Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-26-05 — reading text

2 uses than medical uses IlUAfA itA SR medICal uses ItUCC or GC 2 f or C- C- BR-other thalt medical uses IfUtIA itA BGmedical uses 2 or He GC or He than C- Ss.."",.. medical uses C-2 or HC GC or HC BT M;.z U or' IP M-1 or IP IP M- 2 AlP MDR R;.z RMHP PL PL or ED PL THE REQUEST: F. APPROPRIATENESS OF is more restrictive than the County as it only permits s land use and zoning The Cit( public utilitieS as pennitted principal residential land uses~publiC community buildings, 20/tOf10 versus the CitYs 25130n .5 uses. The RUS District setbacks are less restrictive for frontlrearfside yamsJ respectivety. . Okaloosa .County. The into the City from unincorporated The site was recently annexed future land use by the City with the termS of the Okatoosa County request. regulated is is completed. the process ofredesignation and zoning regutations until more than to a residential density of not The Cit( s LOR designation limits development are limited in acre. Buildings within the LOR land use designation 5. 45 ctweling units per 35 feel height to not more 1han consistent wi1h the residence, is considered a use The existing use, a single family LOR. Future land U . se designation. proposed to the City in its report and recommendation The Municipal Planning Board (MFB) and consider the of the requested zoning should study Council on the appropriateness 5  or not; following criteria, where applicabte, whether to the land use pattem; 1. The proposed zoning designation is contrary create an isotated district unrelated toadjaeent 2. The. Chatigewould proposed and nearby districts; _. . drawn' in relation to existing 3. Existing zoning boundaries are illogically cond1ttonson the property proposed for change; .. . 4. Changing or changed chndmons make the proposed zoning appropriate; cOhditions in the 5. Thedproposed change willadverseiy influence 1iving. neighborhood~ increase traffic congestion or 6. The proposed change will create or excessively otherwise affect public safety; 7. The proposed change wilt create a drainage problem; and air to adjacent areas; 8. The proposed changevvitt 'seriousty reduce tight 9. The proPosed change will. advers&ty affect property values in the adjacent area; to the improvement or 10. The proposed zoning distriCt will bea deterrent devetopment of adjacent 'property in accordance - with existing regulations; 11. The proposed 2.Qning will constitute a grant of special privilege to individual owners as contrasted with the public welfare; . use of the property cannot 12. There are substantial reasons why a reasonable and beaccomptished 'underthe existing zoning; of the 13. Whether the proposed is out of scale with the needs. zoning neighborhood or the City. G. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: future .land use maps, impact on the Based on the analysis of the site data, existing and Plan, and the avaUabilityofinfrastructure, consistency with the Comprehensive the of therequest the.fonowing Findings of Fact are recommended by appropriateness Staff regarding the subject request the existing land.use pattem; it is the same 1. The proposed zone R-1A is not contrary to within this portion of theCity's Kenwood zone as other city and County residential lands Neighborf1ood; 2. The proposed R- 1A zoning will not create an isolated district as other-adjacent property is also zoned R-A; and has not had any City zoning district 3. The property has only been recently annexed applied previously; to the fact thattIJeproperlyis no longer 4. The conditions that have changed are related district in imincorporatedOka/oosa County and mu$f have aR-1, R- 1A CJr R- 1E zoning to Policy A. 3.4, of the Future-Land Use Efement. of the'Comprehensive applied pursuant Plan; of the currentCounfy zoning distriCt; 5. The proposed change will reduce the-intensity residential land uses; RUS, a district which allows residential and non- the proposed change on City infrastructure, 6. The Staff has evaluated the impact from 6  mitJimat and fOund t6at-tfie impacfis pubiichealth. and safetY is already wfn not create II diai Jil!jepiU6ifj/ l1' a$!ne property 7. The propased change developed and has no known drainage problem; Uls a more restrictive set win provide for zoningdistricl which / assuring' 8. The proposed change County'$RUS Distrid;therefore standards, than doeS /he of and / develOpment ightand airto adjacent residential properties; adequate / in the will have no negative effect on property values in district 9. The proposed residential as adjacent propertieS / e sarna /and use type. It is h naighbotfJOodsif/ C8 the City; deterrent to' improvements Of devefopmentof will not bea wi/hin 10. The proposed zoning similar land uses exist comPafibly since It is known that adjacent properties residential neighborhoods; to the applicants.smce constitutes no grant of special privilegeuses in this portion of 11. The proposed zoning residential land is the same as ai/ other single family the zoning the Kenwood Neighbothood; interim. under the Countyzaning, be reasonably used ifl the. consistent with the LDR 12. The property can to a Cifyzoning district should be zoned . to the City; however, the land since it has been annexed FLUM designation assigned the property of the City as identified current needs with the 13. The proppsed designation is in scale consistency with the FLUM designation~