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

proposing. Without reference to the end user, both sites were seeking a change from residential to commercial; both were near established residential neighborhoods; both would allow for a broad range of uses as identified in the C-3 zoning district. Once you look at the end users, it becomes clear that the only uncommon denominator is that there is opposition from nearby residents for this application and the 2014 had no opposition. That is not planning that is public opinion. Staff response: Around the time of the public hearing Attorney Sanders asked to review the staff reports involving residential to commercial land use changes. Staff produced copies of staff reports to the Planning Commission involving same for the period 2010 to present. The zoning regulations were substantially revised in 2010. Staff provided 8 reports of which staff had no objections to 6 and objected to 2. Attorney Sanders used the Milligan Church report as his example. He ignored the Huff Investments report (April 9, 2015) which is strikingly similar to the instant request and where staff objected on essentially the same grounds. Attorney Sanders implies that the staff report for Cox Motors is biased due to public opposition and cites the Milligan Church report as his example because there was no public opposition. He characterized the differences between the two reports as “stark.” We agree. The Milligan Church request was to change from Rural Residential to Commercial. The Milligan Church property was a 5 acre parcel, not recorded subdivision lots. Milligan Church fronts directly on to SR 4 in Baker, a major arterial highway, not lots fronting upon a local residential street. There was an existing church building on the property, not vacant lots. The church was an allowed use in the Rural Residential land use and zoning. The expressed purpose of the request was to increase the allowed floor area ratio so as to enable the construction of a family life center addition to the church, not develop a commercial business. There is one subdivision in the vicinity situated adjacent to the west and south, not on three adjacent sides. There was existing commercial designated land use immediately to the west across Belah Drive. There are stark differences between the two but not bias based on public opposition. Finally, it is important to point out that each land use request is treated individually based on the unique set of circumstances involved. Unless the requests are identical they may be subject to different outcomes based on facts and evidence adduced at public hearings or other factors. Mr. Sanders stated to make things clear this is not a Walmart Super Center it is a Neighborhood Market with approximately 41,000 square feet. A Neighborhood Market is a grocery store with a pharmacy. It provides for numerous economic development opportunities. It will employ 95 new associates as well as construction jobs, vendor jobs, etc. Mr. Sanders showed pictures of the proposed interior. Mr. Sanders gave the statistics of Walmart’s interaction with the County community since 1986. Mr. Sanders showed the Planning Profile Zoning Map for Planning Area 32547. This is historically strip ribbon commercial development which is highly frowned upon by both the state law and the planning community. According to the plat from 1942 this entire area was a residential bedroom community with no commercial. Staff response: Once again, the issue at hand is not the approval of a Walmart store. The issue is a request to change the FLUM and zoning district to allow a broad range of commercial activities. Mr. Sanders read the following Comprehensive Plan Policies, under the Future Land Use Element, Objective 3; Policy 4.2; Policy 4.3 a., b., c., d., e. and under Transportation Element Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.3 Staff has based the report soley on compatibility which is a violation of Policy 4.2. Policy 4.3 states there are ways to condition a development. There are ways to limit what you see today is what you see on the ground. We believe that the proposed site plan effectively implements these 5 points for 4 commercial redevelopment. This project provides direct vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent residential developments as the Comprehensive Plan directs in Policy 4.2.3. The idea is to serve the neighborhood not intrude into it. There is nothing incompatible with having residential and commercial in close proximity to one another. The key is how you integrate the two. Staff response: The objection in the staff report is based upon compatibility concerns, among other things including furtherance of governmental interests and adequate transition between land uses. Plan policies compel consideration of compatibility and transition as part of the review of requests for land use changes and rezonings. The compatibility concept set forth in Future Land Use Element Objective 4.4 and attendant policies involves the designation of future land uses on the FLUM, the drawing of zoning districts, and mitigation measures. The first level of compatibility is drawing the lines between the various categories on the FLUM. This is typically done during preparation of the Plan and FLUM in reliance on data and analysis such as existing land use patterns and availability of public facilities. Most land planners rarely have a blank slate to develop a master plan and must accommodate what is already on the ground into the planning scheme. The next level of compatibility is drawing zoning districts within the FLUM categories. This is where the determination is made as to transition districts such as C-1 adjacent to R-1, C-2 as neighborhood serving commercial and so forth. Lastly, once the FLUM and zoning district lines are set, then the next level of compatibility is mitigation for potentially incompatible uses resulting from the lines drawn on the FLUM and zoning map. For example, residential subdivisions with lots fronting directly upon a major highway are not typically desirable for residential occupancy due to traffic volume, safety issues, etc. It is appropriate for these to be commercial. The subdivision then has a second tier of lots not fronting upon the major highway. In these types of situations mitigation measures such as fences, walls, landscape buffers, and such are appropriate between the lots not suitable for residential occupancy and the lots not fronting upon the highway that are suitable for residential occupancy. This concept is supported by FLUE Policies 4.4 and 10.13 which require consideration of compatibility and transition as part of the process for FLUM changes and rezonings where transition and compatibility are looked at first before the change is made, then mitigation buffers as part of development after the FLUM and zoning district are deemed appropriate. Mitigation buffers were never intended to be a catch- all remedy for inserting inherently incompatible land uses next to one another, to do so would fly in the face of creating different zoning districts for different types of land uses in the first place. In the instant case, planning professionals who crafted the 1974 zoning ordinance, the 1990 FLUM, and the 2000 FLUM appear to have all drawn the same conclusion. The Bayview subdivision lots fronting upon Eglin Parkway were not suitable for residential occupancy and should be designated commercial. The second tier of lots fronting upon Middle Drive were suitable for residential purposes and should be used as originally intended, for single-family residences. What do the current regulations do? They don’t promote redevelopment. At least since 1994, the commercial corridor has not changed. The commercial buildings are vacant. 5 Staff response: The current LDR FLUM category and R-1 zoning regulations do not promote redevelopment. The purpose of the LDR and R-1 is “To provide areas for the protection of residential neighborhoods and for future low density residential development.” The current LDR and R-1 for the subject property meets both of these. It provides protection from the commercial development along Eglin Parkway and provides vacant lots for residential development. It should be noted that Attorney Sanders did not provide any facts to support his assertions that the commercial corridor has not changed, or that commercial buildings are vacant any more than would normally occur in any other commercial area. Jason Toole, P.E. Presentation Mr. Jason Toole, with CPH, Inc came forward to present a few features of the proposed site plan. Along the east side, Middle Drive, what we are proposing exceeds the required code buffer. They are proposing a screen wall. The front lots are already zoned C-3 and could potentially be developed with 85,000 square feet of commercial development at 75’ in height, whereas the proposed commercial development is only 42,000 square feet and 25’ in height. This would be less of an impact. Mr. Toole showed a slide showing the screen wall, leaving the existing vegetation in the right-of-way and additional landscaping on their property. Staff response: The entire focus of Mr. Toole’s presentation was specific to the site plan and development of a Walmart store. This was not the issue up for consideration. Even so, under the circumstances his comments warrant response. First, Mr. Toole points out that 85,000 square feet of commercial space could potentially be built on the site without the requested change. The proposed development is 42,000 square feet or roughly half of the site’s potential. This begs for questions. Why can’t the existing C-3 accommodate the proposed development? Could the site plan be altered to fit the existing C-3? Second, Mr. Toole showed slides of the proposed Walmart store and the proposed mitigation buffer. He also states the proposed mitigation buffer would exceed required LDC standards. The County cannot condition a land use approval on any particular site plan or mitigation buffer. Once the land use change is approved a developer must only meet whatever the LDC requirements are for that particular development. CONCLUSION As evidenced by the power point presentation given at the hearing the primary focus of the applicant’s presentation was redevelopment, and the construction of a Walmart store. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a FLUM change and rezoning as expressly stated in the meeting agenda. The applicant offered little rebuttal to findings made in the staff report regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, or the changed conditions and circumstances that would support the requested action. 6