Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-23-2010 Regular — reading text

tables for each zoning district, Tables 15- 4. 1 through 15. 4. 23, are internally inconsistent with the uses in Table 15- 2 and the design standards in Table 15- 3. The cross - references to sections of Chapter 16 are not accurate and must be updated. For example, the uses listed for the YC zoning district in Table 15- 4. 6 are not identified as permissible in Table 15 -2. The maximum FAR for MUCC- 2 in Table 15- 4. 9 is 2. 25, while the maximum FAR in Table 15- 3 is 2. 5. Several of the zoning district tables ( Section 15- 4) refer to development plans. However, Chapter 13 uses the terms development plan and site plan. Are these different documents? Table 15 -4. 11 again refers to a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre, while the Comprehensive Plan sets a limit of 12 dwelling units per acre, or 15 dwelling units per acre with a bonus. Table 15- 4. 15 ( PUD) is confusing, in that it only addresses consistency of the PUD zoning district with the Comprehensive Plan for density, but not for lot coverage and height limits. In fact, the height limit is based on the underlying zoning. The PUD is a zoning district, not an overlay; therefore, there is no underlying zoning. The reference should be to the underlying land use category. The uses for the PUD zoning district are not internally consistent with Table 15- 2 and are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The subsection entitled " General Standards" references Table 13- 2, which does not address PUDs. There is an extensive section on procedures, which, for clarity and consistency, should be in Chapter 13. Chapter 13 contains no requirements for a PUD, while Chapter 14 contains procedures for a PUD in the preliminary plat section. The submittal requirements for the PUD are incomplete; for example, there are no requirements regarding flood elevations, habitats, wetlands, or shorelines. Table 15 -4. 17 indicates that uses permitted in C- 2 may be allowed, which is inconsistent with Table 15- 1. Table 15 -4. 21 shows the maximum lot coverage as 50 %, which applies outside the CRA. Within the CRA, lot coverage up to 65% is permissible. The uses listed for the CF zoning district are inconsistent with Table 15 -2. Table 15- 4. 22 shows that other uses may be permissible in the EF zoning district as determined by the MPB. This is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The uses listed are internally inconsistent with Table 15- 2. Table 15- 4. 23 repeats the lot coverage error identified in note D. 8 above. Page 126 Fort Walton Beach Evaluation and Diagnosis Preliminary Review of the LDC Land evelopment Code E. Chapter 16 —Development Standards 1. Section 16. 11. 5 pertaining to accessory uses appears to be inconsistent with Table 15- 2 which establishes some of the accessory uses in Section 16. 11. 5 as permitted uses. 2. Section 16. 16 appears to be inconsistent with Table 15 -2 ( Allowable Uses). 3. There are several instances of inconsistent terminology due to references to land use categories that are no longer in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Chapter 15 contains some landscaping standards for individual zoning districts, while Chapter 16 establishes standards for landscaping. The duplication should be eliminated. 5. There are some buffer requirements scattered throughout Chapter 16, either for specific uses, for parking lots, or as perimeter landscaping. Section 16. 46 provides for commercial development to buffer adjacent residential development. 6. Section 16. 40 provides performance standards for commercial and industrial districts. Such performance standards are also provided in Chapter 15 for the M -2 zoning district. The duplication should be eliminated. It is also not clear whether such performance standards apply to all districts where commercial and industrial uses are identified ( such as mixed use or PUD) or zoning districts that are exclusively commercial and industrial. The applicability of performance standards should be clarified. 7. There are general standards for accessory uses and structures and specific standards for specific uses. All standards pertaining to accessory uses and structures should be placed in one section for ease of location by the user. 8. Internal cross-references should be checked for accuracy. For example, the section on townhouse development requires compliance with Section 16. 115 regarding parking where parking standards are in Section 16. 31. 9. Section 16. 54. 1 contains submittal requirements for site plans, duplicating or overlapping requirements set forth in Chapter 13. The duplication should be eliminated. 10. Section 16. 60. 4 establishes additional site plan requirements for zero -lot line development. Chapter 13 contains site plan requirements. The requirements should all be located in one section for clarity and ease of use. 11. It appears that there is overlap and duplication throughout Chapters 13, 15, and 16. These three chapters should be analyzed in more detail, duplications eliminated, and provisions grouped into one chapter or section by topic. This will significantly improve the ability of the user to find all pertinent requirements, whether use, development standards, or As it stands now, these requirements could be anywhere. procedure. 12. There may be overlap or duplication with requirements in Chapters 1, 2, 8, and 10 of the Code of Ordinances. An update or revision to the LDC should include examination of these chapters of the Code of Ordinances to eliminate duplication and resolve conflicts resulting from overlap and duplication. F. Chapter 17 — Resource Protection 1. There are several provisions in Chapter 17 that appear to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to notes for policies from the Comprehensive Plan in Part I of this report. 2. The wellhead protection section addresses limitations on uses in the wellhead protection area. Such uses should be identified within Chapter 15 which purports to address permissible and prohibited uses within zoning districts. It is confusing to the reader to have use requirements in multiple chapters. Page 127  Fort Walton Beach Evaluation and Diagnosis Preliminary Review of the LDC Land Development Code 3. There is confusion in that some provisions in Chapter 17 duplicate or overlap provisions in other chapters of the LDC. During revision and update, duplications should be eliminated and conflicts resolved. Requirements should be provided one time for ease of use. G. Chanter 18 — Concurrency Management 1. Section 18. 10. 5, entitled " Final local development permit" is actually addressing the applicability of concurrency management requirements. It overlaps the provision in Chapter 12 pertaining to " Existing approved uses." There should only be one provision to establish which uses are exempt from further review. 2. Section 18. 10. 6 purports to be a summary of LOS standards, but only contains the LOS standard for parks and recreation and trip generation information for transportation ( but not the LOS standard). Standards for recreation are also contained in Section 18. 11. 3, entitled " Methodology, calculations for project demand." The recreation standard is not consistent between the two sections. Further, it is confusing to the reader to place standards in a section addressing methodology and not in a section claiming to contain standards. 3. Section 18. 11. 9 addresses proportionate fair -share for requirements transportation. Several policies of the Comprehensive Plan require that development pay a pro-rata share for water and wastewater. There are no specific provisions for determining the pro-rata share for these facilities. 4. There are no provisions in Chapter 18 regarding school concurrency. H. Chanter 19 — Supplemental Standards 1. Home occupations are regulated in this chapter and are identified as accessory uses. It is recommended that the provisions pertaining to home occupations be moved to Chapter 16 as a more appropriate location. 2. The remaining portions of Chapter 19 do not address land development matters. I. Chapter 20 —Definitions This chapter was consulted regarding definition of unclear terms. However, the chapter was not reviewed for accuracy. If the LDC is revised and updated, definitions should be reviewed at that time to ensure that terms are included with accurate definitions based on the revisions and updated text and graphics. Any review of definitions should consider definitions contained in other chapters of the LDC and in chapters of the Code of Ordinances that contain regulations pertaining to land development ( such as Chapters 1, 2, 8, and 10). Further, definitions should not contain development standards or other regulations. The definitions in Chapter 20 should be reviewed and updated to eliminate any regulatory language. III.Community RedevelopmentAgencvP]an A. Land Use 1. An objective requires protecting neighborhood assets, buildings, structures, and sites of architectural, archaeological, or historic significance. The LDC contains historic preservation requirements. No regulations have been found to identify or protect architecturally significant buildings or structures. The MUW land use category has the purpose of protecting historic or archaeological resources. Page 128 Fort Walton Beach Evaluation and Diagnosis Preliminary Review of the LDC Land Development Code 2. An objective requires establishing land development and architectural design regulations for implementation of the CRA. See specific notes in the table comparing uses and use requirements between the FLUM, the LDC, and the CRA Plan. There are numerous instances of inconsistency.