Okaloosa County BOCC — August 16, 2016 — Planning Commission - Staff response

ED COX MOTORS, INC. FLUM AMENDMENT & REZONING APPLICANT PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATATION 7-14-2016 STAFF RESPONSE The Okaloosa County Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 2016 to consider the following. AGENDA ITEM 1: Consideration of a request changing the use of land submitted CPH, Inc. as agent for Ed Cox Motor Company, Inc. relating to property located on Middle Drive SE between South Street NE and 1st Avenue, Fort Walton Beach. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the property from Low Density Residential to Commercial (C), or a more restrictive FLUM designation. If the FLUM amendment is approved, request to rezone the property from Residential - 1 (R-1) district to General Commercial (C-3) district, or a more restrictive zoning district. Property contains 2.67 acres, more or less. This item was continued from the June 9, 2016 meeting. At the public hearing the applicant’s representatives provided facts and evidence in support of the requested action. Applicant’s representatives were Mr. Karl Sanders, Esq. who stated to be representing Walmart and the applicant, and Mr. Jason Toole, P.E. stating to represent the applicant. This paper provides a response from staff of the Department of Growth Management to the presentation made by the applicant’s representatives at the public hearing. The responses herein are to excerpts from the meeting minutes (which are not a verbatim record of the proceeding) pertaining to the presentation only (not questions and answers), and the power point presentation given at the hearing. Attorney Sanders Presentation Staff’s report focuses on residential uses and provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. They are not proposing a residential use; they are proposing a commercial development, redevelopment if you will. Staff response: Staff references to Comprehensive Plan policies are required by the policies themselves which state that certain things must be considered as part of all land use amendments and rezonings. It is fundamental that the County follow the policies explicitly set forth in its own Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is not requesting a proposed development or redevelopment. He is requesting a FLUM change and rezoning that would enable a broad range of commercial development. In fact, the majority of the applicant’s presentation was specific to a Walmart store. As stated by the Planning Commission Chairman at the hearing: Mr. Patrick stated for the record that they, the board, are not here tonight to approve a site plan, we are not here to approve a Walmart, certainly if they approve anything that would permit this development to occur we would certainly hope that nothing is misrepresented here as to how the land would be developed. Just so everyone here understands they are here to hear a requested FLUM and Zoning change that would allow this type of development. Since contract or conditional zoning is unlawful, the County cannot condition its land use change approval on one specific permitted use within a broad range of permitted uses, or any other condition of approval. The primary difference between staff’s position and theirs is; they believe it is time to allow the private sector to invest in the redevelopment of this blighted commercial corridor. This is not about commercial 1 intrusion into a residential neighborhood. This is about commercial redevelopment of a blighted commercial corridor. Staff response: A major crux of Attorney Sanders presentation was that a new Walmart store would provide the engine for redevelopment of a blighted commercial corridor. He did not, however, provide any facts to support the existence of said blighted commercial corridor. There is a difference between unsightly and blighted. The commercial building