Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board approves Luxe Apartments design; applicant to donate 5% recreation land or pay fee
Summary
The Design Review Board approved the Luxe Apartments schematic with the applicant dedicating a 5% recreational tract to Walton County (or paying rec fee) and with signage excluded from the approval. Board discussion focused on wetlands, acreage counted for density, and whether the recreational area will be public if not county‑owned.
Walton County Planning staff and the applicant presented the Luxe Apartments major development application on Oct. 2, asking approval of schematic site and design details for a proposed 240‑unit apartment complex on 24.47 acres in District 5.
Tim Brown, Planning and Development, told the board the application proposes 240 units, clubhouse, pool and public‑use recreation area on 24.47 acres with a Village Mixed Use (VMU) future land use designation; VMU projects over 3 acres must provide a recreational component or pay the recreation fee. Applicant Jenkins Engineering told the board the project team plans to dedicate 5% of the land area to meet that requirement and handed staff a packet of public comments received.
Jamie Hubanks of Jenkins Engineering said the project would not include garages originally depicted in the plans, and the developer planned to convert those areas to standard parking spaces. Hubanks confirmed some common areas will be outside the gated portion of the site to allow public access and that the entrance would be maintained by the developer per an agreement with the county.
Board members asked for clarity on which acreage counts toward density and recreation requirements because nearly 9.5 acres of the site are wetlands. Tim Brown said the county counts the whole property for project calculations (open space and wetlands included), though wetlands would not be developed; staff agreed to verify numbers for final approval. Members also requested a conceptual plan for the recreational dedication if the county declines the land; staff said if the tract is not donated the applicant would likely pay the rec fee but in any case the final configuration would return for review.
After public comment period (no public speakers), a board member moved to approve the application as presented with explicit exclusion of signage from the approval. The motion was seconded and passed by a voice vote.
Next steps: staff will verify acreage calculations for rec‑fee/dedication, the applicant will remove the garages from the plan as stated, and the final entitlement will include required detailed recreation/fencing/amenity plans for county review.
