|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Growth Management Report 10. 1.
|
| BCC Regular Meeting |
|
|
|
| RECOMMENDATION: |
Recommendation Concerning the Review of the Rezoning Cases Heard by the Planning Board on September 1, 2015
That the Board take the following action concerning the rezoning cases heard by the Planning Board on September 1, 2015:
-
Review and either adopt, modify, or overturn the Planning Board’s recommendations for Rezoning Cases Z-2015-13 and Z-2015-12 or remand the cases back to the Planning Board; and
-
Authorize the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners for the rezoning cases that were reviewed.
|
1. |
Case No.: |
Z-2015-13 |
|
|
Address: |
Detailed Specific Area Plan |
|
|
Property Reference No.: |
Multiple |
|
|
Property Size: |
1400 (+/-) acres |
|
|
From: |
Agricultural district (Agr), density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres and Rural Mixed-use district (RMU), density of two dwelling units per acre |
|
|
To: |
Low Density Residential district (LDR), Detailed Specific Area Plan Land Use Conservation Neighborhood with a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per net acre; Medium Density Residential district (MDR), Detailed Specific Area Plan Land Use Suburban Garden with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre; High Density Residential district (HDR), Detailed Specific Area Plan Land Use Traditional Garden with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre; High Density Residential district (HDR), Detailed Specific Area Plan Land Use Traditional Village with a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre; High Density Mixed-use district (HDMU), Detailed Specific Area Plan Land Use Neighborhood Center, with a maximum gross floor area of 15,000 square feet; Commercial district (Com), Detailed Specific Area Plan Land Use Village Center, with a maximum gross floor area of 200,000 square feet. |
|
|
FLU Category: |
Agriculture (AG) and Rural Community (RC) |
|
|
Commissioner District: |
5 |
|
|
Requested by: |
J. Dan Gilmore, Agent for Exit 3 Investments, LLC, Owner |
|
|
Planning Board Recommendation: |
Recommended approval |
|
|
Speakers: |
Dan Gilmore, Fred Hemmer, Fred Thompson, Jesse Rigby, Donald Moak |
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Case No.: |
Z-2015-12 |
|
|
Address: |
9600 Block Tower Ridge Road |
|
|
Property Reference: |
01-1S-32-1000-070-003; 01-1S-32-1000-050-003; 01-1S-32-1000-050-004; 01-1S-32-1000-110-003; 01-1S-32-1000-080-003; 01-1S-32-1000-120-004 |
|
|
Property Size: |
78.72 (+/-) acres |
|
|
From: |
RMU, Rural Mixed-use district (two du/acre) |
|
|
To: |
LDMU, Low Density Mixed-use district (seven du/acre) |
|
|
FLU Category: |
MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban |
|
|
Commissioner District: |
1 |
|
|
Requested by: |
Kerry Anne Schultz, Agent for The Busbee Limited Partnership and Murphy J. Jacob Trust |
|
|
Planning Board Recommendation: |
Applicant requested to change requested zoning from LDMU to LDR and support Staff Findings of Fact for LDR. PB recommended approval to rezone from RMU to LDR. |
|
|
Speakers: |
Kerry Anne Shultz, Rick Olson, Tom Poulos, Edward Morgan |
|
| BACKGROUND: |
The above cases were owner initiated and heard at the September 1, 2015, Planning Board Meeting. Under the Land Development Code (LDC) 2.08.00.E.1., “the Board of County Commissioners shall review the record and the recommendation of the Planning Board and either adopt the recommended order, modify the recommended order as set forth therein, reject the recommended order, or remand the matter back to the Planning Board for additional facts or clarification. Findings of fact or findings regarding legitimate public purpose may not be rejected or modified unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. When rejecting or modifying conclusions of law, the Board of County Commissioners must state with particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying the recommended conclusion of law and must make a finding that its substituted conclusion of law is as or more reasonable than the conclusion that was rejected or modified. However, the Board of County Commissioners may not modify the recommendation to a more intensive use requested by the applicant and advertised. The review shall be limited to the record below. Only a party of record to the proceedings before the Planning Board or representative shall be afforded the right to address the Board of County Commissioners and only as to the correctness of the findings of fact or conclusions of law as based on the record. The Board of County Commissioners shall not hear testimony."
To further the County’s policy of “decreasing response time from notification of citizen needs to ultimate resolution,” the Board is acting on both the approval of the Planning Board recommended order and the LDC Map Amendment for this month’s rezoning cases. This report item addresses only the review and upholding of the Planning Board’s recommendation. The next report item will address the Public Hearing for the LDC Zoning Map Amendment.
|
| BUDGETARY IMPACT: |
This action may increase the ad valorem tax base for Escambia County.
|
| LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/SIGN-OFF: |
The recommended order is the result of deliberations by the Planning Board based on staff analysis, public testimony, and knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code as well as case law and Florida Statutes.
|
| PERSONNEL: |
|
|
| POLICY/REQUIREMENT FOR BOARD ACTION: |
The Chairman will need to sign the Orders of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners either denying or approving the rezoning requests.
|
| IMPLEMENTATION/COORDINATION: |
The cases under review are presented to the Planning Board for collection of evidence. The Planning Board conducts a quasi-judicial public hearing and issues a recommended order to the Board.
|
|
|
|
|