Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-27-2007 regular agenda — reading text

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. Hartwellrequested 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. ' o 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 perspn 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 Attorney: 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. l Mr. Miller requested a definition of the Codes and Ordimmces. 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 applic~nt has stated r"':' they disagree with condition number two. Dr. Pullen asked his question on being accused of something improper. The City Atto( ney 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 requirements of 12.45. 5( d) which is setback from mean high waterline". Motion died for lack of a second. J 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-0. 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 ng the entire waterfront, protecting the at() 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. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a fire department key box must be installed. 5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit the condominium documents to the City Attorney for her review and approval. 6. All site plans shall be properly signed, dated, and stamped. Mr. Holmes seconded motion. Mr. Miller spoke in favor of the project moving forward to be completed as soon as possible. Mr. Garvie voiced his objection to demanding a developer to build something when they had already given something, such as the 10' across the entire property, and now they agree to build a 170' boardwalk which should be the cost to the City, but it is unfair to require they build the entire boardwalk. Dr. Pullen expressed his feelings that Council has an obligation to uphold the ordinances of the City and he will never place himself in a position where someone can charge him with misfeasance, that his military retirement and benefits are worth too much to him to vote to break a City ordinance. He added that some people should look at their own ethics and own integrity in upholding the oath of office they took to uphold the ordinances of the City of Fort Walton Beach Mr. Minich made a point of order that is not germane to the discussion The Mayor noted that staff' s recommendation is that it is not in violation of the ordinances. Dr. Pullen responded that staff suffers no consequences when they make the recommendations, Council does, Council is responsible and staff is not. Mr. Hartwell expressed his understanding if the developer can get a variance from the State that does not make the City noncompliant because a variance is an exception. He agreed it is quite a bit to ask of a developer to do the entire waterfront. He thought if they can mitigate and get the approval to get the 10' all the way around their property from dock to dock, from pier to pier, that would be a benefit to the City as long as they get the variance and approval from the State. He expressed his concern is if they do not, but he understood if they do not they have to come back to the Council. He expressed he would not endorse something that is contrary to law and wished to know if it is contingent upon approval by the State and if that would relieve the Council from misfeasance. The Mayor noted it cannot be built unless they receive permission. The City Attorney stated the Department of Environmental Protection is not the City' s Code of Ordinance 50 Council cannot violate a State regulation. She noted Council is asking the developer to require something that is well within their capabilities as there is a letter from their engineer that says it is in the works, and if they are not able to get the permit then Council will see them again because if they cannot build the boardwalk they will not have a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Minich commented the developer is not giving 10' it was a requirement when they bought the property. He expressed they should just move forward.  4- 10- 07 Regular Council 245 AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR PRESIDIO CONDOMINIUM cont. Mr. Holmes expressed his initial concern with requiring the entire boardwalk but noted part of the and changes are being made on the pool deck because the owners requested it for their security, in this instance he did not have a problem with requiring the developer to build the