READ ALONGSIDE THE SOURCE
Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 08-08-06 (regular) — reading text
Part 6 of 13. These parts divide the reading text for browsing; they are not the source document's page numbers.
Machine-extracted text — fwb-13097-original.pdf
Machine-extracted OCR text · Review label: Machine produced / unreviewed
Compare this copy with the preserved source. Review labels describe the recorded status of this file; they do not guarantee that the text is error-free. Spacing and line breaks are retained, with long lines wrapped to fit the screen.
has completed an ERC Determination Form based on the table provided In the
impact fee ordinance or estimated water and wastewater flows. The number of
ERCs for this development is 4. 66 for both water and wastewater.
7. Water and sewer Impact fees shall apply to all units. Water is $ 700 per ERC and
sewer is $ 807 per ERC. Water Impact Fees = $700/ ERC x 4.66 ERCs= 3,262; Sewer
j
Impact Fees = $807/ ERC x 4.66 ERCs = 3, 760. 62
8. Water and sewer connection fees shall be determined when the final utility plan has
been submitted and approved.
9. The development must meet FDEP environmental regulations and FDOT standards
for sediment and soli erosion control. The proposed sediment and erosion control
measures shall be Installed prior to commencement of any demolition of existing
structures or construction of the proposed development.
10. An attached list of standard plans has been added to the final plans. The plans shall
not be approved until required standards notes are included on the
plans..
c 11. The materials a nd sizes for t he proposed water and sewer service mains and
appurtenances shall be identified on the plans. The on site water and sewer systems
shall be deemed private systems. The City' s maintenance responsibilities will end at
the righto- f- way easement line.
12. Inflow protectors shall be required in all new sanitary sewer manholes for this
development.
Buildina InsDection Comments:
1. Title page of plans need to reflect current codes
2. Building height actually should be three stories
3. What is the third story used for?
4. " Dining" room-does It have cooking facilities?
5. Need product approvals
6. Means of egress-over 2, 000 square feet requires two
7. Show fire separation between commercial and residential
8. Show handicapped parking
9. Show electrical and equipment room
10. Show any pene~ratlon details
11-.Indicate flood zone
12. As built survey required after slab inspection
13. Show how ale' units will be physically attached
14. Show Insulation
15. Water heater lines also shall have insulation within 8 feet of unit
16. Show attic access
17. Show stair construction
18. Indicate termite t,reatment
19. Show emergency and 'exit lights
20. Provide energy forms
21. Occupant load Is required to be posted first floor-note plans
22. Roof covering, if metal, shall be done on a separate permit
23. Presuming that the backflow already exists on this property
BuildinalZonina Comments:
1. Please revise the standard notes as provided by CDS Staff.
25$
Regular Council 6/ 27/ 06 "
SITE PLAN APPROVAL- FAIRWAY INN fCONl1 , " ., ,
2. Beca,use the entire par~el Is. a condQmlnlum, all site data must Include the entire
parcel, ' ls in:~lud,~~ ';~ ti
not Just ~h~ are_ notEtd,,~s'~'Coo;~ominiurrl Unit 1."!~"
calc~ latlo, for the entire l~ surface, cula.t',9J' s,
qiji~
footage n s s, e; Impervious area ca,!,
stormwater manag~ ment caluatiql' s, building area, parking ~ ased on all the
buildings (Including the restaurant), etc. '
3. Site Plan Issues: .
4. a} Please submit 'revised plans that are to scale. The plans submitted' are not to
1 scale, so staff cannot check dimensions; therefore, there' m~y be is$ U,es of concern
that need to be addressed ( such as aisle width for the parking spaces on the
northeast corner of the property). '
b) The du,mpster located In the Cedar Avenue righto- f- way must be ~ oved to within
the private property and the co_ricret~ pad den:apUshed and new curbing il1~~, Ued.
c) The impervious surface ratio I,~ 8~~ f~~ t~~s~te~,: whic~ e",cee~ s th~,r~~~lred 75%
ISR by 8%. It Is unclear by reviewing the site plan whether the impervious surface
area of 77, 787 Include~ ~he area of " optIQ,n~I, f~ture parklng~~ , if.thls I$ ju~tthe"
or
reduced area of paveme'nt reii1lzed by rerftovi" ng th, exl~~ing,)i)~ ildlng,. Be~au$ e of
the impervious are~ ' Is$ u~~'the, " opJloO.~~' park~pg. an'(; t landsCctped are": iwill be ,',
c required, andpossiIJ1Y. 8$: Jnor e landscap~
spaces are required for th& condomh11um.
'
d are~. than parking If no addlti,onal'Lparklng'"
This way, the 'add,~~~Q"~ 18Ofo of pervlpus s., tJrf,ace 'need~d:,<:~n. be w~,rked', intc f.the'
plans, aswe11 as' s.
C Jme"'o JJ1eJ minor reconstruc; t lon .$$described i
, nd) and: e) below.
dJ~ ittes' two pa~ in9 bay~ tl1ai c. ;()ntain ~v~r:,15 ,parking spaces in
The 'slte"plai1ln>
8 r.ow. Pleal)(!r~mov, Q" e, p~rklng space,from 'each of those bays to allow for the
required landscaph1g IslanCJs. '
e) Please redesign the parking bay I,ocated to the north of the proposed pool area",
In the northeast corner of the site) to provide for more efficient vehic.ular turns and
tc?bring the existing parking spacesclo$, r Into conformity. In addition, this should
be marked for one-way traffic only, as the drive aisle is less than 24 feet, which is the
requirement for aisle width with 90 degrees parking on both sides of th$ aisle'~ ,.
1) Parking requirements for the site do notincludethe' restaurant or the mana,ger' S
e. The restaurant parking should be cal,~ulated at 1 space; per
residenc;: , 10,0 .~,qu~ rE!.
sldence requires 2 parking' spaces. "" < /~,' ,~,'. .','~', ' .
feet, and the' manager' s r~.
Mr. Holmes Seco,ndedmotion and It carried unanimousl~ with Hohnes, Patt, rson, ~arop~~.II,
i~:"::::,, ,,::' "\"": :'- i
Tucker, Pullen', and
' Minich In favor (Hartwell absent)~""" :;'; :.', ".,
REGULARAGENDA-GENERAL PUBLIC ,', ". "'" ,
Ms. Sam Kincaid discussed thechan~es ,from the',site plan of the Villa del Mar condo project that
was approved by the City and asked for Council' s assistance to ensure the projec,t Yl.9.uld be bui,lti:,
as approved. Ms. Kincaid was advised that no Certificate of Occupancy ha~ been granted and tha,t '
the project is being monitored by City staff.'; ~ , " ;: " , " " : "
PRESENTATION .BY HDR- [ RAFFlC SIMULATION SCENARIOS,
Presentation by HDR on US 98 ( Broaks Bridge Area) Traffi~ S;imUlation Scenanos.
j, Jeannie Alexander and Michael Trueblood' of HDR presented various tr~ffic sim~ lation
on the US 98 ( Brooks Bridge, Area)~ which in~ llJded existing ,con,diti, or:'
scenarios,. : " ' ,
scenarios;;:"~,,
s' and three improvement :',
Chris Gibson, 249 Brooks Street, was advised that a pedestrian light.will be,installed at the corner
of Eglin and First Street., '
There was no action taken by Council.
256
Regular Council 6/ 27/ 06
MPB REQUEST- FUTURE PRIORITIZATION OF UNDERGROUND UTiliTIES
Consideration of a request from the Municipal Planning Board recommending the future
prioritization of Underground Utilities to begin at the western edge of the City limits ( Mary
Esther/Fort Walton Beach) a long Highway 98 to a t I east S 1. Mary's A venue a san absolute
minimum, but preferably all the way to Brooks Bridge, with Beal Parkway and Eglin Parkway as the
second and third areas.' .
Mr. Mitchell advised that in November of 2005, the City Council moved to proceed, with the
construction drawings for underground utilities and adding decorative street lights for Eglin
l
Parkway, and gave the MPB direction to look at a second location after the Eglin project was I
I
I
completed. He informed that the MPB, through their Committee of One, distributed a report in
February of 2006 which concluded that "the first approximate mile to be undergrounded should be
the Miracle Strip ( Highway 98) corridor. Mr. Mitchell stated that at their June 2006 !'Deeting, the
MPB voted to forward their recommendation that the plan to underground utilities start on Highway
98 to City Council, even though Phase II of the Eglin Parkway project was in progress. '
CouncUexpressed confusion regarding the MPB' s recommendation, as the Eglin Parkway lighting
project was approved by Council and is underway. Dr. Pullen stated that the MPB was charged
with doing a stl:dy and to bring forward a recommendation on what they felt was best for the city,
and that Council is being asked to accept the study and move forward.
Dr. Pullen moved to accept the Municipal Planning ' Board recommendation for the future
prioritization of Underground Utilities to begin at the western edge of the City limits ( Mary
Esther/Fort Walton B each) a long Highway 9 8 to a t I east S 1. Mary's A venue a san absolute
minimum, but preferably all the way
