By DOTTY NIST
A lengthy public hearing on the Gulf Place Lots 19 & 20 development proposal resulted a representative of project applicant Lagoon Manor Development agreeing to revise and bring back the project plans.
The hearing was part of the Jan. 12 Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regular meeting at the South Walton Annex.
As presented, the proposal was for 40 condo/townhome units and 2,500 square feet of commercial, to include a 50-unit hotel and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, on Lots 19 and 20 of the Gulf Place development. The project site is approximately 2.2 acres along the north and south sides of Spires Lane and on the west side of CR-30A.
The proposal has encountered a great deal of community opposition since coming under the county’s review process about six months ago. Several citizens and several attorneys representing neighboring property owners spoke in opposition at the Jan. 12 hearing. However, not all public comment was negative.
Mary Nielson, owner of property adjacent to the proposed project, told the commissioners that she had no objection to it. It was her opinion that the hotel was needed for visitors and business people wanting to stay one or two nights and who did not want to either pay high-end prices for lodging or go to Miramar Beach or Panama City Beach. “This is a small inn, and I believe it serves a purpose,” she said, clarifying that she would have no financial gain if the project were approved.
Much of the contention with the proposal has been over whether entitlements to develop the two lots exist as part of the Gulf Place Town Center development as approved, much of which has been built on.
According to a report presented by county staff, the Gulf Place Town Center project was originally approved in 1995 as a four-phase master plan. In 2013, Wayne Dyess, Walton County director for planning and development services, made the determination that development entitlements remaining for Gulf Place Lot 19 totaled 40 residential units and that unbuilt commercial density for Lot 20 included approximately 26,000 square feet. At that time, Lot 19 was already partially developed with a bank and asphalt parking lot.
Opponents challenged those calculations, arguing that the town center was already overbuilt with existing residential units.
Attorney Robert Kauffman, spoke on behalf of the Gulf Place at Santa Rosa Beach Homeowners’ Association, whose members own lots in the 100-lot subdivision west of the Gulf Place Town Center. Kauffman made the case that, based on a Dec. 1, 2015, master site plan for the Gulf Place Town Center by Walton County Planning, there were 193 residential units permitted for the town center by development order. He maintained that 175 of those units had been built, leaving only 18 units. Kauffman continued that the homeowners’ association, however, does not accept the planning department’s analysis, since the 53 units in the town center condotel are not counted as residential units. With those units included, the actual number of residential units would be 228 units, meaning that the town center is already overbuilt by 35 units, he told the commissioners.
Attorney Lois La Seur, representing a Gulf Place homeower, also disagreed with the entitlement calculations, maintaining that the proposed development on the two lots was not vested for traffic. She argued that approval of the proposal would mean that Walton County would ” violate its own code.”
An analysis presented by Jamie Eubanks, project manager for the proposal, countered that 42 residential units remained, along with 37,778 square feet of commercial.
Among criticisms of the proposal were a lack of buffering with adjacent properties, issues with pedestrian safety, and potential worsening of what was already identified as a parking problem. The latter was despite the applicants’ plans to provide 134 parking spaces within the development side, exceeding the code requirement by three spaces, and also provide eight other parking spaces along the CR-30A right-of-way.
` District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows commented that her major problem with the proposal was deficiencies with the existing infrastructure in the town center. She cautioned that the infrastructure would not accommodate the amount of intensity that was being proposed. Meadows pointed out existing traffic and stormwater management problems. She was also of the opinion that access management would be an issue with the proposal.
Identifying himself as one of the partners for development proposal, Robert Drake testified that he and his associates had paid in excess of $900,000 for the two lots after talking with the previous owners and consulting with county staff about entitlements associated with the lots. He discussed several letters written by county planning directors, including Dyess and several past planning directors, some dating back over 10 years, indicating that development entitlements existed on the property. Drake stated that he and his partners had relied on these determinations and would not have purchased the property without them.
He and his partners had spent $420,000 to $450,000 for architectural and engineering services, and other costs, including $7,000 in association dues, Drake testified. He added that they had worked with the county to develop a proposal that would address existing problems and ensure that drainage would be more than adequate.
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones expressed concern about safety and congestion problems in the town center area. “I think those are the real issues, ” she said.
“Safety issues are my biggest thing,” agreed BCCc Chair Sara Comander.
District 3 Commissioner Bill Imfeld asked attorney Greg Stewart, who was representing county staff, if the determination letters from county planning directors were binding. Stewart responded that he believed the letters were binding on the county. He added that the applicants had gone through the proper process to research what they would be able to build on the property.
Meadows pointed out the lack of mitigating factors such as turn lanes and intersection improvements.
Imfeld asked if any alternate designs had been investigated.
Drake responded that the property owners had been working with Gulf Place to address what they deemed to be needed.
After a break in the meeting providing for consultation between Drake and his representatives, several additions to the proposal were suggested by the applicants. These included a turn lane onto Spires Lane, additional pedestrian lighting, striping and signage at the CR-30A crosswalk, and a $50,000 donation to a stormwater project involving the placement of a stormwater pipe below CR-30A. The overall cost of the latter project, which has been under discussion by the county, was estimated at $250,000.
Meadows asked if the applicants would consider condominiums in place of the hotel. Drake said they would be willing to do so, depending on how many residential units would be allowed.
Consensus among the commissioners was that a “straight residential” project would be preferable to what had been proposed.
Commissioner Jones urged for a “more family oriented” proposal. Comander thanked Drake for his willingness to work with the county and be a partner in the community.
A 4-0 motion was approved to have the applicants return on Feb. 9 with a revised site plan in accordance with the discussion and the consensus of the board members. District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman was not present for the hearing on the Gulf Place proposal.
In other business, the commissioners took no action on a proposal by Sunshine Shuttle for an advertising opportunity involving mobile billboards on four trolleys on CR-30A and Scenic Gulf Drive at a cost of $2 million over a four-year period. After considerable discussion, Imfeld suggested sending the proposal back to the Walton County Tourist Development Council for a specific recommendation, which had not yet been provided by the tourism council.
The commissioners also opted to take additional time to consider a selection of projects to be funded from the $5.7 million available in direct component/Pot 1 RESTORE Act funds. A list of over 40 project applications had recently been ranked and provided to the BCC by the Local RESTORE Act Committee.
Comander spoke in favor of providing opportunity for public comment on the project applications, with 45 minutes to one hour set aside for this input, along with a staff presentation, as part of the Jan. 26 BCC meeting in DeFuniak Springs. She emphasized that applications for projects not selected for funding would not be discarded but would remain under consideration for Pot 1 funds coming available next year.
Following some comments by Driftwood Estates resident Alan Osborne, Meadows suggested a look at a project for the Driftwood area similar to the application by Freeport involving a stormwater master plan and associated improvement to benefit the Choctawhatchee Bay. It was agreed that this would be investigated for Driftwood. Meadows was also in favor of the Jan. 26 presentation and public comment opportunity.
“We certainly want it to be done in the most appropriate manner, Walton County Administrator Larry Jones concurred.
In other business related to the Local RESTORE Act Committee, the BCC approved the appointment of south Walton County resident Claire Bannerman to the vacant Arts and Cultural seat on the committee.
Planning Commission continues proposed Portland amendment