Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 08-10-07 special minutes — reading text

Landmark property as well. Millie Thrush, 316 Sudduth Circle, expressed her excitement over the project and that the partnership with the private sector is very important for the city. Mike Hoover, 548 Seacrest, Panama City Beach, relayed he has a reservation for office space in the Landmark that excitement regarding this project is being felt as far away as Panama City. Doug Reed, 842 Santa Rosa Court and owner of Merlin' s, stated the project will support itself and take property taxes off of the citizens. Tom Murray, Public Works Director for the City, wanted to add that this project will enhance plans forstreetscapingon Highway 98, and added from a public works point of view support of the project. Mr. Minich moved to approve the Site Plan 07. 02. SP for Landmark Center, including the parking garage, located at 206 Perry Avenue SE, subject to the following conditions: a. Approvalof a addressing the items in the Memorandum of Development Agreement Agreement, FDOT approval to use the right of way along Perry, off.site reforestation requirements, and use of city property to meet parking requirement. b. Copies of all necessary permits ( Stormwater Management) from the FDEP shall be submitted to the Environmental Specialist and City Engineer. c. A copy of the Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Specialist for review and approval. d. The property owner is advised of the potential for unexpected discoveries. If ground disturbing activities take place and unexpected discoveries, such as Native American set forth in Chapter graves or lost historic cemeteries are encountered, guidelines 872, F. S. ( Florida' s Unmarked Burial Law) must be followed. In the event unexpected discoveries are made the property owner will notify Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) within 24 hours to begin procedures outlined in Chapter 872, F. S. e. The DRC comments found in the memorandums from Linda Carnley dated April 20, 2007; John Geurin dated April 30, 2007 and May 15, 2007; and Michael Beedie dated May 24, 2007. f. The shall construct an interactive fountain in the plaza along Perry Avenue developer SE. Also, to approve the Memorandum of Agreement with the following amendments: Item 6 f: The words in perpetuity be included at the end of the sentence to read, ' Through the condominium arrangements and a maintenance agreement, Developer and its successors and assigns shall be to maintain the parking garage facility in perpetuity: and Item 6 required h: the words ' Developer and its successors and assigns, shall retain the right to designate' be deleted and the words shall be retained added, to read, ' Through the condominium for use of arrangement, one hundred and sixty two ( 162) parking spaces shall be retained the public and the Project patrons, customers, and visitors.' Mr. Reeves seconded motion. 72 Special Council Meeting 8- 10- 07 LANDMARK CENTER ( CONT) Councilmembers Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, and Minich voiced their support of the project, citing a sense of arrival into the City; the opportunity for other projects to occur that will compliment the Landmark Center; the commitment and leadership of the developer; and that it will be a project that everyone can be proud of. Dr. Pullen also stated he is in favor of the project, but feels the Development Order is convoluted ~ and wanted to amend the motion to make the process less cumbersome of the City and the developers. Dr. Pullen moved to amend the Development Order whereby the City negotiates a transfer of the City parking lot area that is needed for the developer to complete this project. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hartwell amended the motion that the City of Fort Walton Beach accept the site plan with the following exception: Exchange the necessary property for Fort Walton Beach Development Partners LLC to build the Landmark facility and parking garage in exchange for giving the City of Fort Walton Beach exclusive rights to 119 parking spaces in the garage. Dr. Pullen seconded motion. Mr. Hartwell stated he is in support of this project coming to the City, but he would like to see the City gives the property back to the developer so they can build the garage and in exchange, the City get back the 119 parking spaces it now has. In this way, the developers would have total control of the parking for the other units, as well as the maintenance. , Dr. Pullen echoed Mr. Hartwell' s comments, stating the City should get out of the real estate business and free up the City from the responsibility, and not place the burden on the citizens of the City. Mr. Holmes stated he would not support the amendment, stating the developer has worked well with City Staff and went through the CRA, that it is a well thought out project and that Staff and the developer have come up with the opportune plan. Mr. Reeves expressed his opposition to the amendment as it would take away the opportunity to encourage redevelopment with some of the other buildings in the area. Mr. Garvie feels the project is advantageous to both sides. Mr. Miller suggested that other options be considered and would like to hear these ideas from City staff, the CRA and the developers. The Mayor advised he was not sure of the protocol, stating if there is more information that is needed, the discussion may have to be tabled, and asked the City Attorney for her advice. Mr. Minich called a point of order, stating the Mayor briefed everyone at the beginning of the meeting on the protocol that once a motion is on the floor, there is no further discussion. The City Attorney advised before she gave an opinion, she had some questions of Mr. Hartwell regarding the amendment to the motion. She asked if it is his feeling that the amendment takes into consideration any transfer of value; that the developer be expected to pay to use basically the aerial rights to build over the City parking lot? Mr. Hartwell stated no. Special Council Meeting 8- 10- 07 73 LANDMARK CENTER (CONT) The City Attorney asked Mr. Hartwell if the City would have any right to use the spaces other than the 119 in the amendment. Mr. Hartwell stated he was referring to the footprint of the garage, that any of the existing surface parking would not be impacted by the amendment. The City Attorney stated she agreed with the point of order. She informed this is a different proposal than what the CRA recommended, and if additional analysis to this amendment to the original motion is needed by Council, then a motion to table for this information would take precedence over the motion to amend the original motion. Mr. Hartwell informed that if his motion to amend will be tabled for additional information that will stall the decision, then he will withdraw his motion. Mr. Minich advised discussion has occurred on the motion; therefore, it cannot be withdrawn. The Mayor deferred to the City Attorney. She explained that at a motion to amend, at the beginning of the process, an amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement as well as the Development Order would require, in her opinion, the need to come back for full Council disclosure with everyone analyzing the issue and making a solid suggestion of recommendation from the CRA. Regarding how long the project would be delayed, she advised that would depend on how quickly the CRA could convene on a special meeting, and so forth. Mr. Holmes stated his feeling that the Council needs to show the developers that they support the venture, he feels confident that Staff has done the best for the City, and the site plan needs to be approved with Council' s confidence and full support until the project is completed. Mr. Reeves expressed his opinion the developer has come to the City in good faith to ensure the project is funded properly, and the City, in good faith, should move forward and to make changes would throw everything off track. Mr. Miller advised it was never his intent to delay the project, only to present any other information that may exist. Mr. Hartwell clarified that he has spent a lot of time examining the documents and put a lot of thought into his amended motion and he did not make it lightly. He also expressed his feeling that it is the responsibility of City Council to examine and look after the best interest of the City, and if it takes some additional time then so be it. Dr. Pullen stated he does not believe there are any arguments regarding site plan approval; rather, the amendment was in reference to the funding contained in the Development Order. The Mayor called for the vote on the amendment and it failed by a vote of 2 to 5 with Pullen and Hartwell in favor and Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, and Minich opposed. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor.