Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 01-09-07 regular minutes — reading text

and it was highlighted to make sure the property owner is aware of it because it was not provided for on the site plan. She said based on the parking regulations, properties are required when they originally develop or redevelop under the Code today to interconnect with adjoining properties. She explained the reason is it reduces the amount of traffic on the main road and reduces the number of turning motions on the roadways. She said it is strongly supported by the Florida Department of Transportation and all the Professional Access Management books and information that it is a state- of-the- art type of requirement as redeveloping. She explained what is required at this point is that they just provide the ability to do it as the properties adjacent to them potentially redevelop in the future. She said it is a Code provision that is required and it has been on other site plans as well. In reply to the question on how long the requirement had been in the Code, the CDS Director replied more than two years. The CDS Director further explained the reason for access between businesses and for access to back roads is because the criteria do not consider use and the future uses of the properties are unknown. It was noted that Condition lc states the restaurant shall be served by underground utilities and it was questioned whether there are underground utilities there now. The CDS Director explained there are underground utilities from the mainline to the property, so it would be just within the property. It was noted there was an objection because of a I""'" liability issue and the question was posed if requiring an interconnection between two different eating places would the obligate in City in case liability of an accident. The City Attorney responded in the negative. The City Attorney stated the provision has been in effect since 2002, and perhaps longer, and advised if Council is inclined to not include the Condition then know that they setting aside a provision in the Code. are She said when it was discussed at the CRA meeting, the language of the Condition presented by staff was tweaked to say that pursuant to the Code 12. 76.05( 4) they would be required to create the cross- access easement. She said the Code does allow discretion if it is physically impossible, which would at some time in the future if they were unable to actually have the cross- access easement done and executed, they would be absolved of that responsibility pursuant to the Code. She noted they have to provide the ability for the cross- access and the language in the Development Order would need to be clarified because there is a difference between providing the ability to do it and providing the actual cross- access easement.  Regular Council 1- 9- 07 148 McDONALD' S - SITE PLAN APPROVAL The City Attorney explained the applicant can be required to provide an area for the cross- access but they would not be able to do anything more than that, and would not be allowed to put anything permanent in an area that could be used for the cross- access easement. She said if the adjoining property owners do not agree, they cannot be forced to do it until they re- develop. The question was posed on how the lay-out would have to be adjusted to provide for the easement and what it would do to the rest of the layout of the property. The City Attorney stated the current Code sets out the ~ conditions that if there is no one next door, it is first come first serve, and McDonald' s would choose where b~: property were redeveloped. Sbe said those provisions are in (! f=: :~~ The City Attorney confirmed that under the Code McDonald' s just has to provide the ability to do it but they do not have to build it because Tiajuana Flats does not want the access, and they just have to leave an opening in the parking lot so in the future it can be placed. She stated the Code allows a parking reduction for them providing the access. The CDS Director explained that 43 parking spaces are required and they provide 52, so they do have extra parking and it would not be taking required parking. The City Attorney noted that if McDonald' s only has to provide the availability of the cross- access, then it could be used for parking until the adjoining property owner decides to redevelop. The CDS Director explained it is to require the site plan to show the cross- access easement area when it can be built, and in the meantime parking spaces and landscaping can be there because it can be removed and made into the access easement when the time comes. Mr. Wright stated the proposed access comes into direct conflict with the flow of traffic at McDonald' s drive- through, and expressed his understanding if it infringes upon the natural business then it is negated. He said it is in direct violation of his business as 70% of his business is drive- through and anything put in will restrict his business. In response to the question if the accommodations would work, Mr. stated he Wright could not see tying to the adjacent property in any form or fashion and understood the concerns it may not always be a food business, but he just saw traffic flow problems any time moving cars in and around a piece of property. He did not understand what differentiates this requirement from the horrors of eminent domain as it is taking a piece of property he bought and thought he had control over and now has no control. The question was posed if this had come up with other developments. The CDS Director stated there have been questions but the applicant agreed and there were no problems once it was that it seems to developed, be a concern but once it happens, there is no problem and it is a benefit in many different ways. She confirmed in the past four years there have been developments that have had to have the cross- access and there are committed easements with space reserved on the site.She further confirmed that McDonald' s would show the access on the building plans as a proposed easement location and can until the operate adjoining property owner agrees, or if future redevelopment makes it impossible to interconnect between the property, then it would trigger the language in the Code that it is not physically possible to achieve the interconnect, then there would be no interconnection at that time. She again confirmed that all McDonald' s has to do is indicate on the site plan where the interconnection would be located and do not have to build it at this time. The question was asked where the information was derived about the adverse impact on the drive- through business. Mr.Wright replied since there has been drive- through business the traffic has flowed in a counter- clockwise motion, and his vision for the restaurant is to capitalize on the fact that the location has had always high volume drive- through traffic and take it to the next level to put in a dual lane drive- through. He said the access would negate that because a dual lane takes up more space on the back of the property and there is no provision for dual direction traffic behind the restaurant. The CDS Director clarified where there is the access the traffic flow would not change on the property; they are not being asked to change the traffic flow of the aisles on the property and the traffic going from parking lot to parking lot would have to go in sync with the parking lot.  Regular Council 1- 9- 07 149 McDONALD' S - SITE PLAN APPROVAL The CDS Director submitted the staff