Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 06-14-05 — reading text

opinion all regulations have been met. Discussion ensued regarding the study being done by the United States Air Force at Eglin Air Force Base on the impact of structures over 75 feet and their impact on the mission of the Air Force. Although the project may meet the City' s requirements as of this date, Council questioned what the impact would be to the project if the applicants waited until the results from Eglin come back. Mr. Lambert responded there would be huge implications regarding schedules for construction, interest on the property, time involved designing the project, plus the fact other projects in the area that are similar have already been approved. When questioned, Mr. Lambert stated the first time he was aware of the study on the 75- foot limit was at the CRA meeting of May 4, 2005, when the project was brought before the Board for consideration. Mr. Miller advised they will reserve until after Staff presents their report to respond to any technical the items legal issues that may be raised by the conversation to this point. He also advised referred to on the podium are included in the agenda package which the Staff will submit into the record, which will stipulate all except the one item. announced Missy McKim, CDS Director, submitted the Staff Report into the record. The Mayor the Staff report into the record. The CDS Director advised the CRA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the project with conditions, and that Staff also reviewed the project and recommended approval, as submitted, the with the height which meets the City code. She clarified that Staff is working closely with Staffs understanding that the Air Force is concerned with military on the height issue, and it is buildingsin excess of the tree lines, which is somewhere between 70 to 100 feet above grade, not sealevel.  o 1"", I 179 5/ 24/ 05 SUNRISE ON THE SOUND ( CONTI The CDS Director advised it is Staff's belief that the buildings will fall within the tree line and will not impact the mission of the military, and stated there are buildings higher in other parts of the county and the City. Mr. Miller questioned Ms. McKim regarding the buildings height in regard to the tree line, her familiarity with the planning process, and her familiarity with the trees presently on the site and across the street from the site. The City Attorney objected to any legal conclusions Mr. Miller is requesting from Ms. McKim. Mr. Miller responded he is laying the foundation for her professional understanding and expertise of the subject matter. Upon question by Mr. Miller, Ms. McKim stated there are no pending regulations that would change the height of construction in this zone, there is no draft ordinance, and City staff has not been directed by the City Council, Municipal Planning Board, or the CRA to draft or prepare any regulations establishing a height limit in this district. The City Manager objected to that line of questioning, stating City Council had, at their Strategic Planning Session, indicated a desire to lower heights and directed the MPB to study the issue. Mr. Miller conceded to that point, but stated that was just to study the issue and he did not believe it changes any of the testimony. In his closing statement, Mr. Miller stated the United States Air Force is not the Land Development Code authority for the City, the City Council is, and the project complies with all the requirements of the City. He reminded Staff of the applicant's objection to Item 5, and asked that Council City approve the application with the deletion of Item 5. Mr. Patterson moved to table the project until Eglin Air Force Base submits their findings. Mr. Hartwell seconded motion. Mr. Tucker questioned whether the City would be in good stead if it moves ahead with this motion. The City Attorney advised it is " planning in progress" and for the record reminded Council of the various minutes since December 2004, of the Council, CRA, and MPB where this topic was discussed. She advised Council can approve, approve with conditions, table, or deny the project, but the impact will not be known until the project moves further down the line, or until approved or denied. The City Manager wanted Council to be aware of the costs and possible litigation if the project is tabled or disapproved. Mr. Holmes stated he is as sensitive as anyone regarding the mission of the military. However, the regulatiO}ls have been in place and the applicant has adhered to these regulations, and should not be denied approval to develop the project. Mr. Minich concurred with Mr. Holmes, stating the project meets the regulations ofthe City, that an attractive building is being planned, and approval should not be denied. Mr. Tucker agreed that the regulations have been followed, and advised he will vote for approval of the project. Mr. Tucker stated his opinion that the MPB should set the rules regarding development in the City. 180 o v 5/ 24/ 05 SUNRISE ON THE SOUND ( CONTI and that he Mr. Campbell, for the record, stated his concurrence with Mr. Holmes and Mr. Minich, would not support the motion to table. Mr. Patterson stressed the importance of the military being able to track radar, and that attention should be paid as to what is being planned. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion to table and it failed by a vote of 2 to 4 with Patterson and Hartwell in favor and Holmes, Campbell, Tucker, and Minich opposed ( Pullen absent). Mr. Holmes moved to approve the site plan for the Sunrise on the Sound Condominium conditions: Note: project, located at 4-16 Miracle Strip Parkway SW, subject to the following The recommendation is based upon the application and site plan developed by Moore Bass 22, 2005 and May Consulting, Inc. (project D1301. 0001, dated March 23, 2005, revised April 22, 2005) and the architectural drawingsand elevations developed by Stokes- Lambert Architectural, Inc. (project #05008 dated 4/18/ 05). 1) Prior to review by City Council (this has been done): a. The site plan shall be revised to indicate a pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk along Miracle Strip Parkway to the Interior of the project. b. The conceptual landscape plan shall be revised to include preservation of as many east property line existing trees as possible along Miracle Strip Parkway near the and to preserve at least one of the existing trees located in the proposed east parking lot. 2) Once demolition and/ or removal of buildings and pavement is complete, a cultural on the current Sunrise resources assessment shall be conducted by an archaeologist for further Marina portion of the site. If this assessment indicates the need the applicant archaeological studies, a building permit will not be granted until to the State Historic completes the studies and submits the report to the City for routing the Preservation Officer (SHPO). Once the SHPO completes its review of the report(s), the Department of State, applicant will comply with the recommendations set forth by Division of Historical Resources, which may entail the applicant retaining an archaeologist to perform excavation activities prior to obtaining a building permit and/ or may require that an archeologist monitor all construction activities that require in a excavation to a depth of 18" or greater. If archaeological findings result to go recommendation for any major site changes, the site plan shall be required site review through the CRA and City Council plan process. 3) Prior to Issuance of a building permit: a) A landscape plan prepared by a professional landscape architect or nurseryman with all must be submitted and approved by CDS staff. The plan must comply applicable regulations in Sections 20- 1836 through 20- 1834 of the LDC, including with well. The plan shall identify preserved trees design for an irrigation system a 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 hazard." stating that the tree is diseased, dead, or poses a A letter from FDOT and the City Engineer is required to verify discussions about any b) FDOT or the City (i. e., permits or roadway improvements that may be required by access management driveways, dedicated turn lanes, medians, etc) to address concerns on US 98. 4) Prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy: