Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits, May 26 2009

[Smiling JOe]

Back to height limits...

[Bob Wells]

And you don't agree that whether a public official was doing their job or not important? I don't care what the party affiliation is, was or will be, I want to know if someone is slacking off on my tax dollar.

Sorry, meant to say couldn't agree with you more.

[Beach Runner]

Back to height limits...

As one BCC member said, the area south of 30A is a special, beautiful place that should be protected against tall, dense developments that would obscure the view of the water from those who cannot afford to own or rent there. Even though there is a fifty-foot limit, that does not mean that a fifty-foot development south of 30A should be approved, especially if it does not meet the criteria in my post #24. Enough members of the BCC (actually I think that vote was unanimous) agreed that they voted no on the development that we were opposing.

[Andy A]

Sorry, meant to say couldn't agree with you more.

Thank you. Duly noted. After reading it again after my response, I thought you had probably made a typo.

[wrobert]

That which is scarce generally has higher value -- Econ 101.

I could not agree more. But then that would mean that all of those use to be rich developers missed that class?

What does not make sense on its face is that they continue to want to build high rises if it appears they could make more money building low rises.

[wrobert]

dense developments that would obscure the view of the water from those who cannot afford to own or rent there.

Would you tell me which commissioner believes in this socialist agenda so I can make sure I no longer fund their political aspirations? Feel free to PM me.


And if the commissioner is so much for fairness is seeing the Gulf, why do they support me owning land in order to take my dog on the beach, or to drive on the beach. In other words they support fairness, a little bit, but not total fairness. Heck it appears they can not even make themselves a good wealth redistribution democrat.

[North Lake]

I could not agree more. But then that would mean that all of those use to be rich developers missed that class?

What does not make sense on its face is that they continue to want to build high rises if it appears they could make more money building low rises.

No, those who are still rich developers made it to class all right...but they were in the right place at the right time and able to cash in on the boom.

The ones wanting to put up high rises or get increased density now where there is no market for them are just trying to recoup their losses from the property they bought at inflated prices at the wrong time...or didn't develop while there was a viable market for it. They were either absent from class or tardy when the salient point was introduced. Can't blame them for trying, but the rules have been in place for a long time.

In the long run, we'll suffer as a community if we overdevelop IMHO. We -- that is south Walton, have something that will endure in the market as a unique place if we can keep it from becoming run of the mill, cookie cutter high rises that our neighbors to the east and west enjoy. Height and density limits are a legitimate and effective way to achieve that, and have been very successful in south Walton. People who are contemplating buying know the rules in advance and plan their development accordingly.

This brings us back to the meat of this thread ... the rest of the county. Height limits have worked well in south Walton. Putting them in place for the rest of the county now, while the market is slow, will ensure that Walton County retains its uniqueness in this area. I'm not anti-growth -- quite the opposite -- but let's do quality instead of quantity. If you have something rare and special, the buyers will be there, and will pay a premium for it.

[TooFarTampa]

I could not agree more. But then that would mean that all of those use to be rich developers missed that class?

What does not make sense on its face is that they continue to want to build high rises if it appears they could make more money building low rises.

No, that's not what people are saying at all.

A developer wants to maximize density so he/she can sell more units for whatever plot of land is being developed. The easiest and most efficient way to do this typically is to increase height. The more units in the plan, the more stories you can stack on top of each other, the more money the developer makes.

For the buyers or end users of the property, scarcity=higher property values. Restrictions like height limits help with scarcity, thus helping the buyer retain property value after the developer is long gone.

Such restrictions are meant to protect a community as a whole. I can't imagine why anyone would think a developer should have a "right" to build whatever he or she wishes on a parcel, without regard to its impact on a community. This is what zoning and planning are for. Some places are better at it than others.

[Rita]

...................... Such restrictions are meant to protect a community as a whole. I can't imagine why anyone would think a developer should have a "right" to build whatever he or she wishes on a parcel, without regard to its impact on a community. This is what zoning and planning are for. Some places are better at it than others.

.
Most definitely!
Population increases have an affect on any areas where they occur, changing the landscape, esthetics, traffic, watersheds, water quality, ecology of the area and so on. Regulations, zoning, codes, etc. play an important role in softening the impact of growth. It would be very short-sighted for a community to not work toward long-range planning.

.

[kurt]

A new low for Walton height law | government, law, buildings - Opinion - Northwest Florida Daily News

Opinion

The good folks here in conservative Northwest Florida talk a lot about wanting smaller, less intrusive, less meddlesome government. But guess what? A fair share of them don't really mean it.


What else are we to make of residents' apparent eagerness to let government exercise veto power over what their neighbors, law-abiding citizens all of them, do with their property?


Walton County officials recently held a series of community workshops at which residents suggested ways to guide growth over the next 20 years. The result, according to a story we published Monday, was "about 500 requests for amendments to the development code."


FIVE HUNDRED requests for amendments?!


Among them were the usual calls for government to crack down on building heights. So Walton officials now are considering an ordinance that would slap a 50-foot height limit on residential buildings throughout the county.


The proposed law, of course, is all about certain people's ideas of aesthetics. Nothing more is involved here. A few people inside and outside of government don't think tall buildings are attractive, and they think government should bully private property owners into planning shorter buildings, so they're pushing a law that will give government exactly that kind of power.


Smaller government? Forget it.


Less intrusive government? No way.


And they can't fall back on the excuse that a height limit has something to do with public safety. Not when there are exceptions in the ordinance for church steeples, cell phone towers and agricultural structures, all of which can be taller.


No, this is about fattening the law books, adding layers of bureaucracy and inevitably slowing the pace of economic recovery ... all for the sole purpose of putting a government stamp on private development.


Surely, SOME people on the Emerald Coast long for a more modest government. Don't they?

[TooFarTampa]

Wow, that's ... interesting.

If "residents are calling for government to crack down on building heights," and the commissioners are in agreement, then what exactly is the problem?

It's not about big government, it's about zoning and planning. Walton County is home to one of the most celebrated planned communities in the world -- Seaside -- which has inspired countless imitators, locally and many hundreds of miles away, and remains the jewel of the county's beaches.

If people in the county want MORE of this type of careful planning (and everyone has to admit it has been a boon for the county as a whole), then now is perfect the time to do it, while most or all big projects are on hold. That way there is a much smaller chance a property owner can claim that the value of his/her parcel is being decimated. (Since that has already happened anyway.)

I'm still not clear why the height restriction is a bad idea according to the editorial staff, other than the dreaded "big government" complaint.

[scooterbug44]

Why exactly is applying an ordinance to the ENTIRE county instead of just a portion of it a cause for such massive concern and hyperbole?

I love how suggestions from a series of community workshops is evidence of the government's unchecked tyranny over us all.

[kurt]

The Defuniak Herald » BCC EYES SETTING HEIGHTS FOR NORTH COUNTY

Prior to a temporary height limit ordinance being approved in November 2007, there was no specific limit on the height of new construction north of the bay in Walton County. The temporary ordinance set a 50-foot height limit, uniform with the limit that had existed in south Walton County for many years.
On June 30, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider a proposal for several height limits in north Walton County, tied to land use areas.
The source of the proposed limits is the amendments based on the county’s 2006 evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). The amendments are also under consideration by the county.
As proposed, a 40-foot north county height limit would be set for construction in residential areas, a 75-foot limit for construction in commercial areas, and a 100-foot limit for construction in industrial areas.
Of the three, the proposed 40-foot limit for residential has brought forth the most reaction and comment. There have been comments by commissioners and the public in favor of keeping the residential height limit uniform with the 50-foot one existing in south Walton.
County Commission Chair Sara Comander also commented that it should be a priority to ensure that uses such as silos and other farm structures are not hampered in agricultural areas.
Pat Blackshear of Walton County Planning and Development Services said that the 40-foot recommendation associated with north Walton County residential uses was the result of public input during workshops associated with the proposed EAR-based amendments.
The temporary height limit ordinance for north Walton County had sunset on May 27, but on May 26 the BCC had voted to direct staff not to accept any development applications involving construction in excess of 50 feet.
Blackshear had recommended that the BCC hold public hearings to renew the temporary ordinance until such time as height limits had been approved for north Walton County through the EAR-based amendments and the period for challenge of the amendments had expired. In accordance with that recommendation, the BCC had set and advertised a public hearing for June 9 for consideration of a height limit ordinance “for all of Walton County.”
However, on June 9, District 3 Commissioner Larry Jones said he was uncomfortable looking at extending the 50-foot temporary height limit ordinance, which he called a “skeleton ordinance.” He moved to continue consideration of the height limits until the June 30 BCC meeting, at which the limits proposed for north Walton County in the EAR-based documents would be considered.
His motion was approved unanimously. The June 30 BCC meeting is scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. and take place in the Walton County Courthouse in DeFuniak Springs.
The proposals to be considered at that meeting do not involve changes to the 50-foot height limit for south Walton County. The proposed EAR-based amendments also call for that limit to remain in place, with the exception of a 75-foot allowable height for hospital construction and construction of some other structures associated with hospital uses.

[kurt]

The Defuniak Herald » BCC EYES SETTING HEIGHTS FOR NORTH COUNTY

Prior to a temporary height limit ordinance being approved in November 2007, there was no specific limit on the height of new construction north of the bay in Walton County. The temporary ordinance set a 50-foot height limit, uniform with the limit that had existed in south Walton County for many years.
On June 30, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider a proposal for several height limits in north Walton County, tied to land use areas.
The source of the proposed limits is the amendments based on the county’s 2006 evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). The amendments are also under consideration by the county.
As proposed, a 40-foot north county height limit would be set for construction in residential areas, a 75-foot limit for construction in commercial areas, and a 100-foot limit for construction in industrial areas.
Of the three, the proposed 40-foot limit for residential has brought forth the most reaction and comment. There have been comments by commissioners and the public in favor of keeping the residential height limit uniform with the 50-foot one existing in south Walton.
County Commission Chair Sara Comander also commented that it should be a priority to ensure that uses such as silos and other farm structures are not hampered in agricultural areas.
Pat Blackshear of Walton County Planning and Development Services said that the 40-foot recommendation associated with north Walton County residential uses was the result of public input during workshops associated with the proposed EAR-based amendments.
The temporary height limit ordinance for north Walton County had sunset on May 27, but on May 26 the BCC had voted to direct staff not to accept any development applications involving construction in excess of 50 feet.
Blackshear had recommended that the BCC hold public hearings to renew the temporary ordinance until such time as height limits had been approved for north Walton County through the EAR-based amendments and the period for challenge of the amendments had expired. In accordance with that recommendation, the BCC had set and advertised a public hearing for June 9 for consideration of a height limit ordinance “for all of Walton County.”
However, on June 9, District 3 Commissioner Larry Jones said he was uncomfortable looking at extending the 50-foot temporary height limit ordinance, which he called a “skeleton ordinance.” He moved to continue consideration of the height limits until the June 30 BCC meeting, at which the limits proposed for north Walton County in the EAR-based documents would be considered.
His motion was approved unanimously. The June 30 BCC meeting is scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. and take place in the Walton County Courthouse in DeFuniak Springs.
The proposals to be considered at that meeting do not involve changes to the 50-foot height limit for south Walton County. The proposed EAR-based amendments also call for that limit to remain in place, with the exception of a 75-foot allowable height for hospital construction and construction of some other structures associated with hospital uses.

[Smiling JOe]

For the record, I believe building heights throughout the City of Freeport are already 35 ft.

[kurt]

Walton: No projects affected by height rule | height, county, walton - News - Northwest Florida Daily News

None of the nearly 450 active development orders in Walton County will be affected if a countywide height ordinance goes into effect as expected later this summer, according to Gerry Demers, the county's director of development services.

The only project that would have been affected - a proposed 12-story condominium off Jolly Bay Road in Freeport - already has been turned down by county commissioners, who said the building's height would be incompatible with the surrounding area.

With some exceptions, the proposed ordinance would limit buildings in South Walton to 50 feet. Structures north of Choctawhatchee Bay would be capped at 50 feet in residential areas, 75 feet in commercial areas, and 100 feet in industrial zones.

There are exceptions to the 50-foot height limit in South Walton. For example, Grayton Beach has a 40-foot height limit and the Point Washington Overlay District has a limit of 32 feet.

"The city of Freeport is not governed by our height ordinance and may have their own restrictions," Demers said in an e-mail. "This new ordinance will provide a height limit for the rest of the county (north of the bay)."

Demers said in the e-mail Monday that a previous 50-foot height ordinance north of Choctawhatchee Bay expired at the end of May. The new ordinance is "to have a height limitation in effect for the area north of the bay until such time this height restriction will be made permanent by (its) incorporation into the Walton County Comprehensive Plan."

The first public hearing on the height restrictions was June 9. Another hearing is scheduled for Tuesday during the County Commission meeting in DeFuniak Springs, and a third will be July 14 at the commissioners' meeting in Santa Rosa Beach.

Meanwhile, local developers appear to look favorably on the proposed restrictions. They say that the lack of high-rise hotels is largely what separates Walton County from over-developed areas along the Emerald Coast.

Developer John King, owner of Indian Creek of Destin, Inc., said that although his company does not build high-rises, the height ordinance would prevent the buildings that obscure residents' and tourists' views in Destin, Fort Walton Beach and Panama City.

Don Rutland, president of Miramar Beach-based Rutland Co. - whose projects include The Inn at Blue Mountain Beach and the Inn at Crystal Beach - said setting a countywide height limit "sets an appropriate tone for the population that lives here and keeps us somewhat different from the rest of the state of Florida ... I believe it's a positive move for Walton County."

"As developers, we want as much density as we can get, but as residents, we're trying to keep our emotions out of it and be practical," said Matt Olsen, Rutland's executive vice president.

Density is driven by lack of land, he said, and there is plenty of it in north Walton County.

Rutland and Olsen said their company always has tried to conform with height ordinances, knowing that it is "an uphill battle" to get a variance and that trying to persuade commissioners to allow them to build anything taller than 50 feet "is not a good use of time and money."

They also say height restrictions are not the biggest hurdle developers must overcome.

Instead, their battles center on proportional fair-share payments for expected traffic impacts, the downturn in economy, the time it takes for the county to approve projects and elaborate land-use regulations.

Those obstacles are "the macro issues that are really stifling ability to create new tax revenues and jobs," Olsen said.

For example, one of Rutland's planned developments - a mixed-use project on 10 acres of land near Helen McCall Park - already has been approved, but construction has not yet begun because of the financial downturn.

Olsen said the company would like to include two fast-food franchises in the hotel and retail complex, but the county has said such businesses would be outside the Scenic Corridor guidelines that sets standards for landscaping, architecture and signage.

The company is lobbying hard to change the commissioners' mind, Rutland and Olsen said.

[miznotebook]

For anyone interested in the countywide height limit ordinance, this will be taken up at the county commission meeting on Tuesday, July 14 at the South Walton Annex. The meeting starts at 4 p.m. There are other items scheduled too, you can check the county Web site.
I write for the Beach Breeze/DeFuniak Herald and I wrote an article for this week's edition that discussed this meeting coming up. I slipped up and gave the wrong meeting location!!! To my mother and the two other people who read my articles, I AM SORRY!!! (This is my first post and I'm afraid to try the little faces yet)
Seriously, I felt really bad and didn't get much sleep Tuesday night the when we went to press. I had caught the mistake but too late to get it changed. I did get word to the county about the misinfo and they made a note of it on their Web site. Anyway, I wanted to let SoWallers know to prevent as much confusion as possible.
I think this site is a great resource for the community, (kudos to Kurt) although I don't get to check it out as much as I would like. Too bad my first post had to be a mea culpa. Best regards to everyone, Dotty

[Smiling JOe]

Dotty,
Can you post the article from the Defuniak Herald printed maybe two weeks ago, about the proposed high rise in Freeport loosing its first lawsuit against the County? Feel free to start a new thread on it, because it is slightly different to this particular thread, but related.

[miznotebook]

Mr. Joe, thanks for your interest in that article, it appeared on June 25 but it was not posted on our newspaper's Web site. So, unfortunately I don't have access to the edited form of the story. I'm pretty sure I can get it for you but I won't be able to do it right away.
Thanks to the other poster for the kind words. I think I will sleep better tonight.