Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 03-27-07 regular minutes — reading text

advised that was not the substance of her opinion; rather, the substance was that under the Code there is either a land use application or zoning use change, or a Development Agreement modification. She stated what has been presented tonight is a Development Order, and that a DRC Review has been done, and it is her legal opinion that based on the Code and the fee schedule that at least $ 100. 00 should be paid for the DRC Review. Her legal opinion is that there has been a lot of misinterpretation regarding the code vs. fees, and suggested this is a topic that could be discussed at a future Council workshop. The City Manager advised that the fees have been paid. The CDS Director clarified that when the original site plan application was submitted, the applicant paid $ 100. 00 fee for the DRC Review. She stressed that for site plan extensions, there is no DRC Meeting held; therefore, there is no reason or justification to charge a fee for a review that did not occur. The CDS Director further explained that CRA site plans are a unique process only applicable to the CRA area, that they are conceptual site plans, not detailed, and no fee was ever established for site plan applications. She advised that when the DRC Review process was started a few ~ years ago, a $ 100. 00 fee was added to the fee schedule. She stated that while the DRC !:,..,."'.".,,, Review is an extra step in the development process, it is worthwhile as the developer and staff .. can discuss exactly what is needed. The CDS Director agreed that there is a misunderstanding on the terms and the fee schedule, and that it is clear to those who have applied it for years. She advised that the updated Land Development Code will outline the procedures, and will be very specific in identifying the required fees. Mr. Hartwell commented that a workshop on fees would be beneficial in the future. 1f.'F  217 03- 27- 07 ALTA VISTA SITE PLAN ( CONT) Mr. Holmes confirmed with the CDS Director that this is the same site plan previously approved by Council a year ago, that nothing has been changed, and it is the exact packet that went before the City Council in March of 2006. As there were no objections, the Staff Report was entered into the record. t"'" The Mayor called for the vote on the motion that the City Council not consider this issue and that it be returned to the CRA to reconsider and brought forward in a proper manner, and that the CRA be provided all pertinent information, including Ord. 1701, so they can make an informed decision, and it failed by a vote of 2 to 5 with Patterson and Pullen in favor and Holmes, Campbell, Tucker, Hartwell, and Minich opposed. Mr. Holmes moved to approve of the development order with City Council' s conditions of approval and a 12- month extension of the site plan approval for the project in accordance with Section 12. 45. 07 of the Land Development Code as follows: Note: This recommendation is based upon the application and site plan developed by Jenkins, Stanford & Associates, Inc. ( project # 1050. 06.001, dated February 10, 2006) and the architectural drawings and elevations developed by Prescott Architects, Inc. ( project 2601 dated 1/ 20/ 06). 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a) The applicant agrees to work with staff to allow for a 14- foot first floor elevation, more windows on the first three floors, and more articulation and detail on the upper six floors in order to "... assist in creating a pedestrian- friendly environment that is distinct from the suburban character of surrounding communities" ( Urban Master Plan). The applicant agrees to work with staff to extend the portico the width of the front drive only if it does not reduce the number of parking spaces. b) The site plan and conceptual landscape drawings that are affected by the addition of a portico shall also be revised. c) The project shall meet the requirements of LDC Section 12. 100. 03, Archaeological Resource Review, and Historical Preservation Act, as adopted February 28, 2006. d) A landscape plan prepared by a professional landscape architect or nurseryman must be submitted and approved by CDS staff. The plan must comply with all applicable regulations in Chapter 12. 71 of the LDC, including design for an irrigation system with a well. The plan shall identify preserved trees on the site and include a note in the plan that states " No protected trees identified for preservation on this plan shall be removed without documentation from the City stating that the tree is diseased, dead, or poses a hazard." e) A valid executed cross- access, parking, ingress and egress easement with the owners of the adjacent properties to the east and west must be approved by the City Attorney. 2. Prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy the condominium association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, and shall provide guarantees for r continued maintenance of all common areas and a restriction on the use of the 24 units as transient lodging units unless adequate parking ( 2 spaces per unit) is provided for permanent residential uses. Mr. Campbell seconded motion and it carried by a vote of 5 to 2 with Holmes, Campbell, Tucker, Hartwell, and Minich in favor and Patterson and Pullen opposed. QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENDA- PRESIDIO SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Consideration of a request by Gary McMichael, Developer, for an amendment to the site plan for The Presidio, a condominium development located at 124 Miracle Strip Parkway. The purpose of the amendment is to install an elevated pool deck with a retaining wall.  218 03- 27- 07 PRESIDIO SITE PLAN ( CONTI The City Attorney announced a quasi-judicial proceeding and swore in those who planned to testify . Dr. Pullen announced the same objection to this item in reference to whether payment of fees apply and requested a response from the City Manager. The City Manager advised she has not received information from Staff regarding the Presidio, I: there is no such fee in the Code of Ordinances for a site plan amendment; therefore, no fee was I. charged. The CDS Director advised the Presidio has been in the process since 2003 and research is being done by Staff to see if any charges need to be paid since that time. She did advise that the amendment to the site plan did not require a DRC Review; therefore, no DRC fee was charged for the site plan amendment being considered this evening. She reiterated this is a site plan application amendment and the City does not charge for site plan applications; therefore, no fee exists in the fee schedule. Dr. Pullen asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether this is a land use and zoning application request. The City Attorney stated her legal opinion that it has to be either a land use and zoning use change or a Development Agreement or a Development Order change. She stated a Development Order is being presented before Council to be accepted; therefore, at the very least a fee for a DRC Review should have been charged. The City Manager noted the DRC Review meeting came into effect in 2003; the City Attorney clarified that Res. 2003- 07 enacted the DRC fee. Dr. Pullen stated in his opinion the package given to the CRA Board to review for consideration did not contain current drawings, including a Foundations survey dated December 12, 2006, even though the information states the foundation survey shows that the proposal meets the minimum setback requirements of 10' from mean high water line. Dr. Pullen contends the survey does not show that it meets the 10' minimum requirements. Dr. Pullen moved that the City Council not consider this issue and that it be returned to the CRA to reconsider and brought forward in a proper manner, and that the CRA receive all backup material so they can make an informed recommendation to City Council. Mr. Patterson seconded motion. Mr. Tucker expressed his feeling that the project move forward, and questioned whether a delay would cost the developer money. The Mayor asked the applicant if he would like to respond. The City Attorney advised a motion is on the floor that is not relevant to the applicant, but the Mayor stated no public comment has been received and the applicant should have the opportunity to comment on what is being said by Council. lJ Mr. Minich clarified that what is being discussed is whether it should be sent back due to a lack of information, and then input can be received. Mr. Tucker asked to disregard his question. LlI  219 03- 27- 07 PRESIDIO SITE PLAN { CONTI The Mayor called for the vote on the motion that the City Council not consider this issue and that it be returned to the CRA to reconsider and brought forward in a proper manner, and that the CRA receive all backup material so they can make an informed recommendation to City Council and it carried by a vote of 4 to 3 with Patterson, Tucker, Pullen, and Hartwell in favor and Holmes, Campbell, and Minich opposed. t""" The City Attorney advised the motion will continue the case for the City Council until the CRA has made a second recommendation. Mr. Tucker advised he voted incorrectly; he does not want to stop the developer from progressing with the project. The City Attorney advised it is her opinion the motion will not stop the development; it will only stop work on the issue of the swimming pool, that further development can continue on the remainder of the site. Blinn Van Mater, Architect for the Presidio project and representing the applicant, advised that the action just taken by Council will definitely cost the developer money, that the developer lost the ability to build a pool in the wintertime and is paying a premium to have a pool built, and that the services of the formwork contractor were lost because the City told them to stop work. Mr. Van Mater stressed the project is not substantially different in any way that was originally submitted, and wanted to refutiate the dimensions given by Dr. Pullen on how far the wall is off the mean- high water line. REGULAR AGENDA- GENERAL PUBLIC Chris Gibson, 249 Brooks Street, mentioned the violation of the ADA Codes as a result of various development projects taking place that block the sidewalks and inhibit a pedestrian- friendly, walking