattern of residential development within the area. Yes, there are parcels with commercial zoning designations; but, they are single-family homes and apartments. Commercial development is very limited within the 500'radius. Since this appear to be the case, the point can be made that the request would not result in a logical and orderly development pattern. However, the existence of the commercially zoned parcels adjacent to and in close proximity to the subject parcel; the location of the subject parcel on Blue Angel Parkway; and the requirement for screening and buffering so that parcels with a different zoning designation can co-exist together could be considered as unique factors that can help facilitate mixed use development patterns.

Attachments
Z-2014-18


AGENDA ESCAMBIA COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING September 2, 2014–8:30 a.m. Escambia County Central Office Complex 3363 West Park Place, Room 104


1.		Call to Order.

2.		Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

3.		Proof of Publication and Waive the Reading of the Legal Advertisement.

4.		Quasi-judicial Process Explanation.

5.		Public Hearings.

	A.	Z-2014-13



	B.	Z-2014-14



	C.	Z-2014-16



	D.	Z-2014-18



6.		Adjournment.