Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 05-10-05 — reading text

j}t~'!~~~ 1.''''~1~~ !;$' st""""''''''''_",>",)"",_ J' e}"$ f>,,~ ,~,~:;;.~-;. A-,~,.'!. t.~~~ ~'- r.\ J{rt-.. r~' >:.~...~....~..:.. Y_-$""~~ V<; ii:' V", &. f""<-"~~. RtJS;. 1 R- 1: LOR RUn R-2 Or R-2a . MDR RUA R-2 MDR RIA. R-2 MDR R. medicaI GD-& fA fIUIfA uses RGD-other usestlJan AfUCC- 1/AfUCC- 2 IIUCC medicatuses BR mediCal MA IIUAfA BR-other thall: 1 or C- C- 2 & fUCC orGC medit:aI uses- BG. medical & fA AfVIfA uses: BG- otIr:Ir tInJ" Z or He C- GCor He lfIIIdIcal Uses BT 2 or tIC C- GC or HC IP M- 1orM2 - U orlP AlP M-Z IP RMHP R-2 MaR PL Pl.or ED PL F. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REQUEST: restrictive than the County as it only permits The City's.land>useand' zoning is mor& residential land uses~public community. buildings. public utilities as pem1itted principal uses. The RUS District setbacks are less restrictive 2011.0110 versus the City's 2513Dn. 5 for fronttrearlside yards. respedively~ The site was recentiy annexed into the City from unincorporated OkalcosaCounty~.The request is regulated by the City with the terms of the Okatoosa:County future land use and zoning.regutations untit the.process ofredesignation is compI'eted. The City"s LOR designation limns development to a residential density of not more than 5.45 dweUing,units per acre. Buildings within the lOR land use designation are limtted in heQrt to not . more than 35 feel The existing use, a single family residence. is considered a use consistent with the proposedLDR, Future lanetUse designation. The Municipal Planning Boald (MPB) in its report and recommendation to the City Coundt on the appropriateness of the requested zoning shouki study and consider the 5 following criteris. whereappticabte. whetheror not; 1. Tne proposed zoning designation is cOntrary to the land use pattem; 2. The' proposed Change' would create an isolateddistrictunretatedtoadjaeent and nearby distrtcts; 3. Existing zoningboutidaries are, iltogfcally dra\Yrt in retation to existing condittonson th~ property proposed for change; , 4. Changing or Changed chriditians makEf the proposed zoning' appropriate; 5. The proposed change win' adversSly infhie,nc1Mng' cOnditions in the neighbOrhood; , 6. The proposed,change win create or ex.cessively' increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect pubtic safety; 7. The proposed ch~ ge wilt craate a drainage problem; . 8. The p~~ ed chang'e '~ itl 'seriousty reduce' tight and "air to adjacent areas; 9. The proposed change will. advers$fy affect property vatues in the adiacent anaa; , 1 O. The proposed zon,ing distriCt will bea deterrent to the imprc)vement or devetOpment of ~djacent propertYtnaccordance with existngreg(t ations; to individual 11. The-proposed 2;Qningwilt constitute a grant of special privilege owners' as contrasted with the public ' welfare; cannot 12. There are substantial-reasons why a reasonable use of the property and beaccomp' ished 'under'the existing zoning; 13. Whether thezoning proposed is out of scale with the' needs' of the neighbOrhood or the City. . G. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: use maps; impacl' oilthe Based on the analysis of the site' d8ta. existing and future land- and the avatlabilityofinfrastructure. cons~stencywith the Comprehensive Plan. the appropriateness of the r8questthefonowing Findings of' Factare recommended by Staffregarding' the subject request itis the same-. 1. The 'proposed zeneR- fA is not cantraryto the existinglancfuse ' pattem; this portion zone as other City and County residential lands within , of theCity's Kenwood Neighborhood; 2. The proposed R- 1A zonmg win not create-an isolated cfrstrict as otheradjeicei1t property is also zoned R-A; 3. The properly has only been recently annexed and has not had any City zoning district applied previously; , fact that.iheproertyis no lOnger 4. The conditions that have changed are related to the ' - 1, R~1A or R- 1E zOning district tnu$f haVe a R in unincOrporatedOka/OOsa County and applied pursuant to A. 3.4, of the Future' Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; c: JistriCt; 5. The proposed change' will reduce the' intensity cJfthe cunentCounty zoning and uses; RUS, a district which allows residential and non- residential/ 6. The Staff has evaluated the impact from the proposed change on City infrastructure, 6  pubiichea/thand safetY and fouf'ldtnat- tne impacfis minimal: t.. . .-. ..: . J. "':'. . . 7. The proposed change will not createadfairi~-' fjtOblem as'.tl1e properly is already developed and has no known drainage problem; 8. The proposed change will providefo{ zoning'districf whichhSs a more restn~ ve set of land development.standards, than does the Courift$ RUS District; thereforeasscn7ng' adequate light and a,rfoadjacent residential properties; 9. The proposed tricf wHl have no negative effect on property values in the . di$ in neighborhood' since it is the same land use type, residential as adjacent properties the City; 10. The propOsed zoning will not bea detem1ntto-improvemenfs.ordevelopmenfof adjacent properties since it is known that similar land uses exist compatibly within residential neighborltoods; 11. The proposed zOhing constitUtes no grant of special privilege' to the applicantS..since the zoning is the same as alrother single family residential land uses in.this portion of the Kenwood NeighborhOod;' 12. The property can be reasonably used in the interim 'under the. County'Zoning, LDR however, the land should be .zoned to a City zoning district consistent with the FLUM designaticnassignedthe property since it has-been annexed,to the City; sedrJesignaticin is in' scale 'withthe.identified current needs of the City as 13. The prop() indicated by the proPosed zoning consistency with