Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 09-23-03 regular Council agenda — reading text

4, 2003 Ord. Se tember 23, 2003 October 14, 2003 A. GENERAL BACKGROUND 1. Location: 6 Tupelo Avenue SE. Site includes 2 platted lots located between Hollywood Blvd on the north and Fourth Street SE on the south. ( see Location Map- Exhibit A). a. Major access: Tupelo Avenue SE b. Neighborhood: Beal Parkway c. 2000 Census Tract 226 and Block 2001 2. General features of the proposed project: a. Gross acreage: 0.34 acres ( 15,000 s. f.) b. Wetland acreage: None identified on Generalized Wetlands Map c. Dwelling units: None proposed. d. Gross Density: None proposed at this time; MUCC- 1 District permits 12 DU per acre maximum. e. Water and wastewater service: Available from City of Fort Walton Beach f. Garbage and trash pickup: Available from City of Fort Walton Beach g. Recreation amenities: None proposed. 3. Current zoning of the applicants' property: C- 1 ( Limited Commerci~ l) District. 4. Current surrounding zoning ( see Zoning Map- Exhibit B):  a. North: C- 1 ( Limited Commercial) b. South: MUCC- 1 ( Mixed Use Community Commercial- 1) c. East: C- 2 ( General Commercial) d. West: C- 1 ( Limited CommerciaJ) 5. Directions, Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map ( FLUM) designation: MUCC ( Mixed Use Community Commercial) 6. Surrounding FLUM designations ( see FLUM- Exhibit C) : North: MUCC ( Mixed Use Community Commercial) South: MUCC ( Medium Density Residential) East: RC ( Regional Commercial) West: MUCC ( Mixed Use Community Commercial) B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants, Ron and Marsha Yates, through their agent Don W. David, Jr., has requested to rezone the site ( 0. 34 acres) from C- 1 ( Limited Commercial) Distri-ct to MUCG- 1 ( Mixed Use Community Commercial- 1) District in order to place all of the applicants property into the same zoning district. The applicant also owns Lots 18- 19, 22 and 23 in Block 3, Brooks Addition. The applicant plans to develop it for a multiple family land use townhouses or apartments or condominiums). The C- 1 District does not permit multiple family residential land use. C. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 1. The property has been zoned C- 1 since 1960 when zoning was established in the City. 2. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan designated the property as C, Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. 3. The applicants acquired the property on July 24, 1998. 4. In August 2000, the new Comprehensive Plan changed the Future Land the Use Map designation to Mixed Use Community Commercial to implement Community Redevelopment Plan Update for zoning in this area. 5. In April 2002, the City Council considered a City- initiated area-wide zoning district amendment to the MUCC- 2 District in order to implement the MUCC Future Land Use designation. The request site was included in that proposed amendment. There were numerous land owners that testified at public hearings against the proposed change to MUCC- 2. The Municipal Planning 2  Board recommended, and the City Council concurred, that the proposed change to the MUCC- 2 District not be approved. 6. In April 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1482 that rezoned property south of the request, including other properties owned by the 1 applicants, located on the west side of Tupelo Avenue SE, to the MUCC- District. This rezoning was also initiated by the City as an area-wide rez.oning toimplement the MUCC Future Land Use designation applied to those properties in 2000. 7. In April 2003, the City has initiated a change to red~ signate the property to General Commercial ( GC) on the Future Land Use Map in order to implement the direction of City Council. 8. In August 2003, the applicant filed a request through their agent to implement MUCC designation by changing zoning to MUCC- 1. D. DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE LAW 1. Laws applicable to this request include Directions: The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Walton Beach: 2008 and the Fort Walton Beach Land Development Code. 2. NOTIC~: The applicant is cautioned not to discuss with any member of the Municipal Planning Board or City Council the merits of any matter on which action may be taken by the those public bodies. Doing so may requira the member to disclose publicly the nature of the conversation and disqualify that member from voting on the matter. E. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. The site is designated as MUCC, Mixed Use Community Commercial on the Future Land Use Map ( see Exhibit C, FLUM). The MUCC designation, will allow a mix of reSidential, professional offices, and convenience commercial uses. This designation replaced the Mixed Use Commercial/Residential ( MU C/ R) previously applied to lands in transition from low density residential to medium residential/commercial use. Permitted uses would be of a density type that provides goods and services needed on a daily basis to adjacent convenience small business neighborhoods. These would include uses, offices, limited retail uses and cafes but would not include repair or storage or automotive-related sales, repair or storage uses. Residential uses are limited to a density of 12 dwelling units per gross acre; commercial uses are permitted to develop impervious suliaces to m~ ximum lot coverage of 75 per cent. All development is limited to a maximum height of 45 feet. A maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2. 5 is permitted. 3 2. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the request include: Policy A.3. 5 - The City shall preserve and protect stable residential neighborhoods and prevent the following from occurring in resid$ ntial areas: 1) subdivision design which proposes the undesirable impacts from through- traffic movements through a neighborhood; 2) commercial development encroaching into residential areas; 3) new residential dwellings constructed at a scale inconsistent with the character and design of the neighborhood or 4) adjacent development deemed incompatible with residentialareas, and' revise the Land Development Code accordingly by June 18, 2001. Policy A.3.7 - 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 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 readily accessible location for the market it is intended to serve, and not encroach into stable, residential areas, and revise the Land Development Code accorcUngly by June 18, 2001. Policy A.3. 8 - The City shall tequire landscaping and buffering to be provided in all cases where any commercieil land use adjoins a residential land use to' avoid a negative impact 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 alt 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. 3. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map ( MPB Case# 20- CP03- 1) that is being considered by City Council as noted in the 03- Project Chronology, above, would as presently constituted make the requested change inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map. The FLUM would be changed to GC, General Commercial. Since the request site is located at the extreme eastern end of the MUCC Corridors along Hollywood Boulevard and Tupelo Avenue it would seem that it would be appropriate to omit the property in this request and Lots 14 and 15, Block 3 ( comer lot) north of it from the proposed change to GC, leaving them MUCC. Staff recommends that when the Comprehensive Plan Amendment package for the 2003 Amendment cycle is sent to City Council for consideration that the legal description be amended to delete Lots 14 through17, Block 3, 4  Brooks Addition Subdivision. That would allow the request property to remain consistent with the Future land Use Maps. 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 the MPB' s consideration. 1. The proposed zoning designation is contrary to the land uSe pattern. Adjacent properties to the south of the request are also designated MUCC and zoned MUCC- 1 as are properties to the southwest. The property to the west is currently designated MUCCalso. The use is not contrary to the land use pattern as it forms the desirable transitional land use between the residential to the south and west and commercial to the east and north. 2. The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Proposed change would not create a " spot zone". The resulting zoning configuration would continue the MUCC- 1 pattern two lots further north along Tupelo A venue SE. 3. Existing zoning boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed change will implement the existing Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation MUCC. Therefore the request is considered appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Changing or changed conditions make the propbsed zoning appropriate. There are changed conditions. The Future Land Use Map designation was changed to MUCC in order to form a transitional land use between commercial land uses to the east along Eglin Parkway from further encroaching into residential Breas in the Beal Parkway Neighborhood. The existing C- 1 zoning is incon$istent with the MUCC FLUM designation and should be changed