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

Pullen' s motion is to send the request back to the CRA Board for their consideration in the light of Ord. 1701, and if the motion fails, the agenda item as presented for an extension will then be considered. 2.1. 6 03- 27- 07 AL T A VISTA SITE PLAN ( CO NT) Mike Crew, applicant, advised that all applicable fees were paid and were confirmed with City Staff. Mr. Crew stated he wants his request to be treated fairly like all other requests previously approved, and that the CRA Board and Council are charged with all ordinances enacted by the City, and he does not feel the request should go back to the CRA, since it was approved under the ordinance in force at the time of approval. Mr. Crew continued there has been a lot of changes and he has worked diligently with Staff in meeting all the conditions that were applied to the project, and he does not think it is fair to meet a new code that was not in effect at the time the project was approved. During further discussion, Mr. Crew was questioned about the accuracy of signage on the property as transient or office/ residential. Mr. Crew clarified that the project is office/ residential and that a transient condo is considered a residential condo and that is what the sign on the property depicts. Mr. Minich stated that the applicant had reduced the height to meet the new height limitations and it was approved by Council, and all he is requesting is an extension to move forward with an already approved project. The City Manager stated she received today the City Attorney' s legal opinion that Development Order or Development Agreement fees should apply in this case. She advised fees have not been applied in the past, but if the City Attorney believes that fees should apply, Staff will go back and revisit those issues as they apply. The City Attorney advised that was not the substance of her opinion; rather, the substance was that under the Code there is either a land use application or zoning use change, or a Development Agreement modification. She stated what has been presented tonight is a Development Order, and that a DRC Review has been done, and it is her legal opinion that based on the Code and the fee schedule that at least $ 100.00 should be paid for the DRC Review. Her legal opinion is that there has been a lot of misinterpretation regarding the code vs. fees, and suggested this is a topic that could be discussed at a future Council workshop. The City Manager advised that the fees have been paid. The CDS Director clarified that when the original site plan application was submitted, the applicant paid $ 100. 00 fee for the DRC Review. She stressed that for site plan extensions, there is no DRC Meeting held; therefore, there is no reason or justification to charge a fee for a review that did not occur. The CDS Director further explained that CRA site plans are a unique process only applicable to the CRA area, that they are conceptual site plans, not detailed, and no fee was ever established for site plan applications.She advised that when the DRC Review process was started a few ~,.' years ago, a $ 100. 00 fee was added to the fee schedule. She stated that while the DRC Review is an extra step in the development process, it is worthwhile as the developer and staff can discuss exactly what is needed. The CDS Director agreed that there is a misunderstanding on the terms and the fee schedule, and that it is clear to those who have applied it for years. She advised that the updated land Development Code will outline the procedures, and will be very specific in identifying the required fees. Mr. Hartwell commented that a workshop on fees would be beneficial in the future.  2,17 03- 27- 07 AL TA VISTA SITE PLAN ( CO NT) Mr. Holmes confirmed with the CDS Director that this is the same site plan previously approved by Council a year ago, that nothing has been changed, and it is the exact packet that went before the City Council in March of 2006. As there were no objections, the Staff Report was entered into the record. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion that the City Council not consider this issue and that J it be returned to the CRA to reconsider and brought forward in a proper manner, and that the CRA be provided all pertinent information, including Ord. 1701, so they can make an informed decision, and it failed by a vote of 2 to 5 with Patterson and Pullen in favor and Holmes, Campbell, Tucker, Hartwell, and Minich opposed. Mr. Holmes moved to approve of the development order with City Council' s conditions of approval and a 12- month extension of the site plan approval for the project in accordance with Section 12. 45. 07 of the Land Development Code as follows: Note: This recommendation is based upon the application and site plan developed by Jenkins, Stanford & Associates, Inc. ( project # 1050. 06. 001, dated February 10, 2006) and the architectural drawings and elevations developed byPrescott Architects, Inc. ( project 2601 dated 1/ 20/ 06). 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a) The applicant agrees to work with staff to allow for a 14-foot first floor elevation, more windows on the first three floors, and more articulation and detail on the upper six floors in order to "... assist in creating a pedestrian- friendly environment that is distinct from the suburban character of surrounding communities" ( Urban Master Plan). The applicant agrees to work with staff to extend the portico the width of the front drive only if it does not reduce the number of parking spaces. b) The site plan and conceptual landscape drawings that are affected by the addition of a portico shall also be revised. c) The project shall meet the requirements of LDC Section 12. 100. 03, Archaeological Resource Review, and Historical Preservation Act, as adopted February 28, 2006. d) A landscape plan prepared by a professional landscape architect or nurseryman must be submitted and approved by CDS staff. The plan must comply with all applicable regulations in Chapter 12. 71 of the LDC, including design for an irrigation system with a well. The plan shall identify preserved trees 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 stating that the tree is diseased, dead, or poses a hazard." e) A valid executed cross-access, parking, ingress and egress easement with the owners of the adjacent properties to the east and west must be approved by the City Attorney. 2. Prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy the condominium association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, and shall provide guarantees for continued maintenance of all common areas and a restriction on the use of the 24 units J as transient lodging units unless adequate parking ( 2 spaces per unit) is provided for permanent residential uses. Mr. Campbell seconded motion and it carried by a vote of 5 to 2 with Holmes, Campbell, Tucker, Hartwell, and Minich in favor and Patterson and Pullen opposed. QUASI- JUDICIAL AGENDA- PRESIDIO SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Consideration of a request by Gary McMichael, Developer, for an amendment to the site plan for The Presidio, a condominium development located at 124 Miracle The Strip Parkway. purpose of the amendment is to install an elevated pool deck with a retaining wall. 218 03- 27- 07 PRESIDIO SITE PLAN ( CONT) The City Attorney announced a quasi-judicial proceeding and swore in those who planned to testify. Dr. Pullen announced the same objection to this item in reference to whether payment of fees apply and requested a response from the City Manager. The City Manager advised she has not received information from Staff regarding the Presidio, there is no such fee in the Code of Ordinances for a site plan amendment; therefore, no fee was charged. The CDS Director advised the Presidio has been in the process since 2003 and research is being done by Staff to see if any charges need to be paid since that time. She did advise that the amendment to the site plan did not require a DRC Review; therefore, no DRC fee was charged for the site plan amendment being considered this evening. She reiterated this is a site plan application amendment and the City does not charge for site plan applications; therefore, no fee exists in the fee schedule. Dr. Pullen asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether this is a land use and zoning application request. The City Attorney