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

2001. poncy A.3.1 - The City shall require that all development ( except a development which includes not more than three -dwelling units or a development whiCh meets or exceeds all mlnimum 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 Commiss10nefS, of a site plan for the development, unless the development has met the incentive$to be provided in the new Land Devetopment Code; including a requirement for commercial development to be compact and in a rea4ily accessible location for the market it Is intended to serve. and not encroach into stable, residential areas, and revise the Land Development Code accordingly by June 18, 2001. Policy A.3. 8..The City shaD require landscaping and buffering to be provided in all caSes where any commercial land use adjoins a restdentialland use to avOid a negative impact on the residential property and revise the Land Development Code accordiDQIy by June 18, 2001. 3  Policy A.3.9 - The City shall. require adcUt!onal open/green space to the extent physically possible and economically feasible for all new development. redevelopment and reuse proj~. to lnclu~ a requirement for landscape islands In the Interior of off-street parking or other vehicular use area to provide additional open/green space and revise the Land Development Code aCCOrdingly by June 18. 2001. F. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REQUEST The MuniCipal Planning Board in its report and recommendation to the City Council on the appropriateness of the request should study and consider the following criteria and recommend Whether or not each is met, if applicable. Staff has recommended findings for U,e MPB' s consideration. 1. The Pro~ cfzoning designation is contrary to the land use pattem. Adjacent properties to the east ofthe request al8low density defachetl residential In nature; ptopertles to the west and north are '~ In the HC HI(ghway eommei1i: aO DIstrIct.J1Iete Is.also anofIaer.undeveIoped patCfIl south ofthe request site that remains zoned c.. 1 but Is designated MDR,Medium Density ResldentiaL.T1re use Is not conbary tofhe land use j) 6t1em as Itfotms the cleslttJble fTansitionalland use befween the t8$; dentia#fo the ea$f and commercial to fire west and nOlltJ. 2. The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated tQ existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Same as I, # above.. 3. Existing zoning boUndaries are illogicatty qrawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. ExIstIng zoning ~ a...not dnIwn COftSlstentwIIIJ the CompreIrefJsIve Plan Futura Land Use Map~The proposed change Implements the Land usa Map Futu,.. RUM)desIgnatIon IfIDR. Therefote the teqUest Is considered appropriate and consistent wlth the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Changing or.changed conditions make the proposed zoning appropriate. There are changed cond1tlons. The Future Land Use Map designation was Changed to IIIDR In ottfer to keep commercialfand uses from encroachIniIlnfo resIdential areas In the Oalcland NeJghbothoodThe fbcIsfIng c..1 zoning Is inconsJstent with the IIIDR RUM deslgnatlon.and should be chlJlfged to IIDR to be conslsfent. 5. The change win adversely influence living conditions in the propo$ed neighborhood. Adverse conditions that may have been cteafed by the development of the commercially ZQned property may be avetted by rezoning to file R-2 District (See au Map-ExhIbIt 0). 6. The proposed change wilt create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety. 4  traffic volumes and crute lesS traffic There proposed change should result in Ie$$ congestion than the existing commetclal zonlnfl. 7. The. proposed change win create a drainage proble"1. CI88t8 drainage pmble",s on the TIMte ate mown soli types In the 8188 that might a stonnwater plan per LDC site.Any development on the site WIll require and percentage otfmp8rVfouS surfaf;e tellulatlOdS. The IntensIl.y of development to will be at leaSt 25 per cent leSs Intense 'filth proposed R-2 zoning as compared under exISfInQ c. f District. . potential development d change win seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 8. The propos$ resfrk;five than the developmetJfsfanCU$ dS for the R-2 Disfrk;t ate mo" The bulle 2. ate limited to 45 feet in R- comparable C-1 Dlstrfct (see fable beloW).Heights Table 1 Comparison of 2 versUs C- 1 District Standards R-- 1-- R-2,,.- Stmadaids ~ Inten5itJ . 45 feet. 160 __ Height None fAR N~ 15% 50% t; and .coverage Minimum 10tsize None AIea None None None Width MinimuIII yards 25 feet Fmnt 251- as 25 feet Sidfi corner N~. 7.s feet Side 20 feet Rear . NofteA No No Petf~ mance standards values in the adjacent areas. 9. The proposed change will adversely affect property values from the proposed Staff doeS not lpafe finyadverse affect on property anfI(: site Is undeveloped. There Is mote demand for land that can cbange.The fUeSt '* 818 commercial district T(here accommodate multifamily development fIIan 11C-2 zoned land In R-2 zoned ,and and 9 acte5 of c- 282. cuaently 233.0 acres of the CItyJ detenent to the improvement or 10. The proposed zoning change win be a with existing regulations. development of adjacent property in accordance of adjacent remalnlng ~ oped The rezoning should sflmulfrte deWlopment a constraint. C- 1 zoning Inappropriate Is and sites as well as the request site. The of special privilege to 11. The proposed zoning disbict will constitute grant a welfare. individual owners as contrasted to the public 5  The change In zoning does not represent a grant of special ptfvUege.As request-' previOUSly mention~ applicant Is taldng action whlclr wflllmplement a change In the FLUM, that the City would otherwise have to accomplish. 12. There are substantial re$ sons why a reasonable use of the property can not be accomplished under the existing zoning. ThIs property Is part of cnys exc*SSive commercially zoned landS inventory. This land " 8$bHn zoned c- 1 since 1960 and remains undeveloped. Site Is not on major or minor arterial stra_ a criteria vital to success of commercial zoning. 13. Whether the zoning proposed is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City. TI1a proposed zoning change to R-2 implements the ComprelJMsiVe Plan FLUM desi9~ n for the quest ;. $/ te. SUMMARY The proposed change will implement the FLUM designation MDR by changing the zoning to a district considered consistent with tha\designation, R-2 (Multifamily DwelHng) District. Attachments: Applicant's Exhibits-Exhibit 1- Application Exhibit 2- Qwners Consent and Designation Exhibit 3-Warranty Deed City's Exhibits Exhibit A- Location Map Exhibit B-Zoning Map Exhibit C-FlUM Exhibit D-Existing Land Use Map I 6  MPB CASE #: () $'"- ,~t2- ~ DATE RECEIVED: Z-' 2- F"-o5' RF.CF - .