By DOTTY NIST
A 162-apartment project proposed for Goldsby Road in south Walton County is set to move forward to final consideration by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
Known as Bowline Apartments, the project underwent a hearing over two hours in length at the May 12 Walton County Planning Commission meeting at Freeport Commons.
Stephen Schoen of Walton County Planning and Development Services introduced the project, which is to include the apartments and a clubhouse on 9.8 acres on Goldsby Road, six-tenths mile north of U.S. 98. The applicants are Goldsby Florida, L.L.C.
An amendment (the Burnt Pines Small Scale Amendment) had been approved in January 2020 changing for the future land use classification of the property from Conservation Residential to Commercial and changing the zoning district from Conservation Residential 2:1 (two unit per acre) to General Commercial. Also approved at that time had been a developer agreement as a condition of the rezoning.
The developer agreement had provided for a limit on density to 17 units per acre/166 total units for the property, a dedication of 20 percent of the units for workforce housing, and a prohibition on commercial except for a leasing management office and onsite amenities to serve residents of the development. The agreement had also provided for the applicant to forego a conditional use approval process that would otherwise have been required to remove a mandate for mixed use with the residential units.
Schoen explained that the developer agreement had recently been amended as requested by staff and as “acquiesced” to by the applicants in order to put it in conformity with new standards that staff now likes to see in developer agreements.
Local developer John King had been the applicant for the rezoning and the original developer agreement and had purchased the property in February 2020, shortly after approval of the rezoning, according to Walton County Property Appraiser’ records. When requesting the rezoning, King had stated that he would charge $980 per month for a one-bedroom workforce unit.
The property later changed hands again in December 2021 when acquired by the current applicants.
At the May 12 planning commission meeting, Clay Adkinson, acting county attorney and planning commission legal counsel, commented that the developer agreement was being presented to the planning commission for informational purposes only, not for a recommendation, and that the BCC would be responsible for making a determination on the agreement.
Representing the applicants, engineer Curtis Smith summarized the revisions to the developer agreement, indicating that those had consisted solely of defining the workforce housing component of the project.
A proportionate fair share payment of $111,081 applies to the development due to the project not meeting transportation concurrency requirements.
Also speaking on behalf of the applicants was Adam Brock of Brock Built Homes who explained that the applicant L.L.C. is one of his family’s company’s entities. “We have quite a number of projects in Walton County, and we’re excited to be here,” he said.
Brock said planting trees over and above requirements is a big theme with the company and that they believe streetscapes and landscaping can help with overall appearance and value. He said they had made an effort with the plans to blend in a bus stop that would be included and that bike racks, a dog park and outdoor grill stations would be included in a common space area.
There is also a commitment with the application to construct a multi-use path along the side of Goldsby Road from the development site southward to the sidewalk located at the Goldsby Road/U.S. 98 intersection
In response to questions about the workforce housing portion of the development, Brock stated that workforce housing is not defined in today’s codes in Florida. He said one reason for amending the developer agreement had to “spell out” what workforce housing would mean for the project.
“And what that means,” he said, “is 140 percent of area median income or less—would have to be affordable to somebody earning those rates..,” speaking of the workforce units.
He added that that definition would “slide” (adjust) based on the number of bedrooms for the unit (one, two, or three), and “in terms of the allocation that can go towards it.”
Brock explained that the area median income is adjusted annually and the way the project would work would be that the rent amount would go up or down based on a corresponding increase or decrease in the average median income.
He also said the 33 proposed workforce housing units would be exactly the same as the other units and would be mixed in throughout the development, with 15 of the units to be one bedroom, 12 two bedroom, and six three bedroom.
Asked about dollar amounts for rental rates for the workforce units, he provided the following numbers for these units based on 2021 U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) limits, area median income, and number of bedrooms: One bedroom – $1,828; two bedroom – $2,104; and three bedroom – $2,534.
Among other questions, Planning Commissioner Dan Cosson asked why this had been referred to as affordable housing when people such as firemen, law enforcement officers, and paramedics would not be able to afford the rental rates.
Brock responded that this was not affordable housing but was workforce housing. He agreed that the terminology was deceiving but observed that this was a nationwide problem originating with HUD/the federal government and how they make the housing definitions.
“The second issue you have in Walton County,” Brock continued, “is you have extremely high area median income, and recently it’s only gone up.” He said his company had done studies to see who is living in existing apartments in Walton County that are at full market rate. He called the results “shocking,” saying that, for example, there are bartenders making over six figures a year.
Asked about parking, Brock said that 1.8 spaces would be provided per unit. He commented that this exceeded the industry “gold standard” for multi-family of 1.5 spaces per unit. Schoen also confirmed that the parking exceeded the minimum county code standards. Walton County Planning and Development Services Director Mac Carpenter was in agreement, as well, that the plans met the code parking standards.
In public comment, Miramar Beach resident Lori Echols disagreed that the parking in the plans would be enough. “There’s never enough parking,” she said, among other comments, adding that roads in the area are “not conducive to more apartments.” She said traffic being backed up on Goldsby Road is a daily occurrence and that traffic accidents happen repeatedly in the area. Echols warned that the situation would get worse with ongoing building.
Echols was one of half a dozen people speaking in opposition or criticism to the project, together with south Walton County resident and South Walton Community Council (SWCC) Board Member Barbara Morano.
Morano said she thought the BCC had been “sincere” when the rezoning and original developer agreement were approved in thinking that the agreement would provide for reasonably-priced housing—and that they did not realize that the units would end up at affordability for 140 percent of the average median income.
“This is the most expensive affordable housing complex in Walton County today,” she said, noting that other apartment complexes with affordable housing are now coming through at 120 percent of the average median income. She also observed that the board members’ hands were tied because of decisions previously made.
Two citizens brought up positive aspects of the project. One of those, Uriah Matthews, called for adding housing and embracing people moving into the area, who would be able to run and support businesses in the area and provide for a “healthy” community. He was of the opinion that it should not be a problem to make a salary that would make moving into an apartment complex like this one affordable.
Planning Commissioner Tanner Peacock asked planning staff to clarify whether the project was in compliance with the requirements of the Walton County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Schoen confirmed that this was the case.
Planning Commission Chairman Lee Perry was in agreement but spoke to the need for the BCC to look at how to address the problem of high rental rates and “adjust those numbers” for future similar projects in order to create affordable housing or workforce housing.
Planning Commissioner Fred Tricker voiced concern about traffic safety in the project area. Cosson brought up additional concerns, including potential school overcrowding and other project impacts on top of the substantial number of approved developments “in the pipeline” that have not yet broken ground. He said he would not be able to support this project.
There was a motion for approval by Peacock, seconded by newly-appointed Planning Commissioner Robert Arnold. The motion carried with all aye votes with the exception of Cosson, who voted no. Planning Commissioner Barbara Brooke was not in attendance.
Other agenda items, county approval process
Two other agenda items, rezoning requests, also received votes of recommendation.
The first of these was the Drevinska Rezoning, a request to change the zoning district from Village Mixed Use to Coastal Center Mixed Use on 2.34 acres with a Mixed Use future land use and located on the south side of U.S. 98, approximately 0.15 mile from Don Bishop Road.
The stated purpose of the rezoning was to provide for a more general type of commercial use as opposed to neighborhood-serving commercial. The intent was stated to be for a trades and services/small warehouse type of business park.
The request was approved with all ayes with the exception of a nay vote by Cosson.
Also receiving a favorable vote was the final agenda item, a request on behalf of Emerald Bay Commercial 09, L.LC., to rezone 5.02 acres on the north side of U.S.. 98, approximately four-tenths mile east of Emerald Bay Drive, from Coastal Center to Coastal Center Mixed Use. The property is in a Mixed Use future land use area.
Carpenter explained that the primary significance of the proposed rezoning was to remove the requirement for a portion of the development to be residential plus allow drive-throughs for other purposes in addition to for a financial institution. This is property located directly west of the Golf Garden property in Miramar Beach.
Representing the applicants, attorney Stephen Tatum explained that there is no demand for the residential at the location, while there is a demand for commercial, with two fast-food restaurants having approached the property owners wanting to locate there. Approximately 15,000 square feet of general retail is envisioned for the property as well in a second phase.
A motion in favor of this rezoning request also carried with all aye votes with the exception of that of Cosson.
Planning Commission decisions on amendments and land use items are provided as recommendation to the BCC, which has responsibility for final determinations on these items in public session.