Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-14-06 ‎(regular)‎ — reading text

Camp Walton Village homeowners. The CRA revised master site plan ( 6/ 19/ 03) approved by the City Council indicated the view corridor requirement had been met by providing 89 ft., or 15 percent, by providing five ( 5) separate view corridors. The Choctaw building permit site plan ( Exhibit C) did not depict the view corridors but the notations on the plan indicated the provided cumulative view corridor was 17% or 100 feet, 11 ft in excess of the 89 ft. minimum requirement. The Choctaw site plan was in substantial compliance with the CRA master site plan and appeared to meet the view corridor requirement based on the notations. The buildings' (" A" through liE" with " A" the southernmost building) positions were angled slightly differently and in some cases the distance between the buildings was reduced during construction. Due to this shift in Building liD" and liE", the minimum width of 15 ft. for a view corridor could not be met. CDS staff does not know why this change occurred and the change was not detected on the site plan by CDS staff since the notation was correct and in fact showed an excess in the view corridor requirement when the foundation permit was issued. The CDS staff discovered the problem with the view corridor on September 26, 2006 and notified the owner that the issue had to be resolved. On October 3, 2006, CDS staff received a view corridor special study site plan from Choctaw Engineering ( Exhibit D) indicating the view corridor requirement can be met if the space between Buildings " A" and liB" is counted towards the cumulative total, in lieu of the space between Buildings liD" and liE". The " new" view corridor would extend from Brooks Street to the Bay. The revised site plan indicates that a portion of the view corridor would be located on the abutting property to the west. Analvsis The Land Development Code defines ' View Corridor" as follows: " A continuous corridor extending from the street to the rear property line, and allowing views of the water. The view corridor requirement is measured as a percentage of lot width; required side yard setbacks may be included as part of the view corridor. View corridors shall not overlap where two or more corridors are provided, and shall be wholly contained on the subject property. No structures may encroach the view corridor, but parking lots, accessways, pathways, and public boardwalks may be located within a view corridor, provided they are located at the natural grade 'of the property. Landscaping is permitted within the view corridor, provided that all trees maintain six feet of clear trunk, and that shrubs and other vegetative ground covers are maintained at less than three feet in height. Fences located within a view corridor shall be no greater than 40 percent opaque." The MUW- 12 view corridor regulations state: " Multifamily development shall provide and maintain view corridors equal to 15 percent of the lot width. Multiple corridors may be used to satisfy this requirement provided that no individual view corridor is Page 2 less than 15 feet in width; the required side yard setbacks may be included as part of the 15 percent lot width requirement." Exhibit 0, the revised site plan prepared by Choctaw Engineering, Inc., depicts six (6) view corridors totaling 100 linear feet, or 17% of the total lot width; however, the view corridor between building " 0" and " E" does not meet the 15' minimum width, so it cannot be utilized in the calculations. Therefore, only five ( 5) view corridors, including both side yards, may be included in the view corridor calculations. The proposed view corridor between Buildings " A" and " B" is one of the 5 view corridors. The five view corridors total 91. 8' in width, or 15. 5% of the total lot width. The view corridor definition states that".. . view corridors shall not overlap where two or more corridors are The revised site plan depicts one view corridor that intersects another view corridor.provided..." While reviewing the view corridor issues brought forth in this site plan, staff realized that the wording of the view corridor definition should be revised to clarify the difference between intersect and overlap, because the intent of the definition was not to prohibit intersecting view corridors. The view corridor definition also states that view corridors ".. . shall be wholly contained on the subject property." The revised site plan depicts one view corridor that extends to Brooks Street through a small portion of land located on the abutting property to the west.While reviewing the view corridor issues brought forth in this site plan, staff realized that in a situation such as this, with sharply angled property lines, it may benefit the traveler if a view corridor extended perpendicular to a street, rather than parallel to a property line, and that might mean the use of property outside of the subject property. Of course, the only way to guarantee that the portion of view corridor located on the abutting property would perpetually retain the standards of a view corridor would be for that portion of the view corridor to be constrained by an easement. The abutting property owner would have to grant a " view corridor easement" to the subject property, and the City would have to be a party to the easement with enforcement authority. Discussion Based on the review of the site plan and the issues related to the view corridor definition, staff intends to revise the view corridor definition as a part of the overall LOC revision package as follows: A continuous corridor extending from the street to the rear property line, and allowing views of the water. The view corridor requirement is measured as a percentage of lot width; required side yard setbacks may be included as part of the view corridor. View corridors may intersect, but shall not where two or more overlap,! corridors are provided, and shall be wholly contained on the subject property unless the abuttinq property owner qrants a perpetual easement, naminq the City as a party with enforcement authority, that quarantees the maintenance of a view corridor that meets all requirements." [ the rest of the definition does not need revision] Page 3 Recommendation Note: This recommendation is based upon the site plan approved by the City Council June 24, 2003, the amendment approved by the City Council developed by Choctaw Engineering, Inc., dated October 19, 2006 ( project # 2003- 100). The CRA Board of Commissioners recommended approval of the amended site plan with conditions ( 6- 0, one member absent). Staff recommends that City Council approve the issuance of a CRA Site Plan Development Order that includes the conditions specified in the draft Development Order ( Exhibit E). Attachments Exhibit A: Letter from owner/applicant. Exhibit B: CRA Master revised site plan, date 6/ 19/ 03 by BVM Architects, (03- 02- RD) Exhibit C: Choctaw Engineering, Inc., permit site plan, ( p. 3 of 10 - June 30, 2004) Exhibit D: Choctaw Engineering, Inc., revised site plan special study survey - view corridors -( dated 10/ 19/ 06) Exhibit E: Draft Development Order Page 4  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT WALTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 1, 2006 INTRODUCTION regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Walton Beach Community Red opment Ag was held on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, at 5: 30 p. m. at the Council Cha rs of City Hall with the wing members present: irman; Lee Bobo; Dean Covey; Chuck Kennedy:' er, CDS Planner II; Malcolm Foley, Planning CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Bobo moved to appr e the minutes of the regular CRA meeting of Octo 4, 2006. Mr. Covey seconded motion a It carried unanimously with Bobo, Covey, Gossom, Kenne Thrush in favor arvie absent). Mr. Kenn y moved to approve the minutes of the CRA Workshop of October 18, 2006. Mr . Thru seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Bobo, Covey, Gossom, Kennedy, zek, and Thrush in favor (Garvie absent). AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN - VILLA DI MARE CONDOMINIUM Consideration of approval of amendment to site plan for the Villa di Mare Condominium, located at 248 Brooks Street SE. OATH The City Attorney swore in those who planned to testify. Gary McMichael, MTM Partners LLC, owner of the Villa di Mare Condominium, stated this project has been a long process but it will be completed soon. He advised an error was found by the civil engineers in the way the view corridors were calculated with respect to the layout of the buildings, and after meeting with Staff a solution has been agreed to. Mr. McMichael informed the request is for the purpose of determining how to recalculate the dimension of the view corridors for the project. Peggy Fowler, Planner, requested the Staff Report be entered into the record with a change deleting Item 1 of Staff' s recommendation which states, "The CRA Board of Commissioners request the City Council to direct Staff to amend the land development code to include the revised language." Ms. Fowler explained the language as it is can be interpreted as such and can be clarified later in the Land Development Code. Mr. McMichael agreed to the change. As there were no objections, the Staff Report was entered into the record. Peggy Fowler explained that during construction, the buildings positions v< vere angled slightly differently and in some cases, the distance between the buildings was reduced, thus the view corridor could not be met. Staff reviewed a view corridor special study site plan indicating the view corridor requirement can be met if an additional view corridor is allowed between buildings " A" and " B." The Chairman asked for public input.  CRA 11- 01- 06 VILLA DI MARE ( CONT) Kabe Woods, future resident of Villa di Mare, asked the Board to rule in a positive way for the request. The City Attorney received clarification from Ms. Fowler that through the discussion and recommendations made to the Board, that approval of this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it furthers the intention of the zoning district to have view corridors. The City Attorney swore in Bob Seretta, President of Camp Walton Village Condominium Association, adjacent property owner, who advised that the Camp Walton Board of Directors has agreed to a view corridor easement to the subject property, with the City a party to the easement enforcement authority. Mr. Seretta advised there are some things in the original perpetual easement that was granted for this area which allowed Villa di Mare to put a portion of their driveway on property previously owned by Camp Walton Village. Mr. Seretta advised there are some stipulations the Camp Walton Association would like the Villa de Mare developer to abide by, such as putting sod or low ground cover in a vacant area, and having the seawall taken to the end of the property line. Mr. Bobo received clarification from Staff that the easement has to be executed and approved by the