Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-10-2007 regular agenda — reading text

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. The Presidio Condominium Page 3 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may recommend the following: 1.Approve the Development Order for the Site Plan Amendment for a Retaining Wall for a Pool Deck for Presidio Condominium located at 124 Miracle Strip Parkway 2.Approve the Development Order with added conditions for the Site Plan Amendment for a Retaining Wall for a Pool Deck for Presidio Condominium located at 124 Miracle Strip Parkway 3.Deny the Development Order for the Site Plan Amendment for a Retaining Wall for a Pool Deck for Presidio Condominium located at 124 Miracle Strip Parkway Submitted bY:~ Approved by:, ~ Reviewed and concur: PmAA rn..A.. J---. U1. Shanahan ce City Manager Attachments: 1. CRA Board minutes from the April 4, 2007 Meeting 2. Development Order 3. Backup information trom the April 4, 2007 CRA Board Meeting 4. City Council minutes from the March 27, 2007 Meeting 5. Backup information from the City Council March 27, 2007 Meeting The Presidio Condominium Page 4 of 4  RD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT WALTON BEACH c:; r 10' C = II COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY qyfC'-~ V lr I.!:: L .. '-' U 9). D \S co l-' INTRODUCTION APRil 4, 2007 A regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Walton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency was held on Wednesday, April 4, 2007, at 5: 30 p. m. in the Council Chambers at Fort Walton Beach City Hall with the following members present: Dr. Joyce Gossom, Chairman; Lee Bobo; Dean Covey; Chuck Kennedy, Vice Chairman; Emil Pagliari; Doug Reed; and Robert Rettie Also Present: Missy McKim, CDS Director; Christy Johnson, Planner; Toni Craig, City Attorney Also present were Bill Garvie, Mike Holmes and Virgil Miller The followinQ is a draft of the discussion and vote that took place on the Presidio Condominium issue. REQUEST TO AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN- PRESIDIO CONDOMINIUM Consideration of an amendment to the site plan for Presidio Condominium located at 124 Miracle Strip Parkway. The City Attorney swore in those who planned to testify. Mr. Rettie moved to table deliberations on the Presidio project until the Board members receive a support data package that contains adequate documentation for the CRA Board to be able to make an informed decision. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Reed stated this project was approved previously by the Board and requested that only information new to the project be discussed by the Board. Mr. Reed moved that the Board limit discussion to only new information on this project. Mr. Bobo seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Bobo, Covey, Gossom, Kennedy, Pagliari, Reed, and Rettie in favor. Mr. Pagliari stated he has in the past week met with Joel Meriwether, Marketing Director for the Presidio Condominiums, for the purpose of possibly buying a unit, and questioned whether he should vote or abstain. The City Attorney verified that Mr. Pagliari has not yet purchased a unit, has not put down a deposit, and has not signed any sort of contract. The City Attorney questioned Mr. Pagliari whether he has talked to anyone else on the project other than Mr. Meriwether. Mr. Pagliari stated he has spoken with Councilmember Wayne Pullen, City staff member Malcolm Foley, and citizen Ray Seip, in an effort to gain information on what has occurred in the past regarding the project since he is a new member to the Board. The City Attorney advised that Mr. Pagliari is required to vote since he has no financial interest in the project. The City Attorney then asked the remaining Board members to advise, for the record, who they have spoken to about this project, the substance of the conversation, and if they have, in any way, pre-judged the evidence or the decision they will make this evening. Mr. Bobo advised he looked at the project, that he spoke with one of the workers at the site who took him to the pool deck, and that he has had no conversations with anyone connected in any way to this project. DRAFl CRA 04- 04- 07 Mr. Covey advised he spoke with Staff member Christy Johnson to receive clarification as to why the project was being returned to the Board. Mr. Kennedy stated he spoke with Missy McKim to receive background information. Dr. Gossom reported she spoke with Ms. McKim in reference to all the items on the agenda, as she does before every CRA meeting. Mr. Reed informed he spoke with Ms. McKim for clarification. He also informed that he had a brief discussion with Council member Pullen, whom Mr. Reed stated informed him that certain information was being passed to another member of the Board, although no specific details were discussed. Mr. Rettie stated he spoke with the City Attorney, Councilmember Pullen, citizen Richard Gercak, and the City Clerk in order to gain more information and knowledge regarding the project. The City Attorney advised, for the record, the reason she asked these questions was because it is pursuant to Section 2. 01. 02 of the Public Access to Local Officials from the Code. Blinn Van Mater, 201 Eglin Parkway SE, architect for the project, stated this project was returned to the Board because there was an objection at the City Council that a document was left out of the original project, and that the oversight was corrected. Mr. Van Mater stated it was his belief that the Board now has substantial and competent evidence before them that shows beyond a doubt that everything on that site meets the Fort Walton Beach Code and all Building the other restrictions that apply for the MUW- 24 District. The Chairman asked if the Board had any questions of Mr. Van Mater. Discussion began on the retaining wall, the Chairman advised Mr. Rettie the retaining wall was discussed previously and that discussion should be limited to changes, and the only reason it was sent back was because a document was missing, and questions regarding that document should be addressed to the applicant. Mr. Rettie stated his understanding is that the survey explains where the retaining wall is and that it does not appear to meet the code. Mr. Van Mater advised the retaining wall is exempt from the 10- foot setback, and is stated so in the Code. Mr. Covey received clarification the drawing dated March 23, 2007, is the document that was missing from the previous package. Discussion ensued regarding the survey showing a platted line north south of the swimming pool and questioned what the platted line represented. Mr. Van Mater stated the line is platted fro the original plat of the Sea breeze Subdivision from 1956, and has absolutely nothing to do with the legal description of the property today. Mr. Rettie began to question a document showing 1 O- feet within the pool deck area. Mr. Reed called for a point of order, stating that was already approved and there is no new document that changes it. DRAFT CRA 04- 04- 07 Mr. Reed wanted to make a motion to approve the project. The Chairman advised she needed a staff report, and questioned if there were any questions of Staff regarding the new document added to the package. The CDS Director advised this drawing was in the original package; the only difference with the new drawing is that the actual dimensions are shown which were not shown on the original document. Mr. Bobo received clarification that the Development Order is exactly the same as what was forwarded to Council last month, and includes Staff's recommendation that the developer build the boardwalk along the entire frontage of the property, and that the applicant has not agreed to that at this time. The City Attorney stated the Staff Report needed to be entered into the record, and asked the applicant if he has seen the Development Order and the conditions in the Development Order. Mr. Van Mater confirmed he has read the Development Order, and they have not conceded to building the entire boardwalk. He advised for the record that there is nothing in the Code to support the requirement to build the boardwalk as long as they provide the 10- foot easement, which the Code does require, and they have no objection to doing so. Mr. Rettie questioned the 3/ 27/ 07 drawing which shows a 10- foot dimension at the pool deck which appears to go inside the pool deck, and asked for clarification. Mr. Van Mater advised there is a retaining wall and an accessory structure, and the accessory structure is required to be 10- feet from the mean- high water line and the retaining wall is exempt from that. Mr. Van Mater explained the pool deck is being built within the confines of the retaining wall but restricted to the 10- foot setback dimension, and that is the difference between the definition of an accessory structure and the definition of the retaining wall. The Chairman asked if there was any input from the public. Ray Seip, 121 Nebraska Avenue, asked the City Attorney if there is something in the Development Order the Board desired to change, would the entire project have to be denied, or could the