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

Page 13 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 Subsection 380.04(2)0further specifies that development includes: "deposit of..fill on a parcel ofland." The establishment of the former golf course use involved the deposit offill and material change in the use and appearance ofland. Therefore, the establishment of the former golf course constituted "development" pursuant to the statutory definition. Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, does not define the term "redeveloped"; however, subsection 380.04(4), Florida Statutes, provides that the term "development" should be broadly construed as appropriate to the context and includes the result ofdevelopment. As the Subject Property was previously developed in establishing the former golf course use, the Subject Property upon redevelopment would constitute a "redeveloped site." While the Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, do not define 'redevelopment," the broad definition ofdevelopment would include redevelopment, which occurs wherever a previously developed site is subsequently developed (i.e., the subsequent development results in a material change in the use or appearance ofthe former development). The Subject Property will be a "redeveloped site" upon commencement of development related to the Proposed Use. B. What is the geographic area that constitutes the "surrounding neighborhood or community"for the purpose ofinterpreting Objective 4 and Policy 4.5? Objective 4 broadly states that individual uses and structures should be generally compatible with the "surrounding neighborhood or community." Appendix A to the Code does not define "surrounding," "neighborhood" "surrounding neighborhood,"; nor do Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code or Black's Law Dictionary define these terms. Common definitions include: • Merriam Webster (on line dictionary) defines "surround" as: to enclose on all sides; • Cambridge (on line dictionary) similarly defines "surround" as: to be around something on all sides; • Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines "surrounding" (adjective) as: that is near or around something; and • Dictionary.com defines "surrounding" (adjective) as: enclosing or encircling; being the environment or adjacent area; Based on these definitions and the reference to "community" in Objective 4, Policy 4.5 should be construed and applied more broadly than limiting a Page 14 of 26 STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF (S). 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 compatibility determination to only abutting lots. None ofthe definitions suggests that only abutting lots should be considered in a compatibility determination. If such a restrictive approach were considered in applying Policy 4.5, then it would be more appropriate to apply Policy 4.5 to only those locations that are completely encircled by a surrounding neighborhood, in which case, Policy 4.5 would not apply to the Subject Property because it is not encircled by a surrounding neighborhood. Thus, if the broader definition of surrounding neighborhood is applied, then it should consider compatibility with nearby neighborhoods as a whole rather than selectively basing compatibility only on the lots within an adjacent subdivision that immediatelyface a proposed development area; such a cherrypicking approach would not be appropriate. Thus, applying Policy 4.5 from a broader perspective as intended by Objective 4 necessarily requires consideration of nearby neighborhoods, and the compatibility analysis should consider more than the nearest set oflots. Policy 4.5 does not establish a distance for "surrounding" or provide guidance as to how to apply the compatibility evaluation, exceptfor the intent expressed by Objective 4. For this reason, the compatibility analysis to demonstrate consistency with Policy 4.5 considers the broader context of neighborhoods that comprise the greater Bluewater Bay DRI community. Again, this is particularly appropriate, considering the mixed density pattern historically authorized throughout the Bluewater Bay DRI Policy 4.5 requires only a twoprong test (subpolicies a. and c.)for determining compatibility on a vacant, redevelopment site.. a) ensuring that residential development reflects the predominant housing type in the surrounding neighborhood to the maximum extent possible; and c) maintaining the established lot development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood through requirements that address land assembly, lot arrangement, lot area, lot dimensions, and lot configuration. Predominant Housing Type. The Application proposes 21 detached, singlefamily units on the Subject Property. This is the housing type and is clearly consistent with the same housing type that occurs throughout the Magnolia Forest neighborhood to the north. The proposed housing type is substantially less intense than the multifamily development immediately west ofthe Subject Parcel, on the west side of Bay Drive, which are designated Medium and High Density and were approved adjacent to Magnolia Forest. The Proposed Development is consistent with criteria (a). Established Lot Pattern. The Proposed Amendment does not include lot sizes, nor did any of the previous amendments approved for the DRI. Lot pattern can be formally evaluated only at the platting stage when lot boundaries are actually defined and approved. However, in an effort to assist the County in its review, the Page 15 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 Application includes the proposed subdivision as a demonstrative exhibit to allow for an informal evaluation at this stage of the process. The Applicant expects to obtain approval for a plat that is substantially similar to the demonstrative exhibit. The average lot size within the Subject Parcel is 8,485 square feet as measuredfrom Exhibit 2 to the Proposed Amendment Application. Attachment 2 calculates the average lot sizefor the Magnolia Forest neighborhood to the north. As indicated, the lot sizes vary significantly within Magnolia Forest; lots in red that are immediately adjacent to the Subject Property average 10,887 squarefeet, the lots in green average 11,430 squarefeet and the overall subdivision averages 9,975 square feet. Phase 2 of the Magnolia Forest Subdivision (Lots 1-19 in yellow) average only 7,028 square feet. As such, the Phase 2 lots are 39% smaller in size than Phase 1 (Green) of the same subdivision (i.e., the same neighborhood). These were deemed compatible in planning the DRI. Similarly, the red lots are smaller in size than the end lots in Phase 1, such as Lots 1, 12, 13 and 28, but were deemed compatible in planning Phase 1. This graphic clearly illustrates the compatibility ofvariable lot sizes within the Bluewater Bay DRI. As previously noted, it would not be appropriate to analyze lot patterns based on selectively considering only the lots in redfor the purpose ofapplying Policy 4.5. Rather, the variable lot size within Magnolia Forest should be considered in comparing the "neighborhood" lot sizes to the lot sizes proposedfor the Subject Parcel. The proposed average lot size of8,485 squarefeet is 21% larger than the lots in Magnolia Phase 2, 22% smaller than the red lots, 26% smaller than the Phase 1 lots and 15% smaller than the average lot sizefor Magnolia Forest. Other "surrounding neighborhoods" must also be considered in evaluating the context for the purpose of applying Policy 4.5, including the multifamily neighborhoods to the west of Bay Drive, which are designated M and H with densities ranging up to 19 units per acre. Magnolia Pointe to the south has very comparable density and lot sizes to the lots plannedfor the Subject Parcel, and is directly abutted by Royal Oak Village, which is a multifamily development with higher densities. Attachment 3 identifies all abutting subdivisions throughout Bluewater Bay DRI where the difference in comparative lot size between the abutting subdivisions exceeds 22%, which is the difference between the red lots in Magnolia Forest and the proposed lots in the Subject Property. Attachment 3 demonstrates that variable lot sizes are more typical than not within Bluewater Bay and reflect the vested development pattern, just as differing unit types and differing density classes abut one another throughout the DRI as previously shown with Attachment I. Notably, several of these subdivisions with differing abutting lot sizes were approved after 2000 and reflect an historic precedent in appropriately interpreting compatibility, density variability and lot variability in a flexible Page 16 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 manner, consistent with the vested development pattern ofthe Bluewater Bay DRI as demonstrated in this analysis. The analysis demonstrates that the Proposed Amendment will result in a subdivision within the Subject Parcel that maintains the overall lot development pattern with surrounding neighborhoods, including Magnolia Forest. The Proposed Amendment is consistent with Policy 4.5 Objective 5 Historic and archaeological resources/districts of Okaloosa County, where designated, shall be protected through identification, classification, and regulation ofdevelopment. Policy 5.2 The County shall require the cessation of land disturbing activities any time artifacts with potential historical or archaeological significance are revealed and shall require that the property owner notify the discovery of the artifacts to the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. Consistency: YES NO X N/A Analysis: The Proposed Amendment does not propose residential use where any known, significant archaeological resources exist. Objective 6 Natural resources, environmental lands, and coastal resources shall be protected through identification, classification, planning and management, and limitations on use consistent with the degree of protection required. Also refer to Conservation Objective 3 and related policies, Conservation Objective 5 and related Policies, and Coastal Management Objective 1.2 and related policies. Policy 6.1 Public supply