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

Board just change or delete a particular section. The City Attorney stated that in relationship to this project and Development Order, Staff has proposed a Development Order and the applicant has agreed to it except for the words in Paragraph 2 which state ' to construct the boardwalk along the entire She advised waterfront.' the Board could change language of the Development Order; however, there is a motion on the floor to limit discussion to what has been newly presented since the issue went to Council last month, and that this Development Order is the same as approved by the Board the first time. Mr. Seip held up the document entitled " Presidio Condominiums. . . A Strategic Location for an Enhanced Lifestyle" and questioned whether the document was in previous packets. The City Attorney announced the name of the document, for the record, and that it included documents presented by Mr. McMichael dated January 12, 2007, that walk through the application. The CDS Director confirmed that is what the document was and that it was included in the March 7 CRA Meeting agenda, the March 27 Council meeting agenda, as well as the agenda for the CRA meeting today. DRAFT CRA 04- 04- 07 Also discussed was a letter dated March 28, 2007 to Ms. McKim from Todd Wilkinson, Vice President of Environmental Services, which was not included in previous packages but was included in the package for today' s meeting. Mr. Seip cited Sec. 12.459. 5, Site Development Standards, of the Code which states: ' A public boardwalk shall be permitted within the 500~foot rear- yard setback area, located immediately landward of the mean high water line; the public boardwalk is from the 25 exempt percent limitation on impervious coverage within the 50- foot rear yard setback.' Mr. Seip stated that according to City codes, the boardwalk belongs landward to the mean high water line. He stated the letter from Mr. Wilkinson to Ms. McKim is contradictory in that it states the boardwalk will extend waterward of the existing seawall. Mr. Seip questioned whether Council approval was given to change the ordinance. He cited the opinion that if Council approval was not given, the letter is not valid. He also stated that consideration should be taken in that the applicant has asked not to have to build the entire boardwalk, and that this part of the order should be changed. The City Attorney interrupted, and stated the question should be directed to the author of the letter in question. Todd Wilkinson, Vice President of Environmental Services, Inc. of Destin, the environmental consultant firm working on the Presidio, is working with the developers to modify the existing land lease and dock permits, which includes a walkway along the shoreline, extending waterward of the existing seawall. Mr. Wilkinson stated this process is permissible and has been done in the past. The City Attorney asked Mr. Wilkinson asked if there is a conflict in the two terms of waterward and landward. Mr. Wilkinson responded not necessarily, and the City Attorney stated she felt the issue has been cleared up. Mr. Rettie continued his questioning, asking for an explanation why landward and waterward are not in conflict. Mr. Wilkinson clarified the seawall does not have to be at the mean high water line, it can be landward of the mean high water line and in this case it is; it is toward the water side of the seawall vs. the landward side. Mr. Rettie accepted this explanation. There was no other public input. Mr. Reed moved to forward a recommendation to Council for the proposed development order, to include Condition 6, 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), the plans and elevations dated October 14, 2003, 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-03. dated 12/ 20/ 04, and the as- built foundation survey, dated 12 December 06. 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. ~ ~ '\ CRA 04- 04- 07 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. Kennedy seconded motion. Mr. Covey noted his objection to the condition that the applicant be required to construct the boardwalk along the entire waterfront. Mr. Rettie noted his written comments and stated his questions # 3 and # 4 should be considered before voting on this issue. The City Attorney advised the issues need to be discussed for the record, and Mr. Rettie could read them directly or address them in a shorter form Mr. Rettie addressed Question 3 as follows: ' Our Code in Chapter 12. 34 states, " The ORC shall. . .review and make recommends to the Board of the CRA regarding code compliance for applications for site plan approval.' Also, ' A copy of the written rendition of the determination of the ORC shall be mailed. . .' The second paragraph in Ms. McKim' s 28 March 07 memo to the Board states the staff recommendation has not changed; this support data package does not seem to contain this required written rendition by the ORC to explain why the staff recommendation has not changed in light of new information brought to light at the 27 March 07 Council meeting. Can this Board legally deliberate when the staff provided support data does not contain this required support data? The Chairman advised she does not believe these comments relate to the motion that is on the floor, and that the previous motion was to limit discussion to any changes that have been received since the last time the Board discussed the project, and that the only thing that has changed is that a drawing was provided that was not included in the information included in the agenda package of last month. The City Attorney confirmed the Board is only dealing with newly admissible evidence that has been raised since this has been seen before. Mr. Rettie addressed his Question 4 as follows: " Code Sec. 12. 34. 04 states, ' Members of the ORC. . . shall consist of. . . public works chief engineering technician" A drawing in our data package delivered to me on 29 March 07 states the retaining wall is exempt from setbacks. Can this Board legally make a decision without the required rendition from the chief engineering technician to explain how this structure may be exempt from the 1 a- feet setback requirement of Sec. 12.459. 5( 4) d? The Chairman inquired if Mr. Rettie' s comments were dealt with last month, since she was absent from that meeting she cannot be sure. The City Attorney advised she did not recall a discussion regarding a ORC review. Mr. Rettie stated there should be a new ORC based on the new drawings with comments from the Public Works Chief Engineering Technician as stated in the Code. 1 p... ~ o~ CRA 04- 04- 07 The City Attorney advised that would be taken as discussion for Mr. Rettie' s comments on his questions 4, and reminded there is a motion on the floor. The Chairman called for the vote on the motion and it carried by a vote of 5 to 2 with Bobo, Gossom, Kennedy, Pagliari, and Reed in favor and Covey and Rettie opposed. The meeting continued. ADJOURNMENT As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7: 30 p. m. Ive Page 7 of 7 r\ DR~ 4 Apr07 Motion by Bob Rettie for Presidio regarding inadequate CRA Support Data package dated 28 Mar 07 I am in favor of moving the Presidio project forward however, I move to table deliberations on this project until the Board members receive a support data package that contains adequate documentation for the CRA Board to be 1e to make an informed decision. Reasons are as follows: 1. Our code states, " Sec. 12.33. 02 Fees. Land use and zoning application requests shall be accompanied by such fees and changes as may be established the City Council by resolution for proper filing." I find no documentation to show the required fee accompanied the application. At the 27Mar07 Council meeting, I believe the City Attorney said the fees should have been paid for these changes. I also believe at that Council meeting, there was testimony that no fee had been paid for this change. Our code states, " Sec. 12.45. 05. Review Considerations... the agency shall in what respects consider... the plan is in conformity with all applicable regulations." Can this board legally recommend approval of