Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-11-06 Workshop — reading text

appropriate for areas east of 1- 4, where Lakepointe is located. development. ill The evidence below supports the conclusion that FN8. Activity centers are defined in the the challenged conditions to Battaglia' s development Future Land Use of the Orange Section plan were necessary to make the project compatible County Growth Management Policy VI- 32. with its surroundings and not threaten the balance of the County' s Growth Management Plan for those Williams testified that the Orange County Growth Management Policy' Future Land Use Designation areas. Regarding the prohibition against s freestanding commercial use, Edward Williams, the for the Lakepointe property had been low density, Orange County Planning Director, testified that such residential, which allowed residential developments up to 4.4 dwelling units per acre. Thus, Battaglia' s use was totally inconsistent with the County' s Comprehensive Plan because: I) it was inconsistent proposal for office and freestanding commercial use with the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map; 2) it and for multifamily development in the northern part was inconsistent with the locational criteria for retail of the project was actually inconsistent with the Map FN9 uses; and 3) it would start a trend for additional retail and Comprehensive Plan, prior to its amendment. development that would have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential areas and therefore would be inconsistent with the overriding goals and FN9. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan initially adopted in 1980. The objectives of the Growth Management Plan. was Future Land Use Policy Guide Map was Williams cited commercial policy 4. 0. 1 in support of adopted as part of the Growth Management prohibiting freestanding commercial use. This Policy Ordinance in 1985. The application for DR! approval was submitted in March policy provides that "[ a] 1l commercial development shall be established only in areas where adequate 1986. The Future Land Use Map is a vital element of the County' s Growth public facilities and services already exist, will be Battaelia Fruit Co. v. Plan. provided prior to occupancy, or are scheduled to be Management available within an approved time frame, as provided Citv of Maitland 530 So.2d 940. 950 ( Fla. in the Growth Management Policy." Williams 5th DCA 1988) ( Sharp, W., C.J., dissenting). testified that there were circumstances where Williams further testified that it was a stated goal and adequate public facilities and services would not be available for the Lakepointe Development. objective of the County to ensure intergovernmental coordination. Witnesses testified that according to Williams also testified that freestanding commercial Maitland' s Comprehensive Development Plan, the use at Lakepointe was counter to commercial policy southern portion of Lakepointe is an area established 1. 0. 2 which provides as follows: primarily for single family residential and related utilities, churches and schools. Office The disruption of residential areas by poorly located uses, commercial activities should be avoided. In buildings would not be approved by the City in this Q 2006 Thomson/ West. No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works. 629 So.2d 161 Page 7 629 So.2d 161, 18 Fla. L. Weekly 02117 Cite as: 629 So. 2d 161) area. The northern portion of Lakepointe is in an roofs, the materials that were used were similar to the area designated for single family, multifamily and materials used in housing construction and that the limited, nonresidential development. Freestanding height limitation was the same as that used for single commercial use would not be allowed under family residential districts. Maitland' s Comprehensive Development Plan. Like Orange County, Maitland rFNIOl * 167 is attempting The City of Maitland and Orange County apparently to preserve the area east of 1- 4 for residential use. had the same concept in mind for application to the northern portion of Lakepointe. Marilynne Davis, the fonner City Manger, testified that the tenn FN I O. At the time of the DRI review, there residential scale and character" had been in use in was no fonnal joint agreement between Maitland for some time and identified nearby Maitland and Orange County. Maitland and Versailles Office Park as being one example of this Orange County later entered into a fonnal style. Edward Williams, the County Planning agreement in July 1989. Director, testified that residential scale related to size and height requirements and that residential character The condition limiting commercial and office referred to a certain sense of community and development on the project to a cap of 10, 000 square residential feel. Williams further described this feet per acre also was not shown by this record to be design as creating a residential atmosphere through arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence. the style of buildings, landscaping which would hide Both parties acknowledge a planned development parking, type of roof, windows, and building such as Lakepointe does allow for a square footage materials common to housing developments. restriction. David Tomek, Community Development Williams noted that the elements in detennining Director for Maitland, testified that 10, 000 square whether a project would be of residential scale and feet would be the maximum square footage allowed character included the amount of square footage on in Maitland, which surrounds Lakepointe on three the parcel, the size and shape of the buildings, the sides. Edward Williams testified that Orange pitch of the roof, the type of materials, whether the County conducted a review of office projects and structure resembles a single family house, an detennined that 10, 000 square foot per acre was an abundance of landscaping and other amenities, less average limitation. The staff recommended 10, 000 parking, canopies over the windows, and other square feet because that was slightly higher than what elements that would create the illusion that the had been approved for portion of the southern building may be a residential unit. Lakepointe and because it was an average figure for professional office buildings in Orange County. Thus it appears that Battaglia, the County and City of Williams further testified that 10, 000 square foot a Maitland have the same concept of residential scale per acre limitation kept office space at a scale and and character and this concept may be implemented character consistent with a residential atmosphere. in a variety of design configurations. The southern The Jewish Community Center, located nearby, was portion of Lakepointe was rezoned with the condition limited to less than 9, 000 square feet per acre. This that the office buildings be of residential scale and evidence supports the conclusion that the 10, 000 character, and Battaglia apparently did not object. It square- foot limitation for office space is reasonably appears reasonable to impose the same conditions on related to the requirement that the project retain a the northern portions of Lakepointe. The rationale is residential character. clearly to protect the surrounding, already- established, residential neighborhoods & om As to the third condition that office buildings be of a incompatible development. residential scale and character", Battaglia itself used this design tenn in seeking community and County 168 The fourth condition challenged by this appeal approval for the rezoning of the southern portion of is the 35- footheight limitation reimposed by the Lakepointe. Battaglia advised nearby residents that Commission. The Commission