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

specific matters listed in Mr. Haight' s document. Due to the ci rcumstances, Mr. Dewre 11 stated the app 1 i cant will withdraw the exhibit. Mrs. Wyninegar withdrew her motion. The City Attorney stated Exhibit 23 has been marked for identification and has been withdrawn from the record. The Mayor Pro Tem announced a 15- minute recess would be taken at this time.  1- 22- 97 115 RECESS The meeting recessed at 6: 30 p. m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 6: 58 p. m. Mr. Dewre 11 stated it was brought to hi s attention by Mr. Theriaque that Mr. Dewrell began questioning Mr. Haight before Mr. Theri aque had ca 11 ed hi s wi tnesses . Mr. Dewre 11 apologized and stated he will let Mr. Theriaque question his witness. I Mr. Theriaque, someone for the hi s di rect exam of Mr. Hai ght. record, indicated to question, but requested Mr. Dewrell not interrupt Mr. Theri aque stated he can proceed now or after Mr. Dewrell is finished questioning Mr. he does have Haight. The City Attorney stated it is Mr. Dewrell' s option, and Mr. Dewrell stepped down giving Mr. Theriaque the floor. Mr. Theri aque questi oned Janet Baggett, 312 Brooks Street, about the the corporate entity of Ell i ot ' s Poi nt Community Group, Inc., which was formed November 8, 1996. Ms. Baggett read from her documents the purpose of the organi zati on, which includes protecting the Elliot' s Point and Ocean City areas from any development that would destroy compatibi1ity and the community' s character. Ms. Baggett stated all residents reside or own property in the Elliot' s Point and Ocean City area. Ms. Baggett clarified for Mr. Dewrell that there are no shareholders in the corporation, it is a non- profit organization, and to belong you must sign a form saying you agree with the purpose of the organization. Questioning of Ms. Baggett was completed. Before Mr. Dewrell continued his questioning of Mr. Haight, Mr. Theri aque requested to the City Attorney he woul d 1 i ke to question Mr. Haight to obtain clarification regarding his participation in the case. Mr. Dewrell had no objection. Quest i oni ng by Mr. Theri aque i nc 1 uded when Mr. Hai ght was first contacted by the applicant in this case, when Mr. Hai ght fi rst recei ved the packet of materi a 1 s to revi ew, and how many site visits Mr. Haight has conducted. Mr. Hai ght responded he was fi rst contacted by the app 1 i cant approximately two weeks ago, he recei ved the materi alto review the day after he was contacted, and he has conducted I two site visits. Mr. Dewrell queri edMr. Hai ght on hi s fi ndi ngs of compatibility and whether the proposed project was in camp 1 i ance when he revi ewed the CRA Pl an, Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan 2000. Mr. Haight stated his fi ndi ngs concur that the proposed project is in camp 1 i ance with the CRA Plan, the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan 2000. 11 6 1- 22- 97 DOLPHIN BAY Mr. Lorenz objected when Mr. Hai ght presented a photograph CONT) of a 12 - story project in Tallahassee to be introduced as evidence based the fact that it has no relevance with the on proposed Dolphin Bay project in Fort Walton Beach. Mr. Dewrell stated the photograph would show that a building that is taller than existing buildings in a neighborhood can coexist without creating a negative impact. Mr. Lorenz asked that the objection be ruled on since there is a different set of rules and laws for Tallahassee. The City Attorney stated he understood the introduction of the photograph to show that somewhere it was was for bui 1 di ngs of different heights to coexist. and for that purpose he was inclined to advise Council to consider testimony. It was reiterated that previous testimony by Ms. Easley stated buildings could not coexist. and Mr. Lorenz stated Ms. Easley' s testimony relayed to this project, not projects in other citi es. However, the Ci ty Attorney recommended to Council to overrule the objection and approve this testimony into evidence. Mr. Carnathan moved to approve testimony by Mr. Haight into evidence. Motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and carried by a vote of 4 to 1 with Carnathan. Campbell. Murtha. and Wyni negar in favor and Watson opposed ( Gi bson and Covey abstai ned) . Mr. Haight continued his testimony regarding the coexistence of a12- story building in a single- family neighborhood and challenged the testimony by Ms. Easley regarding compatibility as discussed in her compatibility analysis. Mr. Dewrell completed his questioning of Mr. Haight. Discussion turned to the exhibits presented during the CRA meet i ngs of November 14 and November 25, 1996, the architectural graphics submitted by the applicant. As there were no objections, the City Attorney admitted the graphics into evidence as Exhibit 24. Extensive testimony of Mr. Haight by Mr. Theriaque ensued regardi ng the number of structures ofthe proposed development and the implementation of compatibility under the City' s Comprehensive Plan. There were no further questions of Mr. Haight by Mr. Lorenz or Mr. Dewre 11 . Mr. Dewre 11 stated the app 1 i cant wou 1 d 1 i ke to offer Mr. Lorenz, Mr. Mitchell, and the City Staff the opportunity to present to Council a stipulation of expected testimony from Susanne Sims and consider it in the same manner as if she were testi fyi ng in person so thi s matter can be concluded. The Ci ty Attorney stated that now is the time for the Ci ty or Mr. Theriaque to rebuttal the testimony of the last wi tness. There was no desi re to cross - exami ne the 1 ast witness. however, Mr. Lorenz asked for a five- minute recess.  1- 22- 97 117 RECESS The meeting recessed at 8: 17 p. m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8: 30 p. m. Mr. Theriaque stated he is willing to enter into the record the Staff report and recommendations of Ms. Sims which is already in evidence as her testimony in lieu of continuing the hearing. I The Ci ty Attorney stated thi s resolves the issue of Ms. Sims' testimony. There were no further questions witnesses from Mr. Lorenz, Mr. Theriaque, or Mr. Dewrell. of The City Attorney asked if there were any other parties with standing in the matter to make it known there is something they want to present. There were none. It was reported there was a request from ci t i zens to make a statement to Counci 1 on these proceedi ngs . The Ci ty Attorney stated the issues involved in this proceeding are not policy issues for Council; rather, they are conducting an administrative review and making a determination that must be founded upon facts and the law. The participation to this point has been by those who have standing and who are directly affected by the issues involved. The City Attorney requested that citizens who desire to make any comments that relate to the proceedi ngs to descri be nature of standi ng, if any; otherwise, their opportunity to speak may be challenged. The City Attorney continued by explaining that if an i ndi vi dua 1 is not a party wi th standi ng or is not a person who has been called to testify by a person with standing in the matter, any comments made coul d serve to prejudi ce and adverse ly effect thi s proceedi ng. The Ci ty Attorney asked if there was any member of the pub 1 i c wi shed to address Council. Jim Tucker of 32 Miracle Strip Parkway, SW, stated he has no facts relevant to the case, but is a citizen and taxpayer of this county and would like an opportunity to be heard. The City Attorney asked the parties with standing if they desire this witness be sworn. The interested parties all felt that citizens should have a right to be heard. The City Attorney remi nded Mr. Tucker that he may be interrupted by someone who objects to something he says, in which case the objection will be dealt with at that time. Mr. Tucker stated that he has many concerns regardi ng the I Dolphin Bay project and suggested a land swap take place between the Dolphin Bay property and Fort Walton Landing. Mr. Tucker also stated he objected to the quasi- judicial proceeding since it did not leave the opportunity to talk to their elected officials. cHizens an  1- 22- 97 118 DOLPHIN BAY The City Attorney recommend that Council disregard the