Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-22-05 ‎(regular)‎ — reading text

oon-residential development. and revise the Land Development Code accordingly by June 18, 2001. Policy A. 3.7 - the City shalt require that all development ( except a development which includes not more than three dweUing units or 8 development which meets or exceedsalt minimum development requirements or design guidelines) be subject to the. review and approval of the Municipal Planning Board, or in the case of the Redevelopment Area, the CRA Board of Commissioners, of a site plan for the development~unless the development has met the incentives to be provided in the new Land Development Code; inCluding a requirement for commercial development to be compact and in a readRy accessible focation for the market it is intended to serve, and not enaoach into stable. residential areas. and revise the Land Development Code accordingly by June 18. 2001. Policy A.3. 8 - The City shan require landscaping and buffering to be provided in all cases where any commercial land use adjoins a residential land use to avoid a negative impact 3  o o on the residential property and revise the Land Development Code aCcordingly by June 18, 2001. Policy A.3.9 - The City shall require additional open/green space to the extent physically possible and economically feasible for all new development, redevelopment and reuse projects, to include a requirement for landscape islands in the interior of off-street parking or other vehicular use area to provide additional open/ green space and revise the Land Development Code accordingly by June 18, 2001. F. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS OFTHE REQUEST The Municipal Planning Board in its report and recommendation to the City CouncU on the appropriateness of the request should study and consider the following criteria and recommend whether or not each is met, if applicable. Staff has recommended findings for the MPB' s consideration. 1. The proposed zoning designation is contrary to the land use pattern. Adjacent properties to the east of the request are low density detached residential in nature;properties to the west are located In' the HC (Highway Commercial} District.Other undeveloped parcels north offhe request site have recefftly been re~oned R.z to be consistent with MDR, Medium Density Residential land use designation. The use ;s not contrary to the land use pattern as it forms the irable transitional land use between the residential to the east and commercial dfl$. to the west 2. The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Same as #1, above. 3. Existing zoning boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing condiUons on the property proposed for change. . Existing zoning boundaries are not drawn consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed change implements the Future Land Use Map FLUMJ designation MDR. Therefore the request is considered appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Changing or changed conditions make the proposed zoning appropriate. There are changed conditions. The Future Land Use Map designation was changed to MDR in orderto keep commercial land uses from encroaching info residential areas in the Oakland Neighbomood. The existing C- 1 zoning is inconsistent with the ", DR FLUM designation and must be changed to a zoning district considered consistent like R-2. 5. The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Adverse conditions that may have been created by the development of the commercially zoned propetty may be averted by rezoning to the R- 2 District (See ELU Map-Exhibit DJ. 4  o o 6. The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed change will result In less tratIic VOlumes and create less traffic: congestion thanth~ existing commercial zonIng. 7. The proposed change will create a drainage probrem. There are known so;1 types in the vicinity that might create d18lnage problems on the site. Any development on the site will require It stormwater plan per LDC regulations. The Intensity ofdevelopment and percentage of impervious surface will be at least 26 per cent less Intense with proposed R- 2 zoning as compared to potential development under existing C- 10istrict. 8. The proposed change will seriously reduce fight and air to adjacent areas. The bulk development standards for the R-2 District are more restrictive than the comparable C-1 District (ee table below). Heights are limited to 4S feet in. R- : s 2. Table 1 Comparison of R-2 versus C~1 District Standards Standards 1 (&i$ C- ting) R-Z ( Proposed) Intensity Height 150 feet+ 45 feet. FAR None None Land coverage 75% 50% Minimum lot s~ Area None None Widtb None None Minimum yards: Front 25," 25 feet Side comer 25' 25 feet Side Nane* 7.5 feet Rear Non&~. 20 feet PedorrRance standard$ No. No Except 45' when Within 500 feet of residential use. 9. The proposed change win adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. staff does not anticipate any adverse affect on property values from the proposeq change~The request site is und9ve1oped. There; s more demand for land that can accommodate multifamily development than commercial district. 10. The proposed zoning change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The rezoning should stimulate development of adjacent remaining undeveloped sites as well as the request site. The removal of C- 1 zoning on properties to the Notth offhe request has proven to be appropriate and triggered new housing development Expect the same with the request site. 5  o o 11. The proposed zoning district win constitute a grant of special priVIlege to individual owners as contrasted to the, public welfare. The requested change in zoning does not represent a grant of special privilege. As previously mentloned,applicant is-talclng action which wHllmplement a change In the FLUM, that the City would otherwise have to accomplish. 12. There are substantial reasons why a reasonable use of the property can not be accomplished under the existing zoning. This property is part of CIty's excessive COIfJIIJeI'ClaIly zoned landS inventoly.This land has been zoned C- 1 since 1960 and remains undeveloped. Site Is not on major or minor arterial street a critetfa vital to success of commercial zoning. 13. Whether the zoning proposed is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City. The propQSed zoning change to R-2 implements the Comprehensive Plan FLtJAf designation for the request site. SUMMARY The proposed change wiU imprement the FLUM designation MDR by changing the zoning to a district considered consistent with that designation, R- 2 ( Murtifamily Dwelling) District. Attachments: Applicant' s Exhibits- Exhibit 1- Application Exhibit 2- Warranty Deed Exhibit 3--Boundary Survey City's Exhibits Exhibit A- Location Map Exhibit 8- Zoning Map Exhibit C- FLUM Exhibit D- Existing Land Use Map 6  o nMp~ l~ f~~/ YYn un:/: u nQA$.~:: ... ..:_;;~+:' m~mw;::l:~~~~ Wl--l: I- l :I ! I:- : 1 1 1-\ 1-\ I~~ ai-~i~ JfII1III'&., CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPLICATION FOR REZONING Project Name: L-o' T;2. B LOCIL 5/ tJ E.. Co tl.. rz. Address or General Location: I. OF- " JoNQUIL AND - SULLIVAN FW{J: - 325'LtB I PART ONE- APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT ER.. RDAR. SE.. tJ CA "- Name: Tu", c~' DAN & WA I EtZ- LN ~ Address: 4-0 3( P ItJ 5T' I\J E crYI L. JJ>(- 3 2-S- 2-;OCJ r~ fZ. M - e. ~- F- L : 6~ S~- AGENT Name: Address: OWNER ( if oth~ r than applicant) Name: