The City of Panama City Planning Board met on the above date with the following members present:

Transcription

1

2

3 PLANNING BOARD OF PANAMA CITY SPECIAL WORKSHOP PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2015 The City of Panama City Planning Board met on the above date with the following members present: Mr. Carl Russ Ms. Mary Sittman Ms. Halley Stark Mr. Robbie Hughes Mr. Ray Dubuque, Chairman Also present: Mike Lane, Planning Director Anna Papke, Planner II Maureen Rainville, Administrative Assistant The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm and the roll was called. Mr. Dubuque stated that this meeting is a workshop to discuss incentives for the Downtown District and Downtown St. Andrews District Zoning Districts. The Planning Board will not be voting on the topic. This workshop is for the community to provide input and for the Board members to ask questions. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any changes to the workshop agenda. There were none. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any announcements. There were none. Mr. Lane addressed the Board and stated that the workshop is to discuss the proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations for the Downtown District and the St. Andrews Downtown District with a focus on the incentives. Mr. Lane stated that he had invited Ray Greer, consultant from Stantec, to come to the meeting to present the current incentives. Ray Greer, Stantec, 1441 Maclay Commerce Drive, Tallahassee, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Greer stated that several months ago he and Mike Lane sat down to put together the proposed LDR s for the City. Mr. Greer stated that the Comprehensive Plan has the incentives outlined. Mr. Greer stated that the Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Land Use District has the incentives incorporated. The incentives have not been implemented. Mr. Greer stated that Mike Lane asked him to put some incentives into the LDR s that would not require a change to the Comprehensive Plan but to put some requirements into the plan in order to implement them and to do it in a way to encourage commercial and residential growth in the Downtown District. Mr. Greer stated that the incentives were based on a point system with certain incentives developers obtain higher points. Mr. Greer stated that the Comprehensive Plan sets the density at 60 units per acre and a floor area ratio of 5. Mr. Greer stated that the Land Development Regulations for the Downtown District gives the same for incentives. Mr. Greer stated that the City has given all of the incentives up front. 1

4 Mr. Greer stated that what he had done with the revisions to the incentives was bring the FAR down to a 2.0 and gave some incentives to get the FAR up higher. Mr. Greer stated that you can entice developers to do certain things to get more development on site or more density on site. Mr. Greer stated that the changes that were made were to give residential and non-residential increases to get you back up to 60 units per acre and a 5 FAR while trying to encourage development in the Downtown District. Ms. Mary Sittman addressed Mr. Greer. Ms. Sittman stated that she had concerns with the density. Ms. Sittman feels that perhaps we should look at a percentage increase. Ms. Sittman also stated that she didn t feel as though some of the bonuses being offered would be beneficial to Downtown. Ms. Sittman stated that maybe one approach was to set the maximum increase that could be allowed and do the incentives as a free market. Have the developers come to the City and state they have X benefits they would like to provide to the public in exchange for an X number of units or an X FAR. Mr. Greer stated that the Downtown District covers a large area and the incentives come as a one size fits all. Mr. Greer stated that perhaps the district should be broken down into different zones. Mr. Hughes stated that only about four or five waterfront properties would benefit from the current waterfront related incentives. Mr. Hughes stated that he thinks what needs to happen is more incentives being put in place that will benefit the majority of people and not just the person living on a specific piece of property. Mr. Hughes asked if some of these incentives could be put in place without changing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Greer stated that you can do a Comprehensive Plan amendment with a list of incentives. Mr. Greer stated that you cannot adopt the LDRs until the change has been made to the Comprehensive Plan, which would take about three months to amend. Mr. Dubuque asked for clarification on how the incentives would work. Mr. Dubuque wanted to know who determines the number of incentives you have to do in order to reach a certain percentage, i.e., does one incentive get you 10%, two incentives get 20%, etc. Ms. Sittman stated she feels the City and the Planning Board would be the individuals who would decide how many incentives would be required for the development. Ms. Sittman stated that the language needs to state that the incentives that are given for one project does not set a precedent for future projects. Ms. Stark asked if there would be a limit to the types of incentives the City would allow. Mr. Greer stated that the language needs to provide guidance and define the density and intensity describing what you get for the incentives. There isn t anything in the code now that states how you get the incentives. Mr. Hughes stated that the complaint he has been hearing from developers is that they cannot put together a pro forma based on what we have written to know exactly what they would get. Mr. Greer stated that the incentives can be adjusted with the percentage points in order to reach 60 units per acre and a 5 FAR. Mr. Greer stated that this is the max you could receive as it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan. 2

5 Ms. Sittman asked if the Comprehensive Plan could be changed to 60 units per acre for some of the property in the City we would like to see developed. Ms. Sittman also asked if the Downtown corridor and Harrison Avenue corridor could have a limit of 30 units per acre. Ms. Sittman also stated that perhaps bringing jobs to the Downtown area would be another incentive. Mr. Dubuque asked if the public had any questions. There were none. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Greer from the Board or staff. There were none. Mr. Alan Jackson, 2800 West 14 th St, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Jackson asked if the incentives that have been discussed apply to the St. Andrew s Downtown District. Mr. Dubuque asked Mr. Ray Greer to address Mr. Jackson s question. Mr. Dubuque noted that the only difference between the Downtown District and the St. Andrews Downtown District would be the height restrictions. St. Andrews has a 100 foot height maximum and Downtown is 120 foot height maximum. The other difference in the St. Andrews district is the prohibited use. If you have a business in St. Andrews that is a prohibited use and it is destroyed 50% or more, the business can rebuilt, unless it is an adult entertainment business. Mr. Lane addressed the Board and stated the workshop was to discuss the incentives for both Downtown and St. Andrews Downtown. Mr. Jackson wanted clarification as to when the changes would be implemented. Mr. Lane stated the zoning changes for the St. Andrews Downtown District would be presented to the City Commission on August 25. Mr. Lane stated that it would be October before all of the changes would be made and fully implemented. Mr. Jackson wanted to know if he would be required to pay more taxes to assist with the changes to St. Andrews. Mr. Hughes explained that the changes will not affect taxes. The changes will apply to developers. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Lane for clarification on why the new zoning map included neighborhoods to the East and not just Beck Avenue to Hwy 98. Mr. Lane stated that The Waterfront Partnership and the St. Andrews CRA worked together establishing the new zoning district. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Lane if the overlay for Downtown will be the same overlay for St. Andrews. Mr. Lane stated yes. Mr. Lane noted that if there is a need to make adjustments to either of the districts staff could come back and make the changes. Mr. Lane noted that both districts have parking issues and it would be great to have some incentives tied to a parking deck in either location. Mr. Mitch Holman, Captain s Table Restaurant, 1110 Beck Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Holman stated that the two biggest issue he feels that need to be addressed are parking and garbage. Mr. Holman stated that parking needs to be addressed as there is not sufficient parking for the business currently located in St. Andrews. Mr. Holman also stated that garbage dumpsters are being placed in areas where visitors could park. Mr. Dubuque asked Mr. Lane if new development in St. Andrews was required to provide a certain number of parking spaces. Mr. Lane stated that the CRA districts are a special parking district and they do have leniencies. Mr. Lane noted that Los Antojitos did provide the 47 spaces that were required but because they could not squeeze all of the parking on their property, they were allowed to have overflow parking in the right-of-way. 3

6 Mr. Dubuque stated that he was surprised about the use of the right-of-way for Los Antojitos because the City had an issue with parking on Harrison Avenue for the development of the Marie Hotel. Mr. Dubuque stated he did not think it was fair. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Greer if he could look into some private/public parking decks and provide a good incentive for developers that will provide parking. Mr. Dubuque asked Mr. Lane if he and Mr. Greer would get together and come up with a plan and present the updates to the Board at the September meeting. The workshop ended at 3:50 p.m. Maureen Rainville, Secretary Ray Dubuque, Chairman 4

7 PLANNING BOARD OF PANAMA CITY PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2015 The City of Panama City Planning Board met on the above date with the following members present: Mr. Carl Russ Ms. Mary Sittman Ms. Halley Stark Mr. Robbie Hughes Mr. Ray Dubuque, Chairman Also present: Mike Lane, Planning Director Anna Papke, Planner II Maureen Rainville, Administrative Assistant The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm and the roll was called. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any changes or deletions to the agenda. There were none. Mr. Dubuque asked for a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Hughes made a motion to accept the minutes. Ms. Sittman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any disclosures. There were none. Item #1 Request for rezoning from UR-1 to UR-2, 807/809 Cherry Street, CK Rentals, Inc., owner, Preble-Rish., representative. This item was pulled from the agenda by the applicant. It will be presented at the September 14, 2015, Planning Board Meeting. Item #2 Request to abandon an alley/utility easement on the north side of the property at 807/809 Cherry Street, CK Rentals, Inc. owner, Preble-Rish Inc., representative. This item was pulled from the agenda by the applicant. It will be presented at the September 14, 2015, Planning Board Meeting. Item #3 City-initiated Land Use Map amendment and zoning map amendment for property in St. Andrews to establish the St. Andrews Downtown District. Mr. Lane presented the staff report. 1

8 The St. Andrews Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) has become one of the main tourist areas within the City. In order to strengthen its popularity for tourists, the area is in need of more mixed-use and new commercial development. Community leaders approached the Planning Department and asked that we consider a more flexible zoning district for the St. Andrews area, much like the Downtown District, to be added to the City s Land Development Regulation. To this end, the City adopted LDR standards for a new St. Andrews Downtown District Zoning District in July The final step in the creation of the St. Andrews Downtown District is to designate the parcels of property that will be included in the District, and to amend the Future Land Use and Zoning Maps accordingly. The attached map shows the proposed boundaries of the St. Andrews Downtown District. The Planning Department proposes to designate these properties under the Downtown District Future Land Use category, and the St. Andrews Downtown District zoning district. Mr. Lane noted that he did not want residents to think as though they would be taxed as part of the CRA district but their property will be zoned as part of the St. Andrews Downtown District. Mr. Lane stated that developers would have to comply with the standards set for the St. Andrews Downtown District. Mr. Dubuque asked for clarification on the current CRA boundaries on the map. Mr. Dubuque also asked who from the CRA could explain why the areas that are currently not within the CRA are being pulled into the new St. Andrews Downtown District. Mr. Lane stated that when the first map was presented to him, only half blocks were to be included into the new St. Andrews Downtown District. Mr. Lane stated that with previous discussions with CRA staff the CRA mentioned how they were not comfortable with only half blocks being included so the map was changed to include the whole block. Mr. Hughes asked if any CRA members or leaders were in attendance. Mr. Rob Rosner, St. Andrews CRA Program Manager, St. Andrews Panama City, FL addressed the Board. Mr. Rosner stated that one of the reasons for including the block was not whether or not the area was within the CRA but did it make sense for a business district area where the City is seeing growth. Mr. Rosner stated that it made sense to bring the whole block in instead of two parcels in the area. Mr. Rosner stated that one of the issues in the St. Andrews area is the lots are very small and in order to have traditional development you would have to buy three to four lots. This is the reason why the CRA suggested the whole block concept. Mr. Hughes asked for clarification on the map. Mr. Hughes asked if businesses are looking to increase business three blocks off of Beck Avenue. Mr. Rosner stated yes. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any more questions from the Board. There were none. Mr. Dubuque asked if anyone from the audience had any questions or comments. Mr. Adam Boone, 1106 Wilmont Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Boone asked if there would be an increase in his property taxes due to the zoning change. Mr. Dubuque stated that unless the City decides to increase tax rates, the zoning change would not affect property taxes. Mr. Boone asked if he would have to sell his house with the zoning change. Mr. Boone noted that two lots next to his home have been sold recently. Mr. Boone stated he has no intention of selling his property. 2

9 Mr. Dubuque stated that the zoning changes will not force anyone to sell their property. Ms. Marylynn Lenhardt, 1106 Wilmont Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Ms. Lenhardt stated that she is retired and she is concerned since her property will be zoned commercial, her property taxes will increase. Ms. Lenhardt stated she was concerned with the zero setbacks being proposed. Ms. Lenhardt was concerned with development being able to come so close to her home. Mr. Lenhardt also asked for clarification on the impervious ratio and wanted to know if she could pave all of her property to create a parking lot. Ms. Lenhart also inquired about stormwater runoff. Mr. Lane stated that if Ms. Lenhardt was to install 2,000 SF of pavement, she would then be required to build a stormwater pond. Ms. Lenhardt also asked for clarification on the difference between the Downtown District and the St. Andrews Downtown District zoning. Ms. Lenhardt also inquired about building a multi-level parking facility on her property with parking on the ground level, would it be allowed. Mr. Dubuque stated that if you are not on Beck Avenue, yes you can have parking on the ground floor. Mr. Lane stated that Ms. Lendhardt would be able to design a parking facility where she could have retail and commercial space on the first level. Mr. Clay Bazzel, 1105 Drake Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Bazzel stated he has concerns with the proposed changes. Mr. Bazzel stated the blocks east of Chestnut Avenue, which are primarily residential, single family and multi-family, not be included in the rezoning. Mr. Bazzel stated he had a petition signed by neighbors who are also against the blocks east of Chestnut Avenue being rezoned (copy of petition was not received by staff). Mr. Bazzel wanted to know what the density was for Residential-1 zoning. Mr. Lane stated the density would be five units per acre. Mr. Dubuque asked CRA staff why Harbour Village at Historic St. Andrews was not included in the map. Mr. Rob Rosner, St. Andrews CRA Program Manager, Panama City, FL addressed the Board. Mr. Rosner stated the condo complex already fit the model. Mr. Rosner stated that the property was already zoned for the current use. Mr. Rosner stated if you wanted to add the complex into the rezoning he would be more than happy to add it. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Rosner for clarification on the zoning of properties on Drake Avenue and if the properties would be developed under CRA guidelines. Mr. Rosner stated that development is based on the City guidelines and the zoning of the property. Mr. Rosner also stated that the CRA guidelines are more for the style and the look of the home and historical charateristics. Mr. Robert Spann, 1111 Drake Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Spann stated that his home is a historic home in the St. Andrews area. Mr. Spann stated that a 30 unit complex is being considered for the property adjacent to his home. Mr. Dubuque stated that the City has not received any plans or a development order for a 30 unit complex being developed in the St. Andrews area. Ms. Jessica Nash, 1115 Drake Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Ms. Nash stated that her concerns with the proposed zoning change would be the height restrictions, zero setbacks, and the density. 3

10 Ms. Cynthia Winner, 1314 Drake Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Ms. Winner stated that she has the same concerns as the other residents but she also has a concern with density and she wanted to know if anyone has looked at the traffic flow or the infrastructure. Ms. Winner stated that she would prefer if her property or neighborhood would not be included on the map. Mr. Jim White, 1425 Chestnut Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. White asked for clarification on Section (6). Mr. Lane stated that the Waterfront Partnership and the St. Andrews CRA would review development plans to ensure the exterior meets the CRA guidelines pertaining to the historic look. Mr. Hughes stated that he agreed with Mr. White and that the City has had a conversation where the City needs to come up with definitions that were appropriate and available for residents to read. Mr. Chris Bardish, St. Andrews Masonic Lodge, 1104 Bayview Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Bardish asked how the proposed changes would affect the Masonic Lodges property. Mr. Lane stated he does not see the proposed changes as a deterrent to any changes the lodge wishes to make. Mr. Bardish also stated that parking is a problem in the area and he has concerns with more residential development. Mr. Mike Nichols, City Commissioner for Ward 4, 9 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Nichols stated that he is available for the residents who may have questions or concerns and he will be holding a special meeting outside of the Board meeting to discuss the changes. Mr. Nichols stated that he would be available after the Planning Board meeting to meet with the concerned citizens. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Greer if it would be possible to create an area in the St. Andrews District where some of the changes would be prohibited. Mr. Hughes asked if you could keep the zero setback and the height restrictions closer to Beck Avenue and away from the residential areas. Mr. Greer stated that the proposal could be looked at closer and the rezoning be done on a smaller scale focusing more on Beck Avenue. Mr. Greer also stated that even though the proposal is from zero setbacks, there are fire codes where you cannot build back to back and have to have at least seven feet in between buildings. Ms. Sittman asked if the Board should consider postponing approval of the map in order for Commissioner Nichols to have time to discuss the changes with the citizens and to make any changes to the map that may be made prior to the Board approval. Mr. Dubuque stated that postponing the approval was an option. Mr. Mitch Holman, Captain s Table Restaurant, 1110 Beck Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Holman asked if the St. Andrews Downtown District proposal is a copycat of the Downtown District. Mr. Dubuque stated it is similar. Mr. Holman stated he has spoken to a lot of people and not one person has stated that Downtown is a success. Mr. Clay Bazzel, 1105 Drake Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Bazzel asked if the zoning maps were available online. Mr. Dubuque stated that he would encourage the residents to take the time to speak with Commissioner Nichols since there are a lot of questions and concerns. Ms. Marylynn Lenhardt, 1106 Wilmont Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Ms. Lenhardt stated she was in agreement with her neighbors. Ms. Lenhardt also stated that if the 30 unit complex 4

11 was built, she would construct a parking lot, but she feels the space where the 30 unit complex will be built is better suited as a park. Mr. Porter Thrower, 1413 Deer Avenue, Panama City, FL, addressed the Board. Mr. Thrower showed the Board pictures of the St. Andrews plat from1889 and the plat from Mr. Thrower stated that the St. Andrews redevelopment area has not changed since 1997 and it is only 4 blocks within the City that need to be redeveloped. Mr. Thrower also stated that parking is an issue in the St. Andrews area as isstormwater. Mr. Thrower stated that instead of setting specific guidelines to follow for development, let the developer come to the City and the residents with their proposal and allow the residents to provide feedback. Mr. Thrower also asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces you can have that allow backing into a right-of-way. Ms. Papke stated the regulations state you can have five spaces that back into the right-of-way. Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any more questions or comments from the audience or the staff. There were none. Mr. Dubuque asked for a motion. Mr. Hughes thanked the residents for their participation and comments. Mr. Hughes made a motion to table the proposal until Staff, CRA, and Mr. Ray Greer can revisit the changes to the St. Andrews Downtown District. Ms. Sittman seconded the motion. No futher discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Item #4 Updates to Section , Off-premises signs, of the Land Development Regulations. This item was pulled from the agenda and postponed to a later date. Item #5 Updates to the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Mr. Lane addressed the Board. Mr. Lane stated that The Panama City Utilities Department is in the process of updating the City s Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. The Work Plan is presented to the City Commission for consideration. The Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is incorporated into Policy 4.D.2.3 of the Utilities Element of the City s Comprehensive Plan by reference. Accordingly, the attached ordinance includes an update to this policy to reference the updated Work Plan. It also includes an update to the timeline for development of LDR policies related to the Floridian Aquifer, as mentioned in Policy 4.E.1.4. The date referenced in Policy 4.D.2.3 was updated to May The date referenced in Policy 4.E.1.4 was updated to December 31, Mr. Dubuque asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mr. Dubuque asked for a motion. 5

12 Mr. Russ made a motion to accept the changes. Ms. Sittman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. No further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m. Robbie Hughes, Vice Chairman Maureen Rainville, Secretary 6

13 City of Panama City Planning and Land Use Division STAFF REPORT Planning Board Applications for September 14, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan along with the staff recommendations are as follows: Request One Type of Application: Rezone Case Number: PB Owner / Applicant: CK Rentals, Inc., owner / Preble-Rish, representative Location of Property: 807 / 809 Cherry Street Parcel ID Number: Background Information: This property is currently zoned Urban Residential-1 and developed with 8 apartment units. The property owner would like to build an additional 23 units, for a total of 31 units on the site. Under the present zoning, UR-1, maximum density is 15 units per acre, which allows a total of 20 units on the site. The UR-2 zoning district has a maximum density of 30 units per acre, which would allow up to 39 units on the site. The property owner requests the zoning change to accommodate the additional dwelling units on the site. Special Treatment Zone: None Coastal High Hazard Area / Hurricane Vulnerability Zone: This parcel is outside the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), and inside the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ) Flood Zone: This parcel is in X, outside 0.2% chance annual flood (FEMA FIRM June 2009) Area of Subject Property for zoning: 1.3 +/- acres (Source: Bay County Property Appraiser) Land Use Zoning Change From: N/A Urban Residential-1 Change To: N/A Urban Residential-2 Current use of the property: The property is developed with 8 apartment units. Proposed use of the property: Expansion of existing multi-family use, for a total of 31 apartments on the site. 1

14 Staff Report: Utilities Director: Water and sanitary sewer are currently available to this property. Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1: The City will regulate land use through designation of land use districts on a Future Land Use Map. Policy 1.4.9: The City shall maintain land use categories and densities as appropriate to promote infill of vacant property located in urbanized areas. Land Development Regulations: Section (e) Stipulates that a land use or zoning change involves the Planning Board to determine a positive finding for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or rezoning request on the following four (4) criteria: 1. Not degrade the established level of services in the Comprehensive Plan or the minimum concurrency requirements. This zoning map change will not impact level of service standards. See concurrency analysis below. 2. In harmony with the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (Goals listed as applicable.) The goal of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Goal 1A) is to establish a defined pattern of land use guiding the provisions of public facilities and providing predictability in managing development. This request fits within the general intent of this Element. The goal of the Utilities Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element (Goal 4A) is to provide adequate sewage capacity and collection facilities to accommodate anticipated population demand. The goal of the Utilities Element, Solid Waste Sub-Element (Goal 4B) is to ensure that adequate and efficient solid waste collection is available for the city. The goal of the Utilities Element, Potable Water Sub-Element (Goal 4D) is to provide adequate, safe and sanitary water distribution capability to accommodate existing and future demand. No level of service standards will be exceeded by this zoning change. 2

15 3. Not exceed traffic limitations, create a fire hazard, or a hazard to the public health, welfare and safety. This zoning change will not exceed traffic limitations, nor will it create fire, public health, welfare or safety hazards. 4. Compatible with adjacent land uses and districts, and not create a potential nuisance. Development in the area surrounding the subject property is characterized by a mixture of uses. Property to the north and south (across Cherry Street) is zoned for low-density residential uses, and is developed with single-family homes. Property to the east and southeast is zoned for commercial uses, and is developed with a shopping plaza and other commercial uses. Property to the west is zoned for low density residential uses, but developed with a church (Cove Baptist Church). The uses allowable under the present UR-1 zoning designation are the same as those allowed under the proposed UR-2 zoning designation. The proposed zoning change would increase the intensity of development allowed on the site as follows: Density: UR-1 = 15 units per acre; UR-2 = 30 units per acre Height: UR-1 = 80 feet plus possible bonuses; UR-2 = 120 feet plus possible bonuses The subject property is already zoned to allow an 80-foot tall building on the site. Staff does not believe a rezoning that would increase allowable height to 120 feet would substantially change conditions in the neighborhood. The increase in density could potentially impact the neighborhood, though this could be mitigated with appropriate buffering and site design. Development on this site will qualify as a Level 3 development that must be considered by the Planning Board and City Commission, at which point the public and elected officials will have an opportunity to comment on site plans and building layout. Given the mixture of existing uses in the area, the type of development allowed under the present UR-1 zoning, and the fact that future development will be subject to public review, the proposed rezoning is appropriate for the area. Section Provides the following standards for development in the Urban Residential-2 district: Maximum height: 120 feet above base flood elevation or the crown of the adjacent roadway, whichever is higher. The LDRs provide for increased height, up to 150 feet, for development that satisfies incentive criteria. Maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR): 0.75 Maximum floor area ratio (FAR): 0.75 Maximum density: 30 dwelling units per acre Setbacks: 15 feet from front parcel line 3

16 20 feet from rear parcel line 7 feet from side parcel line Permitted uses in the Urban Residential-2 zoning district: Single-family, detached residences Attached dwellings, up to 4 units attached Multi-family structures (up to 30 units per acre) Community residential homes (six or fewer residents) Public and private schools (K-12) Public or noncommercial private recreational facilities Public utilities customarily found in residential areas Family day care homes per Florida Statutes Neighborhood-scale commercial uses (less than 20,000 square feet) Concurrency Analysis: The Land Use designation of Urban Residential is not changing. The present zoning district of UR-1 allows a maximum of 20 units on the site (15 units per acre). The proposed zoning district of UR-2 allows a maximum of 39 units on the site (30 units per acre). Both zoning districts allow up to 20,000 square feet of commercial space. This concurrency analysis was performed on the net increase in development possible on the site if the property were rezoned to UR-2, which is 19 apartment units. Transportation Not applicable the area is located in the City s Urban Infill Area, which is a Traffic Concurrency Exception Area. No traffic concurrency analysis is required. Public Schools The subject parcel is located in the Bay High family of schools zone. 19 apartment units are expected to generate 5 students. Based on the data provided by Bay District Schools, there is adequate capacity in the Bay High family of schools to accommodate this development. Students Generated by Development Capacity Remaining Elementary Middle High This development will not negatively impact accepted level of service standards for schools. Public Parks The level of service standards for public parks in Panama City are 2.75 acres community park space per 1,000 residents and 1.00 acre neighborhood park space per 1,000 residents. 4

17 Levels of service for city parks with the addition of 19 dwelling units would be as follows: Community parks LOS = 3.46 acres per 1,000 residents Neighborhood parks LOS = 1.02 acres per 1,000 residents Level of service standards would not be exceeded by this development. Sanitary Sewer The current level of service for sanitary sewer is 110 gallons per day (GPD) per capita for residential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by development of 19 additional dwelling units. 110 GPD x 19 units x 2.06 people per unit = 4,305 GPD The Millville wastewater treatment plant currently has an available capacity of 2.25 million GPD. Potable Water The current level of service for potable water is 125 gallons per day (GPD) per capita for residential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by development of 19 additional dwelling units. 125 GPD x 19 units x 2.06 people per unit = 4,893 GPD Total potable water capacity (on a county-wide basis) is set at 90% of the permitted capacity of the Bay County water treatment plants, which is 60.3 million GPD, or 90% of 67 million GPD. Current utilization is 55 million GPD. Solid Waste The current level of service for solid waste is 4.5 pounds per capita per day for residential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by development of 19 additional dwelling units. 4.5 pounds per day x 19 units x 2.06 people per unit = 176 pounds per day The Steelfield Landfill has a 21-year capacity for solid waste. 5

18 Pursuant to Section (e): The Planning Board shall not recommend approval of a plan amendment/zoning change unless it makes a positive finding, based on competent evidence, on each of the following: (1) The proposed plan amendment will not degrade level of service standards established in the comprehensive plan, or minimum concurrency requirements; (2) The proposed plan amendment is in harmony with the general intent of the comprehensive plan; (3) The proposed plan amendment will not exceed traffic limitations, cause a fire hazard, or create a hazard to the public health, welfare and safety; (4) Changes in land use designations or districts must be compatible with adjacent land uses and districts, and one that will not become a potential nuisance; Summary of Findings: The request meets the requirements of the City s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. July 29, 2015 Anna Papke, AICP Date Planner II 6

19 2ND PLZ 2ND PL ALLEN AV ALLEN AV LINDA AV 2ND ST LINDA AV 2ND ST CHERRY ST 2ND CT HAMILTON AV HAMILTON AV 2ND CT 1ST CT 2ND PL BUNKERS COVE RD 1ST CT CHERRY ST 2ND PL COVE BLVD COVE BLVD MAC ARTHUR AV MACARTHUR AV 2ND ST Subject Parcel 2ND PLZ PALO ALTO AV 2ND PL 2ND CT 2ND PL BONITA AV CHERRY ST HARRIS AV HARRIS AV ROWE AV ROWE AV COVE TERRACE DR COVE TERRACE DR DE WITT ST DEWITT ST DEWITT ST PALO ALTO AV CORTO ST BONITA AV BUNKERS COVE RD CORTO ST Zoning Districts Mixed Use / 809 Cherry Street ± Downtown District Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Commercial - 1 Public/Institutional Zoning Map General Commercial - 2 Recreation Heavy Industry Residential - 1 Light Industry City of Panama City Residential - 2 Mixed Use - 1 Mixed Use - 2 Urban Residential 1 Urban Residential Miles

20 5' VEGETATIVE BUFFER 5' ' 20' SETBACK 5' (typ) 5' (typ) 5' MAC ARTHUR AVE 50' R/W 9' (typ) 32.6' 22.07' 10.53' 7.69' 6 20' (typ) 7' 4' SETBACK 5' (typ) BUILDING 1 5 UNITS F.F.E.=29.2' 48.14' 8.67' 4' 8.67' 4' 8.67' 11.2' 48.14' 11.2' 48.14' 7.69' 64' BUILDING 2 5 UNITS F.F.E.=27.2' 5' R5' R10' EX.BUILDING 4 UNITS 12' (typ) 5' (typ) 13.14' BUILDING 3 5 UNITS F.F.E.=26.2' 13.22' 32.6' 184' 9' (typ) EX.BUILDING 4 UNITS 10' 20' (typ) 24' 32.6' 4' CHERRY ST 13.64' 60' R/W BUILDING 4 5 UNITS F.F.E.=25.2' 6.7' 48.14' 8.67' 48.14' 8' 3 STEPS (6" RISE)(typ) BUILDING 5 3 UNITS F.F.E.=27.5' 32.6' 7.53' 5' (typ) STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2.15' TOP OF BERM EL.=24.0' 37 20' R5' R5' 20' (typ) SETBACK 5 7' SETBACK R20' R20' 9' (typ) PALO ALTO AVE 50' R/W SITE INFORMATION 1. SITE AREA = 56,018 SQUARE FEET OR ACRES 2. SETBACKS: FRONT = 20.0' SIDE = 7.0' REAR = 20.0' 3. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT PLUS 1 SPACE PER 10 UNITS SO, (1.5*29)+(1*(29/10))= 47 SPACES (1 PER 25 SPACES SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS HANDICAP PARKING) 4. PARKING PROVIDED: 46 SPACES AND 2 HANDICAPPED = 48 SPACES 5. BUFFERS: 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE EXISTING: 6. ZONING: UR-1 7. MAXIMUM ALLOWED INTENSITY (UR-2) = 65% 8. INTENSITY PROVIDED = IMPERVIOUS AREA/TOTAL AREA = 23% 9. MAXIMUM FAR = EXISTING FAR = 0.15 PROPOSED: 11. ZONING: UR MAXIMUM ALLOWED INTENSITY (UR-2) = 75% 13. INTENSITY PROVIDED = IMPERVIOUS AREA/TOTAL AREA = 60.5% 14. MAXIMUM FAR = PROPOSED FAR = 0.51 GENERAL NOTES 1. THE TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE LABELED, ALL OTHER TREES ARE TO BE CONSERVED LEGEND: OHU WM 8''SS EX. ASPHALT EX. CONCRETE EX. WATER METER EX. STORMWATER MANHOLE EX. SANITARY CLEAN OUT EX. SANITARY MANHOLE EX. GUY ANCHOR & UTL. POLE EX. TREES RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER MAIN EX. GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER EX. OVERHEAD UTILITIES BUILBING SETBACK NEW WATER SERVICE NEW SANITARY SEWER SERVICE NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT PREBLE-RISH INC SITE GEOMETRY PLAN CIVIL SURVEYING SITE PLANNING 203 ABERDEEN PKWY, PANAMA CITY, FL (850) SCALE: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: CHERRY ST. TOWNHOMES CK RENTALS, INC. PANAMA CITY JULY 2015 BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA 1"=20' D. BAUTISTA S. RAY E. MOORE PROJECT NO. SHEET C3

21

22 City of Panama City Planning and Land Use Division STAFF REPORT Planning Board Applications for September 14, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the pertinent Florida Statutes, the Community Planning and Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan along with the staff recommendations are as follows: Request Two Type of Application: Vacation of Utility Easement Case Number: PB Owner / Applicant: CK Rentals, Inc., owner / Preble-Rish, representative Location of Property: 15 -wide utility easement located on the north side of the property at 807 / 809 Cherry Street Background: The property is currently developed with multi-family housing. The property owner is planning on developing additional units on the site (associated zoning change request addressed in Request One on this agenda). The property owner seeks abandonment of the utility easement to facilitate this development. City Utilities Report: The Utilities Department opposes the vacation of this utility easement. The easement provides access to the sewer lines serving ten parcels to the north. Non-City Utility Companies Report: AT&T Long Distance: Has no objections. AT&T Florida: May have some cables in the utility easement. Opposes vacation. Comcast: Has no objections. Gulf Power: Has no objections. Knology: No response. Teco Gas: Has no objections. Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives: The Plan has one objective in the Transportation Element that speaks to the vacation of rightsof-way. Objective 2.5: Protect existing and future rights-of-way from building encroachment. 1

23 Land Development Regulations: Section d Vacations of rights-of-way. Applications to vacate a right-of-way may be approved upon a finding that all of the following requirements are met: (1) The requested vacation is consistent with the traffic circulation element of the City s Comprehensive Plan. This is a utility easement, not open to vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the proposed vacation will not impact traffic circulation. (2) The right-of-way does not provide the sole access to any property and the alternative access is not limited solely to a way of egress and ingress. The utility easement does not provide sole access to any property. (3) The vacation does not jeopardize the current or future location of any utility. There are no City-owned utilities in the utility easement. However, the Underground Utilities department uses this easement to access the sewer line located in the alley to the north of the subject property. The Underground Utilities Department opposes the vacation. The Planning Department has been in contact with utility companies serving the Panama City area. One company has opposed the vacation since they may have utilities in the easement. (4) The proposed vacation is not detrimental to the public interest. The proposed vacation will be detrimental to the public interest as it will limit access to utilities in or near the easement. (5) The proposed vacation does not eliminate a public accessway to the water, unless comparable or better public access is provided by the person requesting the vacation. The request does not affect public access to the water. Summary of findings: Due to potential issues with access to utilities, the request does not meet the requirements of the LDRs as they relate to vacation of easements. August 31, 2015 Anna Papke, AICP Date Planner II 2

24 MAC ARTHUR AV 1ST CT BONITA AV Utility Easement PALO ALTO AV COVE BLVD CHERRY ST 807 / 809 Cherry Street Legend ± Utility Easement Parcels City of Panama City Panama City Limits Feet

25 City of Panama City Planning and Land Use Division STAFF REPORT Planning Board Applications for September 14, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the pertinent Florida Statutes, the Community Planning and Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the LDR Code) and the Comprehensive Plan (hereafter referred to as the Comp Plan) along with the staff recommendations are as follows: Request Three Type of Application: SSLUA / Rezone Case Number: PB Applicant / Owner: Three Brothers of Panama City, owner and applicant Location of Property: 1816 Danford Avenue Parcel ID Number: Special Treatment Zone: Not in any special treatment zones. Additional Information: Three Brothers of Panama City owns and operates the hotel located on the property adjacent to the south of the subject property (Ramada, 4306 W. Highway 98). The property owners propose to enlarge the parking area for the hotel onto the subject property at 1816 Danford Avenue, and are requesting a Land Use and zoning change to accommodate this development. Coastal High Hazard Area / Hurricane Vulnerability Zone: This parcel is outside the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and inside the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ). Flood Zone: This parcel is in zone X, outside 0.2% chance annual flood (FIRM, June 2, 2009). Area of Subject Property: 0.6 +/- acres (Source: Bay County Property Appraiser) Land Use Zoning Change From: Mixed Use MU-1 Change To: General Commercial GC-2 Current use of the property: The property is currently developed with a single-family home. Proposed Use of the property: Develop with a parking lot for adjacent hotel. 1

26 Directors Report: Utilities Director: Water and sewer service is available to this property. Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1: The City shall regulate land use through designation of land use districts on a Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to determine the location and extent of development within the City consistent with conservation of natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and compatibility of adjacent land uses. Land Use districts depicted on the Future Land Use Map shall be described as follows. (In the following descriptions of Future Land Use categories, density standards shall apply to residential development and intensity standards shall apply to nonresidential development.) 10. General Commercial (a) (b) (c) Intent This category is intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development. Impervious surface area No more than 0.90 lot coverage. Density None. (d) Intensity The floor area ratio shall not exceed 3.0 (e) Allowable Uses Retail sales and services; wholesale sales; shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar commercial land uses; houses of worship; private recreation. Land Development Regulations: Section (e) Stipulates that a land use change requires the Planning Board to determine a positive finding for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or rezoning request on the following four (4) criteria: 1. Not degrade the established level of services in the Comprehensive Plan or the minimum concurrency requirements. This Future Land Use Map amendment will not impact level of service standards. See concurrency analysis below. 2. In harmony with the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (Goals listed as applicable.) The goal of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Goal 1A) is to establish a defined pattern of land use guiding the provisions of public facilities and providing predictability in managing development. This request fits within the general intent of this Element. 2

27 The goal of the Utilities Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element (Goal 4A) is to provide adequate sewage capacity and collection facilities to accommodate anticipated population demand. The goal of the Utilities Element, Solid Waste Sub-Element (Goal 4B) is to ensure that adequate and efficient solid waste collection is available for the City. The goal of the Utilities Element, Potable Water Sub-Element (Goal 4D) is to provide adequate, safe and sanitary water distribution capability to accommodate existing and future demand. No level of service standards will be exceeded by this Future Land Use map amendment. See concurrency analysis below. 3. Not exceed traffic limitations, create a fire hazard, or a hazard to the public health, welfare and safety. This map amendment will not exceed traffic limitations, nor will it create fire, public health, welfare or safety hazards. See concurrency analysis below. 4. Compatible with adjacent land uses and districts, and not create a potential nuisance. The subject property is located adjacent to the US 98 commercial corridor. Property to the south is zoned GC-2 and is developed with a hotel. Property to the west, across Danford Avenue, is zoned GC-2 and developed with a gas station. Property to the north is zoned MU-1 and developed with single-family homes. Property to the east is zoned GC-2 (parking area for Players Saloon) and MU-1 (single-family home). The extension of the GC-2 district to the subject property is not expected to change the character of the neighborhood or create a nuisance. Concurrency Analysis: The General Commercial Land Use category allows for a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0 for commercial development. Maximum build-out of the 0.6-acre site would result in 78,000 square feet of commercial space. Transportation Not applicable the area is located in the City s Urban Infill Area which is a Traffic Concurrency Exception Area no traffic concurrency analysis is required. Public Schools Public school level of service standards do not apply to non-residential development. Public Parks Public park level of service standards do not apply to non-residential development. 3

28 Sanitary Sewer The current level of service for sanitary sewer is 166 gallons per day (GPD) per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by potential development of 78,000 SF nonresidential space. 166 GPD x 78 = 12,948 GPD. The St. Andrews wastewater treatment plant currently has an available capacity of 1.52 million GPD. Potable Water The current level of service for potable water is 166 gallons per day (GPD) per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by potential development of 78,000 SF nonresidential space. 166 GPD x 78 = 12,948 GPD. Total potable water capacity (on a county-wide basis) is set at 90% of the permitted capacity of the Bay County water treatment plants, which is 60.3 million GPD, or 90% of 67 million GPD. Current utilization is 55 million GPD. Solid Waste The current level of service for solid waste is 6.89 pounds per 1,000 square feet nonresidential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by potential development of 78,000 SF nonresidential space pounds per day x 78 = 537 pounds per day. The Steelfield Landfill has a 21-year capacity for solid waste. Pursuant to Section (e): The Planning Board shall not recommend approval of a plan amendment unless it makes a positive finding, based on competent evidence, on each of the following: (1) The proposed plan amendment will not degrade level of service standards established in the comprehensive plan, or minimum concurrency requirements; (2) The proposed plan amendment is in harmony with the general intent of the comprehensive plan; (3) The proposed plan amendment will not exceed traffic limitations, cause a fire hazard, or create a hazard to the public health, welfare and safety; (4) Changes in land use designations or districts must be compatible with adjacent land uses and districts, and one that will not become a potential nuisance. 4

29 Summary of Findings: The request meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations of the City of Panama City. September 1, 2015 Anna Papke, AICP Date Planner II 5

30 23RD ST WAINWRIGHT AV 23RD ST 19TH CT 19TH CT 20TH ST BALTIMORE AV 20TH ST MOATES AV 19TH ST 19TH ST LOMBARDY AV DANFORD AV Subject Parcel HIGH AV SHEPHERD ST LAUREL AV GRANT AV 20TH CT PETERS DR KARLY CT ISABELLA AV ISABELLA AV 20TH CT PETERS DR WHITING CIR DRUMMOND AV 20TH ST PRITCHARD ST DR UMMOND AV BURNHAM WAY 20TH ST LOUISE AV 18TH ST STEPHENS AV 18TH ST BROWN AV BROWN AV BALTIMORE AV MOATES AV LOMBARDY AV DANFORD AV 17TH ST HIGH AV HIGH AV HIGHWAY 98 17TH ST MOUND AV MOUND AV LAUREL AV HWY 98 GRANT AV ISABELLA AV ISABELLA AV 17TH ST HIGHWAY 98 Legend 1816 Danford Avenue ± Downtown District Public/Institutional Residential Recreation FLUM General Commercial Residential Vested Industry Silviculture City of Panama City Mixed Use Preservation Urban Community Urban Residential DRUMMOND AV 17TH ST LOUISE AV LOUISE AV Miles

31 20TH ST 20TH ST PETERS DR PETERS DR WAINWRIGHT AV 19TH CT 19TH CT BALTIMORE AV MOATES AV 19TH ST 19TH ST LOMBARDY AV DANFORD AV HIGH AV Subject Parcel LAUREL AV KARLY CT KARLY CT ISABELLA AV ISABELLA AV DRUMMOND AV 20TH ST BROWN AV BALTIMORE AV MOATES AV LOMBARDY AV DANFORD AV HIGH AV MOUND AV LAUREL AV LAUREL AV HIGH AV 18TH ST 18TH ST HIGHWAY 98 HWY 98 HIGHWAY 98 STEPHENS AV BROWN AV 17TH ST 17TH ST MOUND AV 17TH ST 17TH ST GRANT AV ISABELLA AV ISABELLA AV DRUMMOND AV DRUMMOND AV GRANT AV Zoning Districts Mixed Use Danford Avenue ± Downtown District Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Commercial - 1 Public/Institutional Zoning Map General Commercial - 2 Recreation Heavy Industry Residential - 1 Light Industry City of Panama City Residential - 2 Mixed Use - 1 Mixed Use - 2 Urban Residential 1 Urban Residential Miles

32 City of Panama City Planning and Land Use Division STAFF REPORT Planning Board Applications for September 14, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the pertinent Florida Statutes, the Community Planning and Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the LDR Code) and the Comprehensive Plan (hereafter referred to as the Comp Plan) along with the staff recommendations are as follows: Request Four Type of Application: SSLUA / Rezone Case Number: PB Applicant / Owner: Ray A. Morse, owner / Jeffrey Petermann, representative Location of Property: North side of Baldwin Road, west of State Avenue Parcel ID Number: Special Treatment Zone: The west half of the property is a designated wetland. Additional Information: The property owner would like to develop this site with a small professional office. The property is presently zoned R-1, which does not allow for commercial development. A Land Use amendment and zoning change are required to accommodate professional office development. Coastal High Hazard Area / Hurricane Vulnerability Zone: This parcel is outside the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and outside the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ). Flood Zone: This parcel is in zone AE, estimated 1% chance annual flood; and zone X, outside 0.2% chance annual flood (FIRM, June 2, 2009). Area of Subject Property: /- acres (Source: Bay County Property Appraiser) Land Use Zoning Change From: Residential R-1 Change To: Mixed Use MU-2 Current use of the property: The property is currently vacant. Proposed Use of the property: Develop site with a professional office with associated parking and stormwater facility. Directors Report: Utilities Director: Water is currently available to this parcel. Sanitary sewer is only available by private lift station and force main connection. 1

33 Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1: The City shall regulate land use through designation of land use districts on a Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to determine the location and extent of development within the City consistent with conservation of natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and compatibility of adjacent land uses. Land Use districts depicted on the Future Land Use Map shall be described as follows. (In the following descriptions of Future Land Use categories, density standards shall apply to residential development and intensity standards shall apply to nonresidential development.) 8. Mixed Use (a) Intent This category is intended to provide areas for medium to high-density residential development, in combination with commercial, office and educational uses. The mixed-use conept is specifically intended to provide flexibility in the planning and permitting process by allowing a range of land uses within one district. Emphasis is on performance mitigation such as landscaping, fencing, lighting, noise standards, etc. to promote compatibility among land uses while also providing property owners with a range of options for use of their property. (b) (c) Density Maximum density shall be no more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. Impervious Surface Area No more than 0.75 lot coverage. (d) Intensity The floor area ratio for non-residential uses shall not exceed (e) (f) Allowable Uses Residential uses, including multi-family apartments and condominium units; commercial; neighborhood commercial; office; and educational uses; houses of worship; public or private recreation. Commercial private recreation shall not exceed one (1) acre. Development Restrictions Non-residential uses cannot individually exceed 20,000 square feet in size when located in this category. Land Development Regulations: Section (e) Stipulates that a land use change requires the Planning Board to determine a positive finding for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or rezoning request on the following four (4) criteria: 1. Not degrade the established level of services in the Comprehensive Plan or the minimum concurrency requirements. This Future Land Use Map amendment will not impact level of service standards. See concurrency analysis below. 2

34 2. In harmony with the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (Goals listed as applicable.) The goal of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Goal 1A) is to establish a defined pattern of land use guiding the provisions of public facilities and providing predictability in managing development. This request fits within the general intent of this Element. The goal of the Utilities Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element (Goal 4A) is to provide adequate sewage capacity and collection facilities to accommodate anticipated population demand. The goal of the Utilities Element, Solid Waste Sub-Element (Goal 4B) is to ensure that adequate and efficient solid waste collection is available for the City. The goal of the Utilities Element, Potable Water Sub-Element (Goal 4D) is to provide adequate, safe and sanitary water distribution capability to accommodate existing and future demand. No level of service standards will be exceeded by this Future Land Use map amendment. See concurrency analysis below. 3. Not exceed traffic limitations, create a fire hazard, or a hazard to the public health, welfare and safety. This map amendment will not exceed traffic limitations, nor will it create fire, public health, welfare or safety hazards. See concurrency analysis below. 4. Compatible with adjacent land uses and districts, and not create a potential nuisance. This property is located on Baldwin Road. The subject property is surrounded by other properties zoned R-1. Allowable uses in the R-1 district are limited to single-family homes with a density of up to five units per acre. MU-2, the proposed zoning district for the subject parcel, allows for residential development up to ten units per acre plus small-scale commercial uses. Given its location within an established single-family residential neighborhood, development of the subject parcel to the MU-2 standards may not be compatible with the existing development in the area. Concurrency Analysis: The Mixed Use Land Use category allows for a maximum residential density of 20 units per acre. The category also allows for neighborhood commercial uses that do not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of Maximum build-out of the 0.91-acre site would result in 18 residential units and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial space. The following concurrency determinations have been made assuming maximum build-out of the site. NOTE: Applicant is applying for MU-2 zoning, which allows a residential density of 10 units per acre (nine residential units allowed on subject property) and maximum FAR of 0.65 for nonresidential development (26,000 SF allowed on subject property). However, concurrency evaluations are made relative to the maximum allowable density and intensity in the Land Use category, which are 20 units per acre and 0.75 FAR in the Mixed Use category. 3

35 Transportation Not applicable the area is located in the City s Urban Infill Area which is a Traffic Concurrency Exception Area no traffic concurrency analysis is required. Public Schools The subject parcel is located in the Bay High family of schools zone. 18 residential units are expected to generate 5 students. There is adequate capacity in the Bay High family of schools to accommodate this development. Students Generated by Development Capacity Remaining Elementary Middle High Public school level of service standards do not apply to non-residential development. This development will not negatively impact accepted level of service standards for schools. Public Parks The level of service standards for public parks in Panama City are 2.75 acres community park space per 1,000 residents and 1.00 acre neighborhood park space per 1,000 residents. Levels of service for city parks with the addition of 18 dwelling units would be as follows: Community parks LOS = 3.47 acres per 1,000 residents Neighborhood parks LOS = 1.01 acres per 1,000 residents Public park level of service standards do not apply to non-residential development. Level of service standards would not be exceeded by this development. Sanitary Sewer The current level of service for sanitary sewer is 166 gallons per day (GPD) per 1,000 square feet of non-residential uses, and 110 GPD per capita for residential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by potential development of 30,000 SF non-residential space and 18 dwelling units. Non-residential: 166 GPD x 30 = 4,980 GPD Residential: 110 GPD x 18 units x 2.06 people per unit = 4,079 GPD Total: 9,059 GPD The St. Andrews wastewater treatment plant currently has an available capacity of 1.52 million GPD. 4

36 Potable Water The current level of service for potable water is 166 gallons per day (GPD) per 1,000 square feet of non-residential uses, and 125 GPD per capita for residential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by potential development of 30,000 SF non-residential space and 18 dwelling units. Non-residential: 166 GPD x 30 = 4,980 GPD Residential: 125 GPD x 18 units x 2.06 people per unit = 4,635 GPD Total: 9,615 GPD Total potable water capacity (on a county-wide basis) is set at 90% of the permitted capacity of the Bay County water treatment plants, which is 60.3 million GPD, or 90% of 67 million GPD. Current utilization is 55 million GPD. Solid Waste The current level of service for solid waste is 6.89 pounds per 1,000 square feet non-residential uses, and 4.5 pounds per capita per day for residential uses. There is available capacity to accommodate demand generated by potential development of 30,000 SF non-residential space and 18 dwelling units. Non-residential: 6.89 pounds per day x 30 = 207 pounds per day Residential: 4.5 pounds per day x 18 units x 2.06 people per unit = 167 pounds per day Total: 374 pounds per day. The Steelfield Landfill has a 21-year capacity for solid waste. Pursuant to Section (e): The Planning Board shall not recommend approval of a plan amendment unless it makes a positive finding, based on competent evidence, on each of the following: (1) The proposed plan amendment will not degrade level of service standards established in the comprehensive plan, or minimum concurrency requirements; (2) The proposed plan amendment is in harmony with the general intent of the comprehensive plan; (3) The proposed plan amendment will not exceed traffic limitations, cause a fire hazard, or create a hazard to the public health, welfare and safety; (4) Changes in land use designations or districts must be compatible with adjacent land uses and districts, and one that will not become a potential nuisance. Summary of Findings: The request meets all concurrency requirements of the Panama City Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. However, staff is concerned that some types of development allowed in the MU-2 district could present compatibility issues for the neighborhood. September 1, 2015 Anna Papke, AICP Date Planner II 5

37 JACKSON WAY 33RD PL 33RD PL JACKSON WAY HWY 390 FLORIDA AV HIGHWAY 390 TOKEN RD FLORIDIAN PL FLORIDA AV STATE AV PINE RIDGE DR TOKEN RD Subject Parcel STATE AV PINE RIDGE DR ST ANDREWS BLVD BALDWIN RD MALONE DR BALDWIN RD LONGWOOD CIR BRIARCLIFF RD FAIRMONT DR JENKS AV JENKS CIR LONGWOOD CIR MARYWOOD DR Legend Parcel ± Downtown District Public/Institutional Residential Recreation FLUM General Commercial Residential Vested Industry Silviculture City of Panama City MALONE DR Mixed Use Preservation BRIARCLIFF RD Urban Community Urban Residential FAIRMONT DR JENKS AV Miles

38 JACKSON WAY HIGHWAY 390 HWY 390 TOKEN RD FLORIDIAN PL FLORIDA AV Subject Parcel STATE AV PINE RIDGE DR PINE RIDGE DR TOKEN RD FLORIDA AV STATE AV BALDWIN RD BALDWIN RD MALONE DR LONGWOOD CIR BRIARCLIFF RD FAIRMONT DR JENKS AV JENKS CIR LONGWOOD CIR MARYWOOD DR MALONE DR Zoning Districts Mixed Use - 3 Parcel ± Downtown District Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Commercial - 1 Public/Institutional Zoning Map General Commercial - 2 Recreation Heavy Industry Residential - 1 Light Industry City of Panama City Residential - 2 Mixed Use - 1 Mixed Use - 2 BRIARCLIFF RD Urban Residential 1 Urban Residential 2 FAIRMONT DR JENKS AV Miles

39