Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 09-22-09 regular minutes — reading text

the construction of two triplex units on the property. However, shortly thereafter, the lot at 106 Methodist Avenue SE was sold to another party, and on August 11, 2009, the City Council approved use of CRA funds up to $ 45,000 to purchase the vacant lot at 108 Methodist Avenue SE for the construction of up to five ( 5) multi -family units on three lots.  N Regular Council Meeting 09 -22 -09 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ( CONT) At that time, Habitat expressed their plan to potentially build a duplex and a triplex on the property that would provide affordable housing for five ( 5) families and would be compatible with the older and established neighborhood of single -family homes. Mr. Bolduc informed that after meeting with the engineer hired by Habitat to discuss how to maximize the use of the property while providing legal -sized lots for the construction of up to five 5) units, Staff recommended that the maximum use of the property could be obtained through the use of the Zero -Lot Line concept as described in the City's Land Development Code ( LDC). Mr. Bolduc explained the purpose of this concept is for more efficient use of the land, as compared with single -family development, and the use of this concept allows the greatest return on the property through the construction of the five units through smaller side setbacks. It would also allow immediate construction of two units. Mr. Bolduc discussed the Staff recommendation requesting City Council approval of the conceptual site plan submitted by Habitat for Humanity for 108, 110, and 112 Methodist Avenue SE to accommodate up to five ( 5) residential units on the property. He continued the conceptual site plan is based on the Zero -Lot Line concept as stated in Article 16. 60 of the City' s land Development Code ( LDC), and a replat of the property into five ( 5) individual lots will be required. Mr. Bolduc continued that at a Special Meeting of September 17, 2009, the Community Redevelopment Agency ( CRA) discussed this request and was offered Staff's recommendation. He noted that a motion was made to approve the recommendation, but it failed for a lack of majority by a vote of 3 to 3. Mr. Bolduc advised the CRA's biggest concern was that Habitat would construct just one building and the remaining properties would be vacant, but Mr. Bolduc informed the CEO of Habitat of Humanity has stressed the recommendation can be changed to say not less than five ( 5) units, and that it has always been Habitat' s intention to get the maximum use of the property with the funding and tools available. Council discussion included the CRA's concern that Habitat may construct the first two homes and not get around to building the other three; that the CRA wants to get the maximum use of every piece of property to increase property consistent with the CRA plan, the funding capabilities of Habitat; and that a zero -lot line injects compatibility into the neighborhood. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Nitsi Bennett, President and CEO of Habitat for Humanity in Okaloosa County, stated the goal of Habitat has always been to place five homes on the property, be it a triplex, a duplex, or whatever combination. Ms. Bennett stated what is being proposed is a better option as there will be five homes, the difference is they are not attached but will still house five families and will be compatible with the neighborhood. She advised the reason the zero -lot line option is beneficial for Habitat, aside from cost, is that this option will allow her to start building now as there is a family desperate for the home, the volunteers are ready to start building, and two individual homes can be built now. Council questioned whether the zero -lot line will cause any fire concerns. Mr. Bolduc advised there are no concerns with fire restrictions, that the distance between buildings is 10 feet and that is consistent with Florida Building Code and was taken into consideration when the zero -lot line was being considered. Mr. Garvie confirmed that Ms. Bennett is in agreement with the zero -lot line option and is not being pressured into anything. Ms. Bennett reiterated this option will allow her to build right away. 8 09 -22 -09 Regular Council Meeting; HABITAT FOR HUMANITY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ( CONT) As there was no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Holmes moved approval of the conceptual site plan submitted by Habitat for Humanity for 108, 110,and 112 Methodist Avenue SE to accommodate up to five ( 5) residential units on the property. The conceptual site plan is based on the Zero -Lot Line concept as stated in Article 16.60 of the City's land Development Code ( LDC), and a replat of the property into five (5) individual lots will be required. Mr. Garvie seconded motion. Mr. Holmes stated that Council has wanted Staff to move projects along as quickly and responsibly as possible and they have done so with this project, and he commended Staff for their time taken with Habitat. Mr. Garvie stated he feels this is the best alternative and is a win -win situation for the neighborhood. Mr. Nabors stated he will support this motion although he originally voted against funding the lot, but feels this will maximize the use of the property with the funding available and feels it is a good alternative for the neighborhood. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, and Patterson in favor (Miller and Rynearson absent). WINTER SCHEDULE FOR CITY COUNCIL Setting a winter schedule for the City Council for November and December 2009. Discussion included the fact that canceling the second meeting in November could possibly result in a special meeting, or could result in a large agenda for the December 8 meeting. Mr. Reeves moved to hold the regularly scheduled Council meetings of November 10 and November 24, 2009, and December 8, 2009, and to cancel the Council meeting of December 22, 2009. Motion was seconded by Mr. Holmes and carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, and Patterson in favor (Miller and Rynearson absent). ANNUAL REVIEW /LANDMARK CENTER Annual Landmark Center Development Agreement Review. Mr. Beedie stated this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the City Council in August to perform an annual review between the City and the developers of the Landmark Center. Mr. Beedie advised the Staff Report includes a history of the development, including the proposed parking garage, and Mr. Beedie turned discussion over to Council and stated the developers are here to answer any questions. Mr. Reeves advised the Staff Report contains exactly the information he had asked for and commended Staff on the report. Mr. Reeves noted Sec. 2. 1 of the Staff Report which states that the development agreement should be reviewed and discussed at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. Mr. Reeves stated that Council did not have enough information the last time the Landmark was discussed, but the staff report shows that the developers have not followed through on all of the items that were part of the original agreement. Mr. Reeves advised he would like to hear the feelings of his fellow Council members about the performance and time frames involved, and stated that some of the issues require good faith on the part of the developers and those have not been adhered to.  r9w Regular Council Meeting 09 -22 -09 ANNUAL REVIEW /LANDMARK CENTER (CONT) The City Manager stated the direction from Council was for Staff to give a report on the status of the development agreement and this has been done. The Mayor questioned what can be done to remedy the issue. The City Attorney informed that the Council could simply cancel the development order, or the developer can ask for a modification to the agreement or site plan or whatever else their intended plan is. She stated that to her knowledge, no application for an amendment to the site plan or to change anything on the property has been received by the City. The City Attorney explained this is a review based on discussion, and if Council wants to extend the agreement it would be an extension, or if there are other reasons for modifying the development agreement it would be more time intensive for the developer. Council questioned whether the developer would like to continue the development agreement as is or with modifications, and what Council can do so Staff can be directed to start modifying the agreement. Bruce Houle of the Landmark Center advised he would like to continue the development agreement as is or with modifications, and that after the last meeting he sent revisions to the agreement and met with the City Manager and City Attorney who recommended a review be done before any changes were made. Mr. Houle advised they have arranged to submit an application for transient lodging rather than the planned condominiums, and that discussions have occurred regarding reducing the payments from five years to two years and allowing the development to be phased in instead of building simultaneously. Mr. Houle continued that it is not the intent of the developers to build a parking garage and nothing else, but that the financial crisis has slowed things down and they are working to make the project work. He noted the importance of an anchor tenant for the development and once one is secured the project can be started and built or phased in, depending on the size of the anchor tenant. Also discussed was the caution regarding the phasing of the project and the desire for the full corner to be utilized; the lack of support for transient lodging by the downtown community; the fact that the loss of the collateral assignment earlier this year is one of the reasons why the garage is not built; and that the City needs a formal application from the developers to get the project underway. Further discussion included Council making it clear it is the job of the developers to come to Council with what they want, and not Council, City Staff, or the City Attorney having to go after the developers and asking them what they want; that a good faith effort is needed and to move forward with the formal application process and get on the CRA and MPB agenda. Also discussed was whether changing funding of the garage from 5 years to 2 years is critical to the project and Mr. Houle responded it was. Ken Wright, 159 Brooks Street, and a major investor in the Landmark, received clarification that the development agreement is in default and it needs to be addressed. CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager advised that Res. 2009 -32 adopted by Council on August 25, 2009, for Enhanced DUI Enforcement did not include the language authorizing the City Manager to sign He requested a motion from Council to authorize him to sign the contract with the contract. Coban Technologies, Inc. that is within Res. 2009 -32. 10 09 -22 -09 Regular Council Meeting; CITY MANAGER REPORTS (