Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 01-22-1997 Special — reading text

background. and professional organizations to which she belongs. Ms. Easley stated she was employed by the City of Fort Walton Beach to conduct a compatibility analysis for the proposed Dolphin Bay proj ect . Under quest i oni ng, Ms. Eas 1 ey test i fi ed she has conducted a number of compat i bil ity studi es throughout the past 20 years. and has been admitted as an expert in court on at least a dozen occasions. 112 1- 22- 97 DOLPHIN BAY Testimony turned to the Supplement to Compatibility CONn Analysis: A Brief Survey of the Literature, prepared by Ms. Easley on December 2 and 3, 1996. In regards to the compatibility analysis and supplement, Ms. Easley reported the i nformati on used in order to make reports i ncl uded the Comprehensive Plan, the CRA Plan, the Vision Plan, the Land Development Code, the site plan and application submitted, a number of photographs taken at her direction by City Staff, additional data provided by City Staff reflected in her report, and personal knowl edge of the area. Mr. Lorenz i nqui red if any Staff member from the Ci ty told her what conc 1 us i on to make in her reports. Ms. Eas 1 ey rep 1 i ed the conclusions in the reports are her own. Ms. Easley reported she consulted by telephone with City Staff who assisted her with factual information on the proposed project. Mr. Lorenz asked Ms. Easley to give an explanation of terms used throughout the proceedi ngs, i nc 1 udi ng what is meant by generally accepted planning principle and practice", which Ms. Easley explained is gaining experience through textbooks and p 1 anni ng reports, whi ch are used throughout a person' s experience as a planner, research reports, case studies, and other comprehens i ve plans and 1 and development codes. Mr. Lorenz also requested an exp 1 anati on of the term " gradi ent density", which Ms. Easley described as the concept that density and intensities of developments decrease when moving away from a core area. Testimony continued on the adverse affect of incompatibility of a neighborhood, and Ms. Easley stated these negative impacts are identified in the supplemental report she prepared on December 2 and 3, 1996. Mr. Lorenz stated he wou 1 d 1 i ke to offer into evi dence the supp 1 ementa 1 report. Mr. Dewrell began questioning Ms. Easley about the report, such as when it was submitted to Staff and whether a copy was submitted to the developer. Mr. Theri aque objected to the line of questioning, and Mr. Dewre11 explained this is the fi rst he has hea rd of thi s supp 1 ementa 1 report. Mr. Lorenz stated he can admit the supplemental and save time or have Ms. Easley testi fy to everythi ng in the supplement. Mr. Dewrell objected to the document because it was not made available to him when it was filed by the City some 30 or 60 days ago. The City Attorney presented a copy of the document to Mr. Dewre 11 and there was a standi ng obj ect ion to the document being admitted, but it was his recommendation that a motion be adopted by Council admitting the document, marked as Exhibit 21, into the record. Mr. Watson moved to adopt the supplemental report prepared by Gail Easley into the record as Exhibit 21. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr . Campbell moved not to adopt the supp 1 ementa 1 report prepared by Gail Easley into the record as Exhibit 21. Moti on was seconded by Mrs. Wyni negar and carr; ed unani moos 1 y wi th Ca rnathan , Campbell, Watson, Mu rtha , and Wyninegar in favor ( Gibson and Covey abstained).  1- 22- 97 113 DOLPHIN BAY The City Attorney reiterated that Exhibit 21 was not entered CONT) into the record at this time. Discussion resumed to negative impacts the development may have on the nei ghborhood or surroundi ng areas. Ms. Eas 1 ey referred to Page 14 of the October 2 Compatibility Analysis where these impacts are listed. These negative impacts include density, height, scale, and change of the character of the nei ghborhoods . Extens i ve quest i oni ng of Ms. Eas 1 ey I by Mr. Lorenz included the CRA boundaries, whether the existence of the 200 West Building should be considered a deciding factor in the Dolphin Bay project, the utilization of the City' s Commercial Core by Dolphin Bay, and the definition of human scale and how it relates to the proposed project. Mr. Theri aque rei terated that Ms. Eas 1 ey' s Compat i bil ity Ana lysi s dated October 2 has been introduced into evi dence. He referenced pages 18 and 19 of the report entitled Fort Walton Beach Comprehensive Plan, and asked Ms. Easley to identify the goals, objectives. and policies she determined to be violated by the proposed project. Ms. Easley stated some of the goals, objectives, and policies included ensuri ng compat i bil i ty of adj acent 1 and uses. implementing the recommendations of the Fort Walton Beach CRA Plan. encouraging and providing for eliminating uses inconsistent with the community' s character, and ensuring that all future development is consistent with accepted planning practices and principles. Mr. Theriaque inquired whether Elliot' s Point and Ocean City are considered neighborhoods. Ms. Easley has referred to them generally as neighborhoods. but stated she did not do a specific analysis. the designation was more for purpose of identifying a reasonable study area. Mr. Dewrell began his cross- examination of Ms. Easley. Discussion included certain uses permitted by right and uses permitted by compatibility in a DR- 4 district. as discussed in the Land Development Code. Section 20- 686. and Ms. Easley' s Summary of Findings regarding the compatibility of Dol phi n Bay with the surroundi ng nei ghborhoods contai ned in her Compatibility Analysis dated October 2. 1996. Mr. Theri aque had a few quest ions for Ms. Eas 1 ey i nc 1 udi ng the loss of privacy at 3 or 4 stories as opposed to a higher building and the issue of transition and how it relates to the comprehensive plan. I Mr. Lorenz stated he wanted to reserve the ri ght to ca 11 Susanne Sims assumi ng the proceedi ng is sti 11 in progress tomorrow eveni ng. ill. Mr. Lorenz reiterated that Ms. Sims is The City Attorney announced that due to an omission. the CRA fi ndi ngs i nc 1 uded in the CRA report were not entered into the record. As there were no objections. the Mayor Pro Tem announced that Exhibit 22. which includes the action of the CRA regarding the Dolphin Bay project, was entered into the record. 114 1- 22- 97 DOLPHIN BAY Mr. Dewrell began his rebuttal by questioning David Haight CONT) of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jerni gan, Inc., who gave hi s educat i ona 1 and professi ona 1 background. Mr. Hai ght test i fi ed he has revi ewed the materi a 1 provi ded to hi m by Resort Designs of Northwest Florida, which included the Fort Walton Beach Land Development Code, the CRA Plan, the Comprehensive Plan: 2000. the Dolphin Bay application, the Draft and Fi na 1 Study and comments made by the Gail Eas 1 ey Company, and the Landers -Atk ins Pl anners rebutta 1 comments and CRA recommendations. Mr. Haight stated it is his opinion that, according to the information supplied to him, the project meets all of the objective criteria. Testimony continued of Mr. Haight regarding the testimony of Ms. Easley concerning the Land Development Code, Section 20- 686, as to the compatibility of the project as it relates to the CRA Pl an. Mr. Hai ght stated he prepared a report which reviews the site plan issues for the Dolphin Bay project and hi s vi ews as to how it wi 11 fi t into the CRA Plan. Mr. Theri aque objected to Mr. Hai ght ' s report, quest i oni ng how it can be a rebutta 1 of the Eas 1 ey testimony when the report was clearly prepared for this evening' s testimony. Mr. Theri aque requested the document not be admi tted into the record. Mr. Dewre 11 exp 1 a i ned that due to previ ous test i mony by Ms. Eas 1 ey and the i nformat ion provi ded in her compatibility analysis, the applicant knew how Ms. Easley would testify, and Mr. Haight stated he completed review of the document after Ms. Easley' s testimony last week. Mr. Lorenz also objected to the admission of the report. The Ci ty Attorney recommended the document be admi tted into the record as Exhibit 23 based on the fact that new theories are listed by the applicant. The Mayor Pro Tem called for a vote on the motion. Ms. Wyninegar moved to admit Exhibit 23. the Review of Site Plan Issues for Dolphin Bay Condaniniums prepared by David Haight of Post. Buckley. Schuh and Jernigan. Inc.. be entered into the record. Mot i on was seconded by Mr. Carnathan. The City Attorney suggested that the other interested parties be given extra time to review the issues on the