Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 04-10-07 regular minutes — reading text

proposing is 170'. Mr. Van Mater replied it is approximately, between the two docks. Mr. Holmes questioned whether the boardwalk will have public access and if the City will then maintain the boardwalk. Mr. Van Mater said maintenance is a question for the City. He said the staff recommendation for 675' included the 170' and the boardwalk would be accessed from Highway 98. He said if the Council accepted the 170' boardwalk the developer is providing an easement along the waterfront, they have not agreed to build the actual boardwalk. Mr. Holmes wished to know if there would be steps from the beach to the boardwalk. Mr. Van Mater stated the boardwalk is above grade so they would have to provide some sort of steps. Malcolm Foley, Planning Manager - Current, entered into the record the staff report and accompanying documents from the applicant. Dr. Pullen questioned whether Mr. Foley was representing the CRA or the staff as he believed the information is supposed to be presented to Council from the CRA. Mr. at this Foley replied in point time he is representing the CRA. The City Attorney received clarification for the record that the applicant has reviewed the report and has no objections except for condition number 2. Mr. Foley pointed out that the as built survey was prepared by Choctaw Engineering and prepared by a surveyor who documented where the mean high water line is on the property. He said the mean high water line was established by a professional and it was presented to the CRA.  Regular Council 4- 10- 07 242 AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR PRESIDIO CONDOMINIUM cant. Mr. Foley stated the uses are permitted in the shoreline protection zone under the code and the updated site plan has the dimensions that show the setback. He said the retaining wall has no setback requirements. He noted the problem is that it is in the future boardwalk easement, and they have agreed to build the boardwalk for 170'. He said staff recommendation is they build the boardwalk the entire length of the property to help mitigate the immediate impact of the retaining wall. In reply to a request for an example of other retaining walls in that district, Mr. Foley replied Sailwatch Landing. Mr. Minich wished to know if the reason for the stop work order was because the retaining wall is within the easement. Mr. Foley replied the reason for the stop work order was because the retaining wall was at a height greater than the at grade pool shown on the approved plan. Mr. Hartwell questioned how wide the boardwalk would be in the areas impacted by the boardwalk J'. easement. Mr. Foley stated the applicant agreed to build a 10' boardwalk. * Mr. Hartwell questioned the impact beyond the mean high water line. Mr. Foley stated they have a submerged land lease and must get approval from the State, and the condition states they have to get l~ d~~ a~~~~~~ I~ v~~~ to cd:l agr= r~~~~~? Mr. Miller wished to know the reason the City requested the easement. Mr. Foley explained in order to increase the density to have more units, they agreed in 2003 to provide a boardwalk easement and the retaining wall is in the way of providing the easement. Dr. Pullen mentioned the City has an ordinance to have a shoreline protection zone of 50'. The Mayor wished to know if it would impact the shoreline protection zone. Mr. Foley replied the uses are allowed. Dr. Pullen wished to know if Council would violate an ordinance. The Mayor advised that was a question for the Attorney at the appropriate time. Mr. Garvie commented there was never a requirement to build a boardwalk, it was a requirement to provide an easement. The City Attorney asked if there were further questions for Mr. Foley from the applicant. Mr. Van Mater asked someone to define what an easement constitutes, if it is an easement and they can build a boardwalk within the easement. Mr. Foley responded there is no design at this time for the boardwalk. The Mayor called for public input. Joel Merriweather, Marketing Director for Presidio representing 70 owners, stated they have waited a long time to move in and they would appreciate approval to move forward. Mr. Hartwell requested Mr. Merriweather to elaborate on an email that mentioned questionable motives. Mr. Merriweather replied he scanned newspaper articles and people have asked him what the CRA is and why it has gone before the CRA and he explained that retaining walls are exempt from the setback. Dr. Pullen expressed resentment on the accusation he had done something improper and asked Mr. Merriweather to elaborate. The Mayor mentioned, for the record, that Council can converse with committee and board members one at a time, so there is nothing illegal. Mr. Merriweather mentioned there is a perception if a person on Council talks to someone who will be voting on the CRA. Dr. Pullen again asked Mr. Merri~ ather to address the accusation he did something improper or to withdraw it. The City Attorneyl suggested that be addressed after the quasi-judicial hearing.  Regular Council 4- 10- 07 243 AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR PRESIDIO CONDOMINIUM cont. Mr. Miller mentioned that the issue was scheduled to be on the April 24th agenda but was accelerated to be heard this evening. Terry Sylvester, Shalimar, future owner of Presidio, stated the email was primarily from information in the Daily News and his main interest was to express his concern and that he did not see the height as an issue. Dr. Pullen mentioned the height study done by Eglin A.F. B. As there was no one further from the public who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller requested a definition of the Codes and Ordinances. The City Attorney explained that Council is compelled to carry out and implement the Codes they have before them. She said the Codes are divided into four sections: the Charter, The Code of Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Code. She said what Council is dealing with tonight is the Land Development Code and its sections. She said Mr. Foley gave a very good explanation on what the Code allows, what it requires and how staff interprets it. She said the Development Order has the six conditions and the applicant talked about the fact they do not agree with condition number 2. She stated staff gave the reason for condition number two is because of the retaining wall jutting into the easement area, and the rest of the conditions are routine. She stated Council can approve the site plan based on the six conditions or amend the language in the Development Order. The Mayor noted that staff made a recommendation based on their interpretation and then the CRA Board made a recommendation to approve with all six conditions and the applicant has stated they disagree with condition number two. Dr. Pullen asked his question on being accused of something improper. The City Attorney advised the proper time to take that up is after the quasi-judicial as she did not hear any allegations that would affect the application. Mr. Van Mater wished to clarify they did not object to building a portion of the boardwalk, but they did not think it is necessary to build the entire boardwalk to mitigate the issue. In response to the question on how the issue can be mitigated, Mr. Van Mater stated they do not have a permit in hand that would allow them to build a boardwalk, but they have no reason to believe the State will not permit it. He said if for some reason the State says no, then they have to come back to Council to find a separate solution. He said they have an application in process and if they get the application, the problem goes away. He said they object to being required to construct the entire boardwalk and having to go back before the CRA. Mr. Hartwell wished to know if the material would be the same as at the Landing. Mr. Foley replied the specific design of the boardwalk has not been presented but he believed in the drawing it appears to be built out of wood similar to the Landing. Dr. Pullen moved to approve the site plan application as presented by the CRA with the exception in condition number 1 to be modified to state " the plan to meet the 10' minimum setback r requirements of 12.45. 5( d) which is setback from mean high waterline". Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Miller moved to approve the proposed Development Order for the amended site plan for Presidio Condominiums with the following conditions: 1. The approval is based on the application and site plan developed by BVM Architect, project # 03002, originally dated 8- 13- 03 <not all plans are numbered or dated), and the survey received October 14, 2003 by BVM Architect as amended by the following three plans: CRA Resubmittal - Site Plan Ground Level Parking C- 1. 1 undated, South Elevation A-2.2 dated 12- 20- 04, Third Level Plan - Monumental stairs at pool deck/Second level plan at pool deck A-O. 3 dated 12- 20- 04, and the as built foundation survey, dated 12 Dec. 06.  Regular Council 4- 10- 07 244 AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR PRESIDIO CONDOMINIUM cont. 2. The applicant shall construct the boardwalk along the entire waterfront, protecting the trees that are in close proximity to the water. The design of the boardwalk shall be approved by the CRA Board of Commissioners prior to issuance of the building permit. The boardwalk shall be constructed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Attorney and Public Works Director shall review and approve the easement documentation for the City's boardwalk along Santa Rosa Sound to assure the easement is properly assigned and described. Said documentation shall include the City' s right to maintain said boardwalk. 4. 5. ~ Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a fire department key box