Okaloosa County BOCC — January 19, 2016 — OC-6 Compatibility-Comprehensive Plan Determination and Addendum — reading text

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON,P.A. WAKIRIMMIONSMIROMOVAIIMilitheiMMINOWWWWWW41611KM01696MOVIWIll MftitiVt SUPPORTING PLANNING ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BLUEWATER BAY DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION/CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION WITH OKALOOSA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PREPARED BY KENNETH METCALF,AICP PLANNING DIRECTOR JUNE 19, 2015 Kenneth Metcalf, AICP Bluewater Bay DRI Proposed Development Order Amendment Compatibility/Consistency Determination I. Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that the proposed Development Order Amendment ("Proposed Amendment") is consistent with the Okaloosa County Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") in terms of land use compatibility. The Proposed Amendment amends the Bluewater Bay DRI Master Development Map ("Master Development Map")to change the designation on 10.28 acres as follows: 6.42 acres from G (Golf) to M/L(maximum of4 units per acre); and 3.86 acres from G (Golf) to Other Open Space. As will be further evaluated in this analysis, the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the compatibility policies of the Comprehensive Plan. However, prior to reviewing the compatibility findings, this introduction briefly reviews the statutory framework governing DRIs. As further explained, the Applicant submits that the Proposed Amendment is minor in scope and effect, and does not represent a significant change to the vested Bluewater Bay DRI. As such, the Proposed Amendment is not required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it does not represent a departure from the vested development concept and intent of the DRI to make adjustments to open space over time as residential units are allocated to locations on the Master Development Map. However, the compatibility analysis and consistency findings are presented herein in response to County staff s request, and support the approval of the Proposed Amendment, regardless of whether the Proposed Amendment is considered vested or not by Okaloosa County or any other review authority. Purpose of DRI Vesting In considering consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, it is important to recognize that DRIs are intended as long term development plans that necessarily must respond to changes in market conditions over time. The Proposed Amendment responds to the market changes which have impacted the golf industry throughout Florida, and which have caused the closure of the 9-hole golf course adjacent to Magnolia Forest Subdivision in Bluewater Bay. Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, recognize that the DRI process requires significant time and costs to identify and mitigate the regional impacts of approved DRIs; for this reason, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, allows non- substantial deviations, which are changes that do not increase the originally approved baseline impacts of the DRI. Based on those approved baseline impacts, Section 163.3167(5) vests approved DRIs from subsequent changes to comprehensive plans or land development regulations that would have the effect of limiting the ability to complete development that is approved as a DRI. It states: (5) Nothing in this act shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to chapter 380 or who has been issued a final Page 2 of 26 STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Highpoint Center • 106 East College Avenue • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • 850-580-7200 Bluewater Bay DRI Proposed Development Order Amendment Compatibility/Consistency Determination local development order and development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, defines various procedural options, which allow for minor amendments to DRIs in recognition that such changes do not increase the regional impacts of approved DRIs. The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity has confirmed in writing that the Proposed Amendment is not a substantial deviation and qualifies for the expedited review procedure set forth in Section 380.06(19)(e)1, Florida Statutes. In determining whether the Proposed Amendment is subject to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the limited scope of the Proposed Amendment must be recognized. Two basic land use changes must be considered as authorized by the Proposed Amendment. First, the change to the Master Development Plan slightly reduces open space as compared to the previous amendment, but maintains substantially greater open space acreage than originally approved for the DRI, after cumulatively accounting for previous amendments. Changes in open space are governed as a regional impact issue pursuant to Section 380,06(19), Florida Statutes, and are not subject to consistency review as the vested, open space "baseline" from the original DRI approval has not been reduced. Put another way, this is an example of the type of minor adjustments that DRIs are authorized to make in order to respond to changing market conditions without divesting the DRI and triggering consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.1 The second change to the Master Development Plan is to approve the allocation of 21 residential units on the 6.42 acres, which this evaluation will refer to as the "Subject Property." In considering whether this is a change that represents a significant departure from the scope of the vested Bluewater Bay DRI, two important points must be considered. First, the DRI has significant, unused residential unit authorizations, which remain available for use, and which were always contemplated to be allocated to particular locations over time. Second, the approved Master Development Plan has essentially vested certain land use relationships as inherently compatible. As will be reviewed in greater detail in the compatibility analysis, the Bluewater Bay DRI was vested based on an approved land use concept that encourages adjacent neighborhoods and residential uses to develop with different density categories. A cursory review of the Master Development Plan highlights the fact that the High Density category is approved adjacent to the Medium Density category, that Medium Density category is approved adjacent to the Low Density category and so forth. The Proposed Amendment simply continues that fundamental, vested land use pattern. I The First District Court of Appeals ruled in Bay Point Club, Inc. v. Bay County that only development rights originally approved are vested rights. However, the factual circumstances of that case were quite different than for the Proposed Bluewater Bay amendment. The District Court recognized that some proposed changes may not represent a significant change to the vested development plan. The Proposed Amendment represents minor changes that are consistent with the vested development concept in terms of how residential densities are allocated within the DRI. This does not represent a legal opinion, but rather a professional planner's opinion based on relevant experience as set forth in Kenneth Metcalfs CV. Page 3 of 26 STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFE & SITTERSON, RA. Highpoint Center • 106 East College Avenue • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • 850-580-7200 Bluewater Bay DRI Proposed Development Order Amendment Compatibility/Consistency Determination Within the scope of the vested rights, it must be recognized that the Bluewater Bay DRI is vested from concurrency. Public facility impacts were evaluated as part of the original DRI review, and the DRI Development Order does not include conditions limiting development based on an adopted level of service standard. The Proposed Amendment simply utilizes residential units that were already approved and mitigated with regard to public facility impacts. As such, the Proposed Amendment does not increase public facility demand or impacts as related to transportation, water, sewer, solid waste, schools or any other facility or service. The Proposed Amendment is vested from concurrency requirements. However, as a practical matter and to ensure public health, the Applicant recognizes that sufficient water and sewer capacity must be available in order for development to proceed on the Subject Parcel. This determination will be made during the permitting process. Finally, it should be emphasized that the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the future land use map and zoning, which remain MU-1 as further discussed herein. The following analysis evaluates compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in an effort to work with County staff, but should not be construed as a waiver of any vested rights applicable to the DRI, the Proposed Amendment and the Subject Property. II. Consistency Analysis Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes, requires that development orders must be consistent with the local government comprehensive plan to the extent that such Development Orders are not vested from consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Subsection 163.3194(3), F.S., states the following with regard to the consistency requirement: (a) A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. (b) Development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of the development are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. Page 4 of26 STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Highpoint Center • 106 East College Avenue • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • 850-580-7200 Bluewater Bay DRI Proposed Development Order Amendment Compatibility/Consistency Determination A. Administration Element The Okaloosa County Comprehensive Plan, Administrative Element, specifically recognizes these statutory provisions. Objective 1.7 requires consideration of the following "guidelines" in determining whether a development order is consistent with the Okaloosa County Comprehensive Plan: 1.7.1 Land uses: The land use associated with a development or development order shall be deemed consistent with this Plan when the type of land use to be developed (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) is allowed in the proper land use category specified in the Future Land Use Element and is located within the proper land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map; Consistency Finding: The Okaloosa Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the entire Bluewater Bay DRI as Mixed Use 1 DRI (MU-1). Policy 10.1 states the following purpose ofthe MU-1 DRIland use category: The purpose of the MU-1 category is to provide areas for Developments of Regional Impact pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Policy 10.1 lists allowable uses within the MU-1 category