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

the request, when we now know it to be in violation of Sec. 12. 33 .02? 2. Staff recommendations in the Presidio support data package furnished to me on 29Mar07 seem to contradict information given to the City Council ort 27Mar07. At Council it was made public that the land survey showed the structure was not in compliance with Sec. 12. 459. 5 ( 4) d, ".. . structures shall be located a minimum ten feet from the mean high water line. However, Ms Mckim' s 28 Mar 07 memo to the Board near the bottom of page 2 of 4 states the pool deck meets the 10 foot setback requirement. How can the Board make an informed decision without time to study any documentation that might explain this obvious contradiction in the support data? 3. Our CodeinChapter 12. 34 states, " The DRC review and make and make shall... commendations to the Board of Commissioners of the Community Redevelopment Agency regarding code Jmpliance for applications for site plan approval." Also in Chapter 12.34, " A copy of the written rendition of the determination of the DRC shall be mailed. .." The second paragraph in Ms McKim' s 28 Mar 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 DRC to explain why the staff recommendation has not changed in light of new information brought to light at the 27Mar07 Council meeting. Can this Board legally deliberate when the staff provided support data does not contain this required support data? 4. Code Sec. 12.34. 04 states, " Members of the shall consist of ...public works chief DRC... engineering technician.. ." A drawing in our data package delivered to me on 29Mar07, states the retaining wall is exempt from set backs. 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 ten feet set back requirement of Sec. 12A59. 5( 4) d? 5. On the last page of the 1/ 15/ 07 letter to Ms McKim from Mr van Mater, he writes " The developer is aware that in two small areas the retaining wall is closer than ten feet ofthe seawall as it exists on the site today." If he writes that he is aware that he is in violation, how can this Board legally recommend approval? 6. The drawing submitted on March 28, 2007 refers to a 1988 datum; this seems rather old. I find no documentation to show 1988 is the current datum that applies to this project. Should the Board see data to show if the staff has verified that a 19 year old datum is current for this project? In view of the questions raised above regarding various technical issues, I believe the Board should not deliberate provides support documentation with an engineering evaluation signed by a registered on this until the staff professional engineer that determines if all applicable City Codes, Ordinances and other construction requirements are in compliance for this project.  ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 36468 EMERALD COA3T rARXWAy.lum: 9101 DESTIN. FLOlUDA 32541 850) 831-5511 · FAX (850) 831-5: 336 www. environmentaIservicesinc.com 28 March 2007 Ms. Missy McKim Community Development Services Director City of Fort Walton Beach Post Office Box 4009 Fort Walton Beac14 Florida 32549 RE: Presidio Dock and Land Lease - Fort Walton Beach, Florida Dear Ms. McKim: Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is working with Presidio Developers, LLC" the developers. of of Presidio as their environmental consultants. ESI is coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps to modify the Engineers ( ACOE) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection D( EP) existing dock permits - and sovereign submerged land lease for this property. The revisions include the boardwalk along the shoreline. A portion of the boardwalk will extend waterward of and the: the existing seawall. These revisions are currently being reviewed by both agencies project is proceeding toward modification approval. contact Should you have any questions, or need any additional infonnation regarding thi~ please me at your convenience. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 2tt/ 1L Todd S. Wilkinson,PWS Vice President 2005\ ED05 {55 Presidio Developers, LLC - Dock & Land Lease\McKim - FWB 3_ 28_07. doc P:\Projects\ ED\ ESI _ FLoRIDA. . GEORGIA . NOR11l ChROLINA · Souta c. uOLINA  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT ORDER- AFTER - THE- FACT CRA SITE PLAN AMENDMENT CRA CASE # 03- 08- RD The Board of Commissioners of the Community Redevelopment Agency ( CRA) at its regular meeting held on April 4, 2007 considered the application to amend the site plan of Presidio Condominium subject to the execution of a development order that incorporates previous conditions of approval by City Council at their meeting October 28, 2003 and conditions of approval for the amendment of the site plan for Presidio Condominium, by and through Gary McMichael, Manager, Presidio Developers LLC. The applicant requested an amendment to the approved site plan to construct a pool deck and retaining wall on a parcel located at 124 Miracle Strip Parkway SW, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and identified as Okaloosa County Parcel ID # 23- 25- 221A- 0000- 0280, # 23- 25- 24- 221A- 0000- 030A and # 23- 25- 24- 221 A-0000- 0300. The CRA Board considered the application, testimony and exhibits presented by the applicant, the report of the City Staff and all other relevant testimony, exhibits and other evidence, pursuant to Section 12.45, Land Development Code, and recommended that City Council approve the site plan with conditions. The City Council at its regular meeting held on April 10, 2007 considered the recommendation of the CRA Board, the application, testimony and exhibits presented by the applicant, the report of the City Staff and all other relevant testimony, exhibits and other evidence, pursuant to Chapter 12.45, Land Development Code and finds and orders the following: Findings of Fact: 1. The property is currently zoned MUW- 24, and the proposed amendment for a pool deck and retaining wall is permitted. The development is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property ( MUW-24). 2. The proposed structure is in conformance with the height, setback, and lot coverage requirements stipulated by the MUW-24 zoning regulations, and the site plan demonstrates that the development will provide the required parking spaces. 3. The architectural style and materials for the building are consistent with the Urban Master Plan Architectural Guidelines.