Wait till six. All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to this special meeting for the city of Dustin Council, April 13th, 2026. And we are going to call this meeting to order. First, it will be the invocation by our one and only David Butler. Thank
you for being here. >> Would you bow with me, please? Heavenly Father, thank you for the privilege of gathering together here this evening. We thank you for our Destin City Council. We thank you for the citizens of our
beautiful community. We ask Lord that everything we say and do this evening would be pleasing to you. We do know that except the Lord build the house, they that build it labor in vain. We pray that thy kingdom come and thy will be done in this meeting. And
Lord, the blessing found in Numbers chapter 6 is this. Now, may the Lord bless you and keep you. May his face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May he give you his peace. Amen. >> Amen. >> All right. And Councilwoman Neighbor with the pledge, please. >> Please join me with your hand over your
heart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> All right. Thank you for that. All right. And before we get into the one and only agenda item, I will be taking public comments. I will be starting on our left, y'all's right of the room. If anyone wishes to speak, this is your time to do so. All I need is your name and address
and you will have three minutes to speak. Also, just for the record, after the one item, we will also have a public comments at the end of this meeting as well. Uh John Stevens, 4025 Indian Trail. Um I submitted a diagram earlier
that kind of showed the breakout of uh the the marina and the uh parking that's required and what was documented. So, I just want to just kind of just do a quick overview. Uh, just want to make sure you guys pay attention to the passenger capacities. Um, it looked like
a lot of the passenger capacities that were documented were not actually used that of what they actually um show on on all the operators websites and booking platforms. Um, so I figured if if those things are being marketed to customers and used day-to-day, that needs to be
the numbers that should be used. Um, another thing I noticed, um, I was looking at the formulas, um, and looking at article one, um, small charters, uh, should be using 3.5 parking spots per vessel. Large vessels are based off of,
uh, for, uh, uh, one parking spot for every four passengers plus 1.5 uh, parking spots for crew. And all the liveries are using uh, one parking spot for every four passengers. So, please just look make sure you guys look at the
formulas. Um, another item that I noticed um uh at the fuel dock. I know that there's a lot of uh um customer pickup and drop offs from vessels that that have been approved. And uh I consider those um vessels the same as a
vessel that is using a commercial slip. Uh they're doing the exact same thing. The customers are arriving, they're parking, they're access, and then they're jumping on the vessel. Um, so then one last item. Um, I noticed that they were talking about tiki boats in there. Um, on those tiki boats, it
doesn't actually clarify. >> Oops. Oh, sorry. Um, it doesn't clarify the capacity of those vessels. Um, throughout the whole harbor, I've seen uh tikis that are um six-pack vessels. I've seen them as 12 pure vessels and also I've seen them up to 18 plus
pastors on the tiki boats. I think you guys just need to make sure you guys get a little more uh detail on these sticky boats before you use any numbers that are there. Um when I did my numbers, uh um if you actually use the advertised capacities and the formulas that were written, um pretty much I came up with
five 560.25 spaces required compared to the 498.6 that was provided. Um and that's a difference of about 61 parking spaces. Um that's all I got. Appreciate guys. >> All right. Thank you for your public comments. Anyone else?
>> Yes. >> For the >> just hit that gray button. There you go. >> For the record, Alan Osborne, I just want to clarify >> address >> uh 527 uh Gulf Shore Drive. Uh, I just
want to clarify, will we be able to comment about what's presented before y'all vote or we're supposed to talk about now what they're going to present? Because if they say something we don't agree with, I can't really say anything about it right now unless I'm a fortune teller. So, I'm just asking, will our
public comments be allowed to address the things that they bring up? Otherwise, it's really hard to comment on what they're going to say ahead of time. But, I I will say this, the harbor's a freaking zoo. It's a It's dangerous if you're not a good boat driver. If you're not on your toes going
through there, I mean, been driving through there 30ome years. I don't know, since the late 80s when I came here. It It's just unsafe. This weekend at spring break, I mean, you're just one accident away. And and people are still trying to swim across the
harbor from the new place. People were swimming to Crab Island. And some of these tiki boats, I believe I believe there's one now I saw in&M Industries that's like 25 passengers that came through. So these are random definitions are going to be stretched to the max.
And we're going to get to the point you're going to have to have somebody with a license to drive through there because you're you you encouraging tourists to come rent all this stuff. And it's just getting bigger and bigger and bigger. You know, the pie, there's only so many people that are
coming to Dest and you've seen the pie spread thinner and thinner and thinner. So, go look at your occupancy rates. If anything is not as it was approved years ago, then you you need to take a look at how it impacts Destin today and does it fit the safety and welfare coming off
that bridge. We all know what the truth is, no matter what the traffic numbers are. So, uh are we going to get to talk after you? That's just >> for the agenda, it would be public comment, business, public comment. >> Okay. So, y'all are already have voted, >> correct? >> Correct. I I would just say that people
should get a comment after people present. That don't do you much good. >> Yeah. Mayor, there will be a public hearing after the applicant. >> All right. Oh, thank you for the clarification. All right. Anyone else? >> All right, Miss Center. Anyone else public comments?
All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public comments. And Miss Scott, >> for the next item um on the agenda is our new business, which is a quasi judicial hearing regarding a development order compliance review in lie of a
major development order amendment for Harborwalk Village phase 2 development, which is application number DEV001575205 proposed for properties located at 76 and 100 Harbor Boulevard in Dest. Uh
just a couple of procedural items before we get started. As you all know, this is a quasi judicial hearing under Florida law. In this type of hearing, the city council acts in a judicial capacity and must base its decision on competent
substantial evidence presented tonight in the record. All testimony is going to be taken under oath and I will swear everyone in shortly. Anyone wishing to speak must state their name and address for the record. The parties will have the opportunity to present evidence,
call witnesses, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and offer rebuttal evidence. The council's decision again must be based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing, and must apply the standards and criteria set forth in the city's applicable comprehensive plan,
land development code, and existing development orders. General public comment will be permitted after the applicant speaks. However, for comments to be given weight, they must be supported by factual information that constitutes competent substantial evidence, generalized opinions,
speculation, or emotional statements. Will not by themselves support a decision. Any council member who has had exarty communications regarding this matter must disclose the nature of those communications at this time. And after disclosure, the member must state whether they are able to remain fair and
impartial and base their decision solely on the evidence presented. At the conclusion of the hearing, the council will deliberate and make findings of fact based on the applicable legal standards. Any motion for approval or denial should include the specific reasons supporting that decision. Uh and
just to start uh here with council member Schmidt and go down the line of council members. Uh council member Schmidt, have you had any exarty communications regarding this matter? I received the email from um board member Stevens with the list of stuff he
was talking about and I also got email from another citizen with a letter. I believe you're represented. >> Yes. >> As well. Uh that's the only thing I've had and does not affect my decision tonight. >> Thank you, mayor.
>> Um I've spoken to Legendary Team. I've had those similar emails and I have had a briefing with staff on the details. Other than that, uh it will not affect uh my decision here tonight. >> Okay. I'm gonna um come back to you, council member Aar. Council member
Bagby, >> I have not I haven't opened the emails that y'all have received. Uh I did get my staff pre-brief where I asked got to ask all my questions and I will have no problem tonight.
>> Okay. And that staff briefing was based on the items in the public agenda. Correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Council Member Destin. >> Thank you. I have had several meetings with Peter Boss and Mr. Darden. Uh various community members have way laid
me at the grocery store or various other places and expressed an opinion, but uh it won't have anything to do. Uh we'll listen to what goes on tonight. My decision will be based on that. Thank you, Council Member Traml. >> I have seen the email. I only saw one
email. Uh I haven't read the rest of them as Mr. Bagby did. Um and I believe I can be fair and impartial. >> I also had my briefing, by the way, which went over the facts that were presented in our packet. >> Thank you, Council Member Braden.
>> I haven't seen the emails that were referenced earlier. Um, I've only had my agenda briefing with staff about this. Haven't talked to anybody. Haven't been bombarded at the grocery store like thankfully.
>> And can you make an impartial decision as well? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And then just going back to council member Abear, will you be participating this evening? >> No, ma'am. My husband is an employee of Legendary. I'll be recusing myself from all comment and feedback and voting. I will just be here to listen to the
entire situation. >> Okay. And the city clerk will get you the form to fill out. Thank if there's no objection from the applicant. I have forwarded um the two emails that a couple of council members have referred to tonight. One being from Ms. Bell and
the other being from um Mr. John Stevens. I would like to enter those into the record, not for the truth of what they assert, but just as the public comment. >> Okay. One other item that I want to enter into the record that's not in the agenda are
the city notices of publication which occurred on April 3rd and April 8th. There is also a copy of the uh website notice that was posted on March 19th. Do you object? >> No. >> Thank you. All right. At this time, I
will swear in anybody that wishes to provide testimony. If you could stand up and raise your right hand. This would include any consultants for the applicant that plan to testify. Okay. Do you all swear or affirm to tell the truth?
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Finally, I would like to enter into evidence as city's composite exhibit A the staff report along with all of the exhibits which are lettered
and numbered numbered 1 through 35 and they were our letters A through HH. Any objection from the applicant? >> No objection. >> Okay. Uh, with that I will turn it over to our community development director, Miss Deer, to provide an introduction and then we'll let the applicant make
their presentation. Good evening. For the record, the subject property is approximately 8.31 acres and is assigned the South Harbor mixed juice future land use and zoning designations. The applicant in this case is requesting a council determination as to whether the current application is
compliant with the originally proposed phase 2 development order 10-02. A finding of compliance by the city council would permit the applicant's proposed modifications to proceed as a minor deviation to development order 10-02.
If council finds that the proposed changes are not compliant with DO10-02, a major deviation to the phase 2 development order will be required or the applicant has the option of modifying the plans and requesting another compliance review through the same process.
The current application includes 32,899 square ft of retail space, 86 condominiums, and 254 hotel rooms, a pool and amenity area along with the associated infrastructure, and a multi-level parking garage.
The approved phase 2 plan states, "This third amended development order and all subsequent applications filed by the developer for city permits issued pursuant to this third amended DO, including without limitation building permits, impact fees, land development
codes, shall be governed by the comp plan, LDC, and city ordinances in effect as of October 27th, 2005, except as may be modified by the city's proposed multimodal transportation district's ordinance number 08-14-LC
adopted January 20th, 2009. Therefore, these are the regulations the staff utilized for evaluating compliance and in cases where applicable definitions were not provided in those regulations, definitions from the Florida building code were used. It should be noted that a master site plan
was provided for the proposed phase 2 and the applicant is proposing further subfasing phase 2 into phases 2A and 2B. At this time, the applicant has only provided staff with information for structures and site work pertaining to phase 2 A. The master site plan further
states that if built, phase 2B is subject to change. The criteria for what constitutes a major deviation is in development order 04-13, condition number 19. Staff has reviewed all applicable development orders and the phase 2
approvals granted under DO10-02 and has compared them with the elements proposed in the requested application with respect to these major deviation criteria. The findings in the staff report detail several issues related to the criteria for a major deviation, including changes
or increases in the use of the site or buildings in total, increases in height beyond the limits set forth in the applicable development order and amendments to conditions in the final development order that were expressly imposed by the city council. A summary of the major issues is as
follows. Number one, while the uses requested to be used in phases 2A and 2B comply with the overall entitlements authorized in prior development orders, the applicant has not provided adequate information for phase 2B to determine if it is compliant with DO10-02.
Additionally, the master site plan states that if built, phase 2b is subject to change and the applicant is requesting council approval to allow certain modifications in the exchange of uses in the future without having to seek further council approval. Number two DO10-02
limits building height to 100 ft and nine stories. Based on staff's analysis of the plans and information included in the application, 106.75 feet and either 10 stories or 11 stories are proposed. Number three, there is a minimum 15oot
setback required to be measured from the frontage road that runs parallel to Harbor Boulevard. There are portions of the proposed structures that do not meet this required setback. Number four, DO10-02 include included a right out only egress
in the northeast corner of the property and condition 11 indicated that council's intent was to eliminate the access point onto Highway 98 in the future through a cross access easement. However, the proposed plan has expanded the access point to include a right out
ingress in addition to the right out egress. And number five, the applicant is propose proposing to provide parking spaces beyond the number required for the proposed uses. And this is not permitted by the city's multimodal transportation district's ordinance 08-14-lc
adopted January 20th, 2009, which is applicable to this project per the terms of DO10-2. In conclusion, staff has provided the city council with all documents submitted by the applicant as well as historical documents such as previously approved development orders as
attachments to the staff report. Staff's full analysis of the major deviation criteria is also included in the staff report and staff is available for any questions. We also have the city's parking consultant, Inspire Placemaking Collective, Inc. available via Teams to address any questions related to the
parking study. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay, council, if it's all right with you, we'll have the applicant speak next and then allow you time for questions and have the public hearing. Ready? >> Good evening. My name is Dana Matthews.
I know all y'all for the record. Um, I'm a lawyer in South Walton and my office is in Destin. I represent the Legendary Companies. And thank you again. A year ago, we did this. If you all remember, April 21st, 2025,
one year later, we're back before you. And thank you for being here to give us an opportunity to update you on where we're at with Harbor Walk phase 2. Tonight with me, of course, is Peter Boss, um the owner of Legendary. Um
next Sanjay Hoola Gay Gulagali, our new COO who I met today. You guys are part of EML Grand. I know. Chris Boss, uh, residential vice president, residential dire development, and Tom Lynn, in-house
general counsel. Of course, you know, Steve Tatum, who's worked with me for the last 10 years in real estate development and entitlement work. Um we we've I think we didn't bring with them with us tonight but as you know we've been working with Rick Hall transportation Rick Welch Connelly and
Wicker been involved in this project for many many years and local architect Joe Dowy. Um that's the team. So little brief background we started earnestly again as you know this DO was entered back in 2009.
um and the the worst market I guess we've had and I don't know how long but anyway we started back again earnestly in January of 24 and before we met with you in April of 25 we spent 16 months you know working with staff as to what
Harbor Walk phase 2 looked like again we were dealing with staff members who h weren't here in 2009 um and so we went through that process and you I'm not going to bore you you were here on two all y'all were here on April 21st to 25 and we made our
presentation um and it is clearly a compliance review. I mean the DO actually said that you know the building department gets to approve all plans um but we agreed to this process because of new council members, new staff and etc. Um and that is of course why the purpose
we're here. We listened to what you had to say. And the reason why it's taken us a year to get back here is because a number of questions that were raised by y'all as well as citizens um by staff um other outside consultants. You asked us
to work with BD&E who had just been engaged by the city at that time to do their PD&E study coming over the bridge. We worked with them and their engineers put their engineers with our engineers and all the transportation people together. you asked us to work with FDOT on that process as well as potential
alignment installment avenue, the overpass. Um, and we've been working with all these different groups. The expansion or extension of the Harborwalk um boardwalk going under the bridge. These are all conversations that have been taking place over the last year. I
think Mr. Den has been involved in a number of them and I think you have as well, Mr. Wagner. So what you've got before you is about a million nine worth of work product over the last year to try to put this project and give the
more details that everybody wanted last year when we were sitting here and and the purpose obviously is we're hoping that you will vote to approve that we substantially comply with what was previously approved in 2009. um the
and I believe that we will demonstrate that that that really and the the two key issues is density, intensity, and height. I mean, that's that's what entitlements we were vested with. And I won't go through the numbers. I'm going to let Mr. Tatum go through that with you. Um and that we're developing within
the building zones that were, you know, uh etched uh in stone in terms of the site plans that were approved in 2009. So, um, bear with us. I know, um, we got a staff report the other day, um, and we're prepared to address all those
issues and we ask you to ask questions. You can interrupt us, ask us questions when it's on your mind at that point in time. I think Mr. Darden is going to speak to you as well on behalf of the legendary teams and then I'd like an opportunity to to be the closer if you
don't mind. Okay. Thank you. If you don't mind, I have to rearrange furniture so I have somewhere to sit this down. All right. Good afternoon, council members. Steven Tatum for the record. Um, most of you know me. Um,
as Dana did a good job of summarizing, this has been a long drawn out process for us um to get to get to tonight. There's been a lot of effort put in on staff's part and our part to try to come up with a a plan that works and of course staff has identified some things that that they take issue with. Um, I
think all of that stuff is fixable. Um, and as Dana said, the sole issue tonight is not to determine if this is approving a major deviation or not. And the major major deviation words thrown around in the staff report quite a bit. That's not what we're here tonight to ask. What
we're here tonight to ask is, does our plan as it currently sits fit within the parameters that were established by DO10-2? That's what we're here for tonight. Um, and we feel that it does. It's substantially in compliance with that.
Um, Miss Deer went through the um our request proposal, so I won't I won't go into that with you again. Um, I will just state that the um the multif family units that we're requesting and the hotel units that we're requesting, well,
the multif family units are actually less than what were approved in DO10-2. And the hotel units are only off by uh three hotel units. We are three higher than what was requested. Uh the reason
we feel like we can do that so we can be able to convert some of our excess square footage left from the first phase which we're allowed to spread over into the second phase and convert that from retail or some other restaurant some
other type of use into a hotel room use on a onetoone basis by square foot. So if we take, you know, five hotel units at 100 square foot a piece and that's 500 square f feet, then we would reduce 500 square ft of restaurant or retail space that would pull be that were able
to pull over from phase two. Um and the same applies to the um the the retail square footage. We are over on our proposal um for what was approved in phase two. However, that's just a matter of us
spreading what remainder we have over in phase one onto the phase two property. Um staff has identified essentially three issues. It's the height setback issue or kind of they're not one and the same, but they can both be handled um
relatively easily in our opinion. the um the height issue. As it sits right now, there are three towers in our plan that are architectural embellishments to make our new building more similar in style
to the phase one building. And in doing so, the towers, there are towers on the I believe it's the northwest corner and then on both southern corners. Is that correct? Um, those towers are each would have a
ground floor square footage of 1,600 square feet. Um, we would like to be able to utilize those for habitable area. Um, the code does allow you to put habitable area within your roof lines if
and it doesn't count towards it being a story. Um the staff report does even mention that the problem that staff has identified is that in those tower areas there is 6.75 ft of wall before the roof
starts. So not all of that tower area is actually in a roof. Part of it is a little literal tower. Um, it's my contention that that's in compliance with what the code had in mind when it allowed you to have
habitable space in an architectural embellishment within your roof line. Um, it it cohesive with the the rest of the development. Um, it's a very small impact and um, again, 6.75 feet, that's
6'9 inches. um it's not it's not a huge material um deviation from what was originally approved. Uh we also have an issue uh that staff raised with site ingress and egress and
um to that point it it sounds like there's there's actually two issues that they're bringing up. Um, one issue is that we have added a ride in from 98 on our eastern entrance that Mr.
um Darden will testify to you in a little while about his conversations with DOT, but that is shown because there's a belief that at least DOT has mentioned that they're going to want a ride in at that location. So, that's why we're showing it on the plans. But they als staff is also saying that um we do
not have a cross connection with our neighbor, which is true. We do not. It's our neighbor to the east. However, um I do have an affidavit here from uh Mr. boss that I'd like to put in the record um that states that over the past 18 I'm sorry over the past 22 years he has
reached out to the Donna Marbor Trust uh and there's employees to discuss um the development of the property um in an effort to obtain a cross access easement that's there's been no fruition from any discussion or any phone calls that have
been made to that um so if there's no objection I would like to put that affidavit in the Can I see a copy before I >> I'm sorry. I thought it was going to you. >> That's okay. I just haven't seen it yet. Thank you. I'll pass it to them.
>> I'll share this. No objection. And while that makes its way around um and then finally the the extra spaces um which I will address momentarily. Um but first let's talk about the height. I do have a um a diagram we created today
yesterday that I wanted to show you. Uh this is really just demonstrative We do also have one if you want us to put it up on the screen. I don't know if it's >> I don't know if you have one of these. This is relatively new. Yeah.
So, what's coming around is um where we took the elevations from phase one building, lined it up with where the slab of the floor is in phase the phase one buildings and showed how that
corresponds to phase two. Um you can see once you once it gets to you um that there is you know architectural similarities between the two designs um and that phase one also approved you know there were tower walls that were
well above the approved height line um the corners it was not measured to the corners of those towers your height wasn't it was measured to the corners of the main roof line um so that's what that that uh aid demonstrative aid
exhibit that is intended to show. Um, and again, you know, if you look at it, you can see just from an architectural standpoint, if this is a mansured roof. So, this roof line is what we would need to put all
the way across here in order for all of that to be under the roof. Um, for all that space to be there and be usable. and that look would not correspond near as well to having the tower look. Um, and and that's really the whole the whole gist
of why we have those walls there. There is also discussion in the staff report about whether or not and I don't think I heard Miss deer mention this but there's there's discussion in the staff report about whether or not our um bottom level that's a walkout basement
area should count as a level or not. um that particular level um is primarily underground. It's um or at least built into the hill. Um unfortunately, we don't really have plans that show that yet because we've not gotten that far into the civil design because we need to
get through this process before we spend even more money doing that. Um but that is something that we can demonstrate to staff very easily that this is a basement and by your code the basement doesn't count as a um as a level or a story for purposes of determining
building height. Um our request for that would just be to to allow us to at the technical stage let staff make a determination whether or not they agree with us on on that. But I believe we can show that without any problem. Um,
back to the height from the at the top. Uh, one other problem with if we have to remove the space that we've got now in those areas, it's very possible that in order to at least carry on with the proposed
plan potentially, especially given where our pool is located on the top floor, um, you would lose a whole floor of that building for the parking garage because of everything needing to to adjust downward. Um so that's one other concern
that we faced that um for 6.75 ft did not consider that to be a huge substantial deviation from what was originally approved. Um and both of these are things that can be worked out at staff
level. I do believe uh they're not conditions that we can't work with them on and come to an agreement. I don't I don't think um I've already mention mentioned that the shared access uh with the property to the east, but I just I do want to to keep in in mind that
the right turn lane in actually does provide a benefit. I know the city engineer at some point back in 2009 wanted that, it sounds like anyway, wanted that to be closed off at some point. Um, however, it is an escape valve whenever it's needed and it also
can alleviate U-turns. Let's say someone's coming across the bridge and misses the light. It could alleviate the need for going up doing a U-turn and trying to come back towards the west on on 98 after you do a U-turn if you're eastbound. Um, so it does serve a
purpose besides just just being there. Um, so the parking surplus now we can see that back in 2009 and up until maybe three or four years ago, I'm not sure when it was removed, but um, for some reason there was a parking
maximum for projects in um, South Harbor mixed juice area uh, in the multimotal transportation district in general. Um, I think you guys staff and you guys and staff both recognized that that was poor planning. um was not a wellthoughtout
idea to have you can't have more than this amount of parking for a proposed project. But that's what we face right now is that the multimmoal transportation district at the time um put a maximum amount of parking and
because that is the development order or because that is the um land development code that we currently operate under, it is being applied to us by staff, which I understand where they're coming from. However, I do think from a from your perspective, our um our project is is a
big deal and it's going to re the parking is necessary and needed in the harbor area. I just want to walk through some of these numbers with you. you know, we had submitted our own parking calculations back in April of last year and
I think it was in maybe December of this year or I'm sorry, of last year, um staff told us that the city was also going to hire someone to do their own parking study to just check our numbers, check behind us. So, you did. You hired um a company called Inspire. Um, and
Inspire looked at our project through three different lenses. First, they took our approved parking standard from 2018, which was part of an approved development order that set a baseline parking chart, and that's something uh Mr. Stevens' comments didn't address
earlier. He he fails to look at that baseline parking chart that we're already vested with. Um so that baseline parking chart when it is applied to our entire um phase one
and phase two project um combined with our new design for the parking structure. We end up being at an excess of 587 spaces if you use look at it through that lens. So that's 587 spaces that someone will be able to take
advantage of. Um the Inspire also went to the trouble to show what would happen if the project was evaluated. Both phase A1 and phase 2 were evaluated under the current land development code. Um under that scenario, we still have a surplus after
phase 2 is completed of 144 spaces. Finally, they looked at um what's kind of the gold standard when it comes to mixeduse parking. that is um the ULI standard. Uh it stands for the urban
land institute shared parking or ULI stands for urban land institute and and they looked at their shared parking analysis um demand to come up with numbers based on what is kind of universally accepted across the country. And in doing that they determined that
there's a 252 space surplus. So, there were concerns, I know, about whether or not, this was coming from last April, about whether or not we were actually going to be providing surplus parking. And I think you can see that no matter how we shake this out, there will be surplus parking provided. To what
extent, it probably just depends on the weekend, right? You know, what month are we in? But regardless, even in the high because what Inspire did when they looked at the ULI numbers, they actually looked at um what would be the peak month
um and that's the numbers they used from ULI. So that would be the peak month would be June. And um even underneath heaviest demand for the site, we still were um 252 spaces in excess.
So, I say all that to say we're in a in a situation where we're I guess we're asking you to determine that since you have removed the parking maximum from the multimodal transportation district that you consider this project through
that lens and see that we're really providing a public benefit by providing these extra spaces. it is something we want to do. Um is not sure it benefits us, but we also do see that that there is a huge demand for parking that at
least in the 10 years that I've been here has not worked itself out and this is going to be a maybe a pretty good relief valve to help that. Um, speaking of public benefits, there are quite a few that we are um,
attempting to provide. Um, on top of the additional 500 plus spaces um, there are requests from the city to talk about a boardwalk easement underneath the bridge so that we could connect the harbor boardwalk over to a boardwalk on the bay. Um, we are
more than happy to work with the city on that. We have provided letters of support to the city. I have copies of them with me that I can put in the record after we I'll do that afterwards. Um, also we are committed to continuing to work um with the city on whatever
easements are needed for a pedestrian overpass or underpass of Highway 98. Uh, Mr. Darden can speak more to to those discussions because I know he was involved with you guys along with Mr. Pete Nolles um in in those discussions. So, when he comes up, I will have him
touch on that. Um, we also have written letters of support uh supporting the city's efforts to have two northbound turn lanes at the Stallman light as well as the two that turn into our project. So, we have provided letters of support FDOT on that
which I have copies of. Um, all of these public benefits go towards a finding that our new design does not adversely affect the area. It actually improves the area. um the extra parking,
the agreement to provide pedestrian easements from north to south of 98 that we can do, the easements that we can provide to assist with the boardwalk connection under the bridge. Um those all point towards this being a um a uh
more compatible project than what currently exists, especially if considering that the vested rights that we we already hold, we probably don't have to do those things. But we want to do those things because Mr. Boss is very committed to making the city a better
place. Um, with that said, I'm going to call uh Mr. Darden up and ask him a few questions and then we may wrap up from there. >> Hey, good evening. I'm Greg Darden,
Legendary. >> Thanks for having us. I'm going to just ask him a couple questions like I would normally do and then I'm just gonna let him talk a >> little closer. Is that better? >> There's one next to you. >> Oh, okay. Here, I'll take this one.
>> Just turn it up. >> Just so that the cler >> Thank you. >> feedback. Hear me? Okay. Mr. Darden. Um, have you had discussions with FDOT regarding the uh eastern exit or access on the project?
>> Uh, yes sir and council. We've um we've already started a a fair fairly robust effort with uh DOT right now on various needs for the project and early conversations have been do we have room for a right hand uh and
right hand right hand out turn lane on the east side. It's just conversational only. Um, and when asked why they, as you explained earlier, they said that there might be an interest to have an additional right in. So if someone passes stallman, they don't have to go all the way around down, turn around, do
a U-turn, and come back. Um, but at the end of the day, we are fully uh ready to acquies and agree to the the right out only as what was part of the original DOU uh in light of the state of Florida demanding we do something different.
>> All right. Thank you. Um, also have you Well, I know you have. Can you tell them a little bit about the um economic uh impacts from the the project as well as what you found about population? >> Sure. Um, can you hand out the other
handout? So, um, first off, there's been some conversation about population growth. I'm actually not from there and I've started in investigation of my own to figure out kind of what population growth looks like. Um Stephen's going to hand out a couple of different um
document packages that we've uh worked on. Uh the first one population just for my own edification. Um generally speaking, and look, don't beat me up on the exact numbers because when you ask US Census and you ask other people, Hos or whoever, they're going to give you a little bit different numbers,
but generally speaking, what we're seeing is starting in 2010, the destined full-time population was about 12,300 residents. and it's slowly grown to 2025 to a little over 14,000 residents. So, one of the things that we started
looking at was why has that growth occurred in that fashion? And mainly it's just because most of the residential areas of Destin are built out. So, there's just no logical for new for new a large amount large amount of residents to go. Um so what you're really seeing is some small growth of
new construction but also some uh redevelopment or some reimagination of perhaps some vacation rental into full-time residency. So that was one thing that we we wanted our own edification and understanding of. Um, another thing that we wanted to look at
was traffic and um, the city staff has access to Placer AI, which is a a tool that uh, collects meta data uh, for people around the United States. And what we were beginning to see through the placer application and running
different scenarios with it was similar to what we've heard from DOT, which I don't have any evidence from DOT with me today, but generally speaking, there's about 53,000 trips within Dest on Highway 98 on an annual basis. That's an average number of trips per day. A lot
of trips. But then when we started looking at how many of those trips were actually generated from within Destin and stopping within Destin limits, only about 50% actually a little bit less than 50% of those trips were actually generated from and and stopping within
Destin. They were drive-through markets. So when you start looking at this, you start asking yourself, well, why? I mean, what can we do to to to generate some revenue for the city and for the citizens to help alleviate taxes and whatnot by capturing some of these trips and making people stop while they pass
through this beautiful town. Um, the other thing that we looked at, we hired Hos Institute, which I most of council probably understands who Hos is. They're an outshoot of the University of West Florida. They've been in business, I think, for three decades now doing
economic uh modeling and impact studies for cities and for private developments and whatnot. Um, you've got the on the your larger package that Stephen just handed out is u has a cover sheet that we didn't put together. Hos put it together and it's cliffnotes of their
longer document which is the other pages behind that one. The quick recap of that is we asked Hos to look at the economic impact of Harborw walk as it sits today, not touching it as it sits today. And what Hos projected was that it generally
had a $282 million global economic impact, but specifically it had about $141 million regional impact um to the area. uh 1,700 plus jobs with an average salary of 40 almost $48,000 per job. And
when we asked HOD to also look at the directs impact to taxes paid, uh there was in excess of $2.8 million of local, city, and other municipal taxes paid by Harborwalk as it sits. We then asked Hos to look at the package that y'all seen,
the phase two package. and the phase 2 package was producing roughly by itself about $228 million in regional growth. Um then that was on top of $422 million of over
global overall global economic activity. Again phase two was creating 2100 uh new jobs and the average salary of those jobs was projected at just over $73,000 per job. reason for it, different class of product being developed, higher paid
jobs. And then lastly, the the local taxes from phase two would were estimated about 4.2 million. So collectively, if you add all that up, when phase two is combined with phase one, we're looking at $370 million of regional local economic impact, about
3,800 jobs at an average salary of just over 62,000 per job. and uh general regional local taxes paid just under $7 million. So, collectively it's a pretty big impact um on the area. Is there
something you want to me mention? >> Um Miss Cop, if there's no objection, I would like to enter the HAZ report as applicants exhibit two >> and the other uh document, the economic outline of benefits as applicants exhibit three. Okay,
>> no objection. Thank you. >> Give me one second, please. >> You're in no hurry. >> Sorry, I didn't hear you. >> Can you answer a question? I have four four packets down here. Which one's number one? >> Four packets. I don't know.
>> I have I have the picture. I have the letter. And then I have what he just described as as two and three. I didn't know which one was one. Do you remember which one is one? >> Yes. >> Is it the letter? >> Oh, that's
>> I just wanted to mark them. Do you have that affidavit? >> All right. Uh, last thing I am going to provide you with copies, although these are public record as they >> actually can just make sure we have your exhibits correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, exhibit your exhibit one is the affidavit of Peter Boss.
>> That's correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then is two your building height? >> That's just a dramade. Um, >> okay. So, what's your two? My two would be the hos report and then the three would be the um economic outline. >> Thank you.
>> And I do have a four, five and six which are just our letters of support um for the three different projects that we mentioned earlier. This is this is
That's right. >> Council, you are about to get exhibit 4, which is dated January 30th, 2026. >> Whether we've got a couple, actually, all three of them are dated January 30th, 2026. So, exhibit four is going to be uh regarding Highway 98, Installment
Avenue, eastbound right-hand turn lane. All right. Then we have five also dated January 30th is legendary support for a pedestrian walkway for State Route 98.
And that will be exhibit five. Thank you. Okay. Exhibit six, also dated January 30th, 2026, is a letter of support for Destin Harbor Boardwalk expansion under the US 98 Marlor Bridge.
And that letter that references in exhibit four that references the uh the right-hand turn lane, that's the one coming in from the east, not not the other. That has come up in our discussion. >> All right. And as long as we can save a little bit of time for rebuttal after
the public hearing happens, um I believe we're done for the time being. Is there any questions? All right. >> Do you have questions for the applicant at this time or do you want to hold off until after public input? >> Yeah, just so I have clarity and this might be a darting question. Uh for the section one and two for the development
impact, the section two expansion, 42 million in taxes, is that 4.2 or 42 million? >> Sorry. Before I speak, let me just check my cliff notes real quick. You're you're mayor,
you're referencing the HO study. Is that correct? >> Uh your legendary development impacts. >> That's not ours. That's from the HO institute. Okay. Yeah, that's >> Yeah, just the very last point here >> if you don't mind my approach. >> Yeah. >> Copy that with me. >> So is it just from the annual then I know
>> that's 42 million in taxes is what you're suggesting. That's correct. That would be the global tax >> global taxes. Okay. Thank you. If you dig down deeper in the report, it breaks it down globally versus >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Anything else?
>> Any questions for now? >> All right. Seeing none, you have anything else? >> All right. Other than that, um the height we can talk about in a minute. You talked about the height itself, but the I was wondering if we were getting into the floors or is that going to be
would you prefer later? Well, the floors and the heights kind of go together. That was what that uh that discussion was getting to. Okay. So, the the floor question is one, does the basement count as a floor or not? Because if it's a true basement, it doesn't count as a
floor for determining building height. >> Okay, >> that's part of your code. Um the same goes for the tower areas. If those are habitable spaces within the roof lines, then they don't count as a level for
determining building height. However, if they are not all within the roof space, staff is taking the position that it is um habitable space above the approved height. So that's adding an extra level.
So, it's our position that the above, although there is a 6.75 ft wall before you get to the roof, is still within the architectural embellishment um that's there to bring some cohesiveness to the site. >> So, if those two that you're subtracting
out do get subtracted out, what's the current floor that you guys are saying you're >> minus those two, we're at nine levels. >> You're at nine levels. Okay. All right. That's the only question I had. >> Okay. Thanks. Anybody else? >> Okay. >> All right. All right. With that, we will
open up for public comments. Seeing that this is a quasi judicial hearing, if anyone wishes to make a public comment at this time on what has been spoken about >> for testimony. >> Uh yeah, I want to do a little point of order here. >> All right.
>> The this would be testimony, not just public comment, not just a un This would be fact-based, right? They're not. Well, it depends on what they say, but >> only fact-based evidence is what you would base a decision on. Okay. But they
are limited. They are not limited in what they say as long as it's relevant. >> Okay. >> I'm just talking off lawyer. >> The time would be >> three minutes as well. >> Oh, thank >> All right. If anyone wishes to speak All right.
You're For the record, Alan Osborne, you know, I just don't think you look here how many people are going to be impacted by this and you're going to do any changes by there's nobody here from Destin. And this is probably the biggest thing it's ever going to go for. Destin, I'm I'm
sorry. This changes the complete character, finishes it off. And there shouldn't be any deviations or uh this this this pie in the sky from all these people, these experts that don't live here.
Y'all better take that with a grain of salt cuz they don't come with warranties. Their opinions don't come with guarantees. How many times have you seen something that looked good drawn on paper that when executed uh didn't work right? It's a traffic
nightmare. I drove I drove to Herbert Field across that bridge for over 30 years and I'm going to tell you what happened there is a nightmare. We I mean I had to plan my work around a hotel. I had at one point there you had to plan when you went to work for that. Nobody
testified to that when that thing was approved. Did they? Nobody testified that was going to totally affect their life. It affects the whole harbor. It's nothing but noise pollution. You go to Holly aisle sometimes and it is out of hand at night. And surely y'all hear it sometimes at your house when it really
gets out of hand. So don't add to it. If they didn't follow everything, if you don't look at the impacts of what's happened since then, cuz it matters. Everything matters because then because once it goes in, you can't take it back. Anything that's an exception for the
harbor, those kind of businesses, you may have to put a moratorum on it. I'm sorry, but you'll have to protect the people that started first and not the people who piled on. That's just kind of the way it goes. First come, first serve. But you
you need to really take a look at how much you're willing to bet on these, especially when somebody comes up here and says, "Well, I think I'm going to try to address what they're talking about." Well, this not not right here. This ain't the place to try. This is a place to be absolutely certain what
you're doing. When you start going, a floor is not a floor. I grew up with a basement. That's where potatoes went. So, let's look at the definition of of basement. What's going to be in there? And see if and is
it a 12oot basement? Are there going to be trucks driving delivery trucks driving into that basement? Cuz that's a concept. Boy, you run away with that one, can't you? You can really jack it through the roof to say, I want to drive some delivery trucks in there and park them, too. You better really think about
the impact because you can't go back. And I would say you have to trust their staff because if they've got to manage the whole plan, then this piece of the whole plan's got to fit in more condos. I don't see it. I think this is just a way to kick the approvals down the road.
And you know, the legislators keep screwing local governments because every time they have a storm in Miami, they extend somebody else's development order up here that never saw a whiff of wind and give them 10 more years. >> Final thoughts. >> Political quote proquo. Don't let it
happen. >> Anyone else? Yes. name in the dress and the floor is yours for three minutes. >> Vandy Bella 151 Calhoun mayor council I could not be more proud
to be any city than Destin. You're doing a fine job. I stood in this very place years ago and we dreamed about underground and utilities and that dream is being realized.
Parks are happening in Destin. You guys are spending one tax dollar and then going and getting grant funds and matching it with $5. I'm very proud of the job you're doing and you're doing it through innovation.
You're getting feedback from the public. You're doing private partnerships. So, I applaud you. I want you to know as a citizen of Destin that I have benefited greatly from the Harborwalk. I live on Calhoun Avenue.
I am your multimodal citizen. I walk to the harbor walk and I have dinner. When Noriega Points has Earth Day to pick up trash, I use my kayak and I go. I want you to know that there are
a lot of citizens that have hundreds of memories at the Harborwalk Village. I am confident that you're going to use the very discernment innovation that you got the utilities undergrounded and
you're going to look through the lens of what are future generations going to say about this meeting. What can we do? I'm a big fan of Mayor Wagner. He has a dream. A dream. And I've had the dream, too. to
take the Harborwalk under the bridge down to Clement Taylor that you guys are redoing in this room. There are enough resources to do that. I wouldn't count out Legendary as just
being someone who's going to build at the Harborwalk. What about partnership? What about leading with love? We want to annex Riata Bay. Let's think big picture. Who built Riata Bay? So,
when you're making this decision today, I just wanted to come up here and let you know, I have nothing but positive remarks to say about your leadership. I know that you guys are looking toward the future, and I'm asking myself, what are future generations going to say
about the decisions made in this room? I say you harness that innovation, you look collaboratively, and I'm confident that you're going to make the right decision. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> All right, seeing none, I'll close the
public comments. Miss Cup, >> do you all have any questions for staff or the applicant? Are we gonna let Dana >> give his closing arguments before we >> I don't know that he wants >> questions now whatever question
>> I always defer to Dana and Dewey those are the only two people >> I think he's giving you a compliment >> all right um you know I was here um back when we decided to do a boardwalk in the
city of Dustin which was Mr. Tra, you remember this? There was We were having boardwalk wars. We were putting up people were putting up um fencings and not allowing to trespass on their
property. It was no small feat by the council at the time, Scott Shirley there, a lawyer. Yes, I'm going to take some credit for being involved in that because I represented half a dozen of the key property owners down there. But
we've created something that was so unique and has been so wonderful. Just like this lady said, we've created a walkable area for people to come to and our guests that come and stay in their accommodations, have 10 restaurants to
choose from. They got retail. They can walk down the boardwalk and and visit other people who have properties there and have uh things that they are selling. It's been a wonderful deal. Have we had issues with traffic and congestion in this city? Yeah. Well, all
you got to do is look at these reports. Got 53,000 cars on any given day crossing the bridge. Half of them not even stopping here. Um I mean, we live on a barrier island. I mean, that's that's what it is. But we took it to heart and we are committed as a
development team and this developer to continue to work with the city to solve the problems. When we did the boardwalk easement, you can't bind city councils. That was Scott. I'll never forget Scott telling me that I can't bind them. I wanted y'all to guarantee in 10 years
y'all were going to have x amount of parking spaces. You remember that, do we? Scott says, "Danny can't do that under the law." I said, "All right. Well, at least put some language in there. Going to use their best efforts and y'all have done whatever y'all can do within the the boundaries of your your tax base and and land that's
available and you've created some surface parking. It takes private developers to commit resources to provide public partnerships with with with on developments. I mean, we're not required under the code to build 587 surplus parking. It's the right thing to
do. And it also helps when I don't know if y'all seen the new uh data that's come out from the air our airport expansion with all the different cities that are running year round and the ones that are running just seasonally. If you
add it up according to 2023 2024 25 and projected into 26 they're saying that we have an approximately 148 million people live in those cities
that have now direct access to our area. That's a lot of people. We don't want them all coming here driving over the bridge looking for parking spaces. And we also want to keep them in if we're going to end up growth because we have no land to redevelop destin and and
there is aging parts. So we want to if whatever areas that we're going to determine to be urbanized what pockets instead of being out in the neighborhoods this is a great place to be and you have already approved the do some of these nuances about whether this
new plan complies. I'm going to talk about height. 106 feet versus 100 ft. Is six foot really a major deviation. And the only reason why it's six foot is because you measure to the roof line and our roof line instead of being a
mansered roof which would look ugly as you know what, which we could put up there and then it wouldn't count and we could have our 1600 square foot of meeting space in this spire and 1,600 in this one. But because we decided to have the architectural embellishment to make
it look cool, then all of a sudden it's potentially um another story that that that's the issue going on in this nuance. The below grade that's a that's a basement area. If we make if we put hotel rooms in there, of course it would be. But it's not by definition in the
code a dumpster. Get this. So the dumpster sits three feet into or two feet into a quote setback from an original plan. It's not an encroachment if you don't put a structure around it. So we can have an ugly green dumpster sitting
there or we put a little wooden trellis thing around it with a top so nobody sees it. So it's architecturally pleasing. That is not a substantial deviation from the plans. We have a portico on the front. It sits in a few feet into the quote 15 ft setback of the
road which is we're putting in the private road that runs parallel to 98. It's a portico share. Is that a substantial deviation? I don't think so. Remember in 2009 you didn't have detailed architectural and engineering.
This is what the product that's come about over the last last year. Um, all I can say is that we're committed to work with the city, the staff. Um, I think you know that you you've watched us work with them. We would like to get
a compliance vote. We any other fa Oh, wait a second. Let me talk about phase two. It came up, so might as well mention it. Phase two is phase 2 A and phase 2B. 2 A is the wrapped parking garage and those units that are there.
the the the boutique hotel if it gets built is is 2B. We're building them in phases. You can't just raise an entire site for at a cost of $300 million and develop it all overnight. You don't have the absorption. That's not good market conditions and and nobody would do that.
That's why we broke it up into phases. Are we building parking that exceeds a code that was in effect back then that's not in effect today that says you can't have excess parking that that doesn't even make any sense and you guys realize it because you got rid of it. So looking
at it from the lens of the new multimotal is something I think that the city wants. Those those are my comments. I anything in particular I'll be more than happy to answer. need to have that remainder of the building is 3T.
>> Huh? >> Go ahead. >> Um, one other thing I'd like to add, the remainder of our building height is actually three feet below the 100 foot level. So, we're at 97 feet everywhere except for where those three towers are located. Just thought that was a very
good point that needed to be brought out that Mr. Boss just mentioned to me. That's all I've got. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> All right, I think it's your guys' time. >> All right, I'll start. My my questions are for Stephen.
>> Come on up, buddy. >> And while you're coming up, you know, I I appreciate the public comments. Allan, Vandy, uh, Dana's the and Greg, I appreciate, Mr. Darden. appreciate your,
you know, but this I think from my perspective, I'm just one vote. This is not a economic impact. Do we need new product in this town? Yep, we sure do need new product in this town. Do we need uh to revitalize some of our
old product? Yes, we do. Do we need to do do does this group build quality project? Yes. That's not from my perspective my concern tonight. The first concern is you and the staff
don't agree. You know, your I believe words were uh the issue at hand tonight is are you in compliance with DO10-02? Not whether it requires a major deviation or it's a minor deviation or
who's going to approve that. Would you agree that you and the staff that's basically y'all's two positions? >> I think that every I think we and staff both agree that >> we're here tonight for compliance. >> So So our I think we agree, but the
position is tonight you're reviewing >> the proposed plans for compliance with the existing development orders. Right. If you were to find it in compliance, the next step for the applicant would be >> to go to the TRC with a minor deviation
basically and then we would uh put together the development order minor deviation. If you found it not in compliance, >> I got it, Kim. Thanks. I don't want to make this all night long. Well, no, I I understand your point, but the staff was pointing out, you know, major deviation
in their staff report, but I I'm with you. It's a it's an issue of are you in compliance with 10-02, right? >> That's correct. >> So, what would you consider to be a substantial deviation
in any element percentage-wise >> to put a percentage on it? >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, I can't tell you what I would personally feel because it would depends on what, you know, what entitlement you're discussing. >> Okay. Um I have seen in general the 10%
anything above 10% deviation be applied. >> Okay. Would you say if there were five 9% deviations that that would constitute the the gravity of that weighed together might constitute a major deviation?
>> I would not. No. I mean, and again, it goes to what are we talking about, you know, when we're >> so one of the things the height, okay, 6.75 ft. That's 6.75% on a 100 foot building. And I appreciate
that the rest other than the three towers uh is 97 ft. Uh but you there's the three towers there and they are not in compliance. Okay. Okay. And I think we all agree that they are not in compliance. I didn't hear you
say yes, they are in compliance. You said yeah, but it's only 6.75 ft. >> And I respect that position, but there's three of them that have inhabitable space. Is that correct? >> Right now, the plans show two that have habitable, but we're approaching it as three.
>> Okay, that Thank you. Because that's a good segue to my second point. I don't want y'all to have to spend millions of dollars to bring back engineered plans and site plans and prep and everything. But without that, there's a lot of
guess. Well, trust us, we won't go over, you know, we're in the concept phase. And so in the concept phase, you know, oh yeah, the and I'm I'm with uh Mr. Matthews on the porticochet.
You know, I don't care about that thing. The dumpster area I do care about. Okay. That backs up to the road that's 7 ft uh has a 7 foot setback which is well I would consider that a significant
deviation from the setback. You have a restricted area, right? You agree with that? >> Yes, sir. And you agree with the staff report that there are several places where you might just be over the line, but we're still in the cons concept phase right? >> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, I I but I think that that is a a deviation. So, the height is deviation, the setbacks are deviation. If I could, yeah, because >> we're going here for a while and I need need to comment. The um
>> to the dumpster point and to the setback point in general, those are things that can be worked out at staff level that we wouldn't have to bring back to y'all for approval necessarily. Now, if we can't agree with staff, then yeah, we need to
come back to you. But really those adjustments to make sure everything is within that restricted area or meets the required setback for that area. One of those two things that is something that we can work out with them. Um I will point out >> uh the staff report that we received
last Thursday and this is not on I'm not blaming staff for us getting it on Thursday and we're here tonight. I mean, but it did bring lots of things to our attention that had not been brought out before >> and are things that we probably would have worked through
had we had the time. But, um, at the moment, it's not something that we can just address until we sit down with staff and say, you know, these are what we would like to change. And that's where we would like to have a substantial compliance determination
from you guys that allows staff to then turn around and say, "Yeah, what your your changes have come into the parameters set by the council of their concerns, which would be your concern about the setbacks and the height." Um, and then we don't have to come back to
you for another special meeting over. >> And I I I appreciate that and I respect that. and Dana opened up with, "We were here a year ago." Okay, y'all had a year to turn something in. We had a year to
respond to what y'all turned in. And yet tonight, we've got six. I wouldn't say they're all really affect the decision because economic development report, that's nice to have and that's kind of interesting, but it doesn't affect the facts of this
case. Okay. what y'all could have said, "Hey, we're not ready." And I got it. It's fluid and you know, condos aren't selling real well right now and maybe we want to build condos. I'm not even talking about 2B. I'm just talking about 2A and are
you in compliance with development order 10-02 >> from my p my personal opinion is that you are not okay based on all the things and I can go down the list but I don't want to take an hour just with all my questions but most of my stuff you know
the turn lanes we we could have talked about the turn lanes and the one I at first I thought we were talking about the one on the east end where it was used to be just going out and now it's going out and coming in and then all of a sudden we morphed into the oh the deceleration lane is what we're talking
about and I kind of lost >> well I'm sorry if I led you to believe that because the only deceleration lane that discussion was was with the um letter of support um but the rest of the discussion about the right in was about the east side
>> yeah and I I don't think the right in is the you know my personal opinion and my observation If you got in and out, you got more people sitting there. Wait, is that person turning in or is that person? But if it's only an out, you don't have to worry about, you just have to worry
about for a gap. >> And to that point, we are perfectly fine with a condition from you all tonight that says the right in cannot happen unless DOT requires it. >> But but that's my that's my whole point. We're not this isn't a bizarre we're not
here to negotiate. You're here to present. We're here to consider. Again, just my opinion. We're here to consider the facts that you presented, the facts that the staff presented, and say, are they in compliance or are they not in compliance? That that's really we're not
here to go, well, if you give us, you know the >> this, we'll give you the dumpster area or we'll give you the extra 6.75 ft or we'll give you the right turn in or we'll give you and I don't want to go belor the point, but you got my point.
So, I you've answered my questions. I just, you know, there's the again, I don't want you to have to spend $2 million doing engineered detailed plans, but I would appreciate something a little more than a demonstrative diagram
that plans to show the retail level. And actually, because uh one of the issues, one of the questions it was that Mr. Mr. Osborne did bring up is are you going to be able to drive a truck? Is that going to be a delivery area? Is that going to be trucks driving in there? Is that
>> You actually have a um there was a floor plan included in your packet that shows that bottom area, >> but it doesn't tell me because you could put a dock in there real easy. >> I'm I don't believe there was a dock shown on the plan. >> No, there wasn't. But that's that's what
I'm saying. So, I I need something more because you're and I like you guys, but you're you're saying trust us on this, trust us on this, trust us on this, trust us on this, trust at some point, I got to say no.
>> Right. >> If it were just one thing, I would say staff bring it back in two weeks or whatever. But it's multiple things in multiple areas. Well, then I guess I'm struggling to understand when you bring up the the bottom floor being a basement. Maybe you could drive a truck
in there or something. >> Well, if we proposed that in a plan, >> right? Is your bottom floor two stories? >> No, it's not. It's not a full two stories. >> That story. >> Okay. Story and a half. So, it's uh amazingly the same height as a
>> truck. Steve, I I don't >> Yeah. Yeah. But what I'm saying is if we came back with a plan that proposed a a docking area inside the bottom garage, staff would immediately be like, "No, you're not doing this >> now. You got to go back to council again. Look at you."
>> Well, if it were 8 feet, I would say, "Oh, that you know, it it is really a basement." But when it's a story and a half >> and you're already over, I would just take out a story. I would take out whatever you're calling the ninth floor. I agree. There are ways that you could
make that architecturally um match I don't want to say match that's probably too strong a word fit in >> with what's existing uh if you lowered uh that detail but that's not the purpose of this hearing tonight. The
purpose hearing is as we've all agreed is whether or not you're in compliance with 10-02. So uh I can make one of the motions. Gosh, we only have about 20 motions here that
Oh, no. I Okay. Yeah, I'll make bone. All right. I move. >> May I just please? >> Yeah, sure. I mean, you can do it even after I make a motion. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I just thought I'd do it now in advance. >> Trying to stop you before it happens.
>> Yeah. as opposed to a finding of non-compliance. If you feel that if the majority of you feel that you want to see some of these items addressed with staff and brought it back to you for another hearing to address just those
issues, just those issues, then move to continue it and give us the opportunity to do it. Steve made a good point. I mean, I'm not blaming anybody, but yeah, we have been working for a year, but when we get a staff report on
April 9th or 10th that brings up issues that we hadn't heard, it's very difficult to prepare for you guys. Okay? And I'm not blaming anybody, but that's that's what happened. So, if we need another month to meet with them to go through those issues in their staff
report to see if we can have a meeting of the minds and bring it back to you, that's what I would ask your motion to be. and I love you like a brother, but on April 9th, you knew that you were 6 feet 75.75 ft above the height limit on those
towers, didn't you? >> Can I talk a second? I'm sorry. I'm sitting there driving me crazy. We've submitted four times the same plan and four times it was fine. Just this past week is the first time we find out that they are that they're me where they're measuring that roof section from. The
rest of the whole building is 3 ft under. The average is well under 100 ft. Okay. Well, we popped up architectural fenestrations to made them look good. We tried it with mansards. Mansards look like mansards but with holes in them. Okay. Which we can p put it looked
terrible. Okay. The reality is the buildings pushed down. So we could raise these up. On average though, these are don't even amount to I don't know what 5% of the building perimeter and we've got we put a little roof ease on it and we can drop the roof down >> and just make it ugly. Okay, we haven't
accomplished anything. Exactly the same space inside. It's exactly the same building and the rest of the building is three feet under the requirement. But you keep saying why are we waiting? Why are we coming back at the last minute? We have been in five I have been in five different staff meetings and five
different times presented the plans and five different times we've addressed everything they gave us on the list and we've addressed every one of them and we talk about a a setback area and a trash thing it's on the side yard. It's not it's not facing the highway. Okay, these
are areas you won't even see. You won't be able to see it. There's a slope on the property. It's a technicality and I and have a dumpster sitting there and you want to make sure that you don't you have a dumpster showing because dumpsters don't count. They don't count in being set back. So, we put an enclosure on it to hide it and that's
bad. It's really hard for us to understand why you want this stuff like this. Why would you want us to hurt the look of the building? And you haven't gained anything. It's the exact floor plan. It's the exact same thing. It just doesn't look as good. and we've lowered the whole bloody building down three
feet and you're hanging and and then say that we haven't done this work, we've done it four times and we have spent $2 million since that meeting a year ago. $2 million on architectural engineering to build this building in compliance with every single review we've had. And
you can ask your staff, we just got this thing last week with the company's new things, okay? And and frankly, it's just a what to to listen to you ridicule that we didn't do anything. It's hard. Boy, I'm >> I'm not ridicule. And I'm staff. When
When did you get their final plans? >> We've had this set of plans probably since April. Last April. >> Last April. >> Okay. How long does it take before we get a rebuke? 12 52 weeks. >> I don't know. We've been through three planning directors since then. That's a good question.
>> Yeah, as he stated, we've reviewed them multiple times and sat in multiple meetings with them. Um, and we brought to light the issues that we most recently saw. So, >> just because we didn't bring them up before does not mean we would not bring >> them. It was we considered this to be 10 stories, not even 11. 10 stories.
>> We first time we brought up the height. >> We called them in last week. >> No, there was a time before when you asked about the height. Well, we don't have our former community development director. >> No, I I got that. I'm just >> But I know we had a meeting last week where it was discussed before the agenda
staff report, but I think at that time the decision was that they wanted to proceed with the meeting. So, we're here. >> Okay. That that's one of my it's not necessarily that although it is the height on the towers, it's a number of stories now Peter and I respect
>> back but multiple departments changing personnel changing redoing it again. We're living with that and you didn't hear us complain about that at all. Not one time. >> No. >> But to now to to harass us saying that we didn't do this and we had the chance to do it and you had these plans and I
don't this is that's wrong. >> When when were you told or when was Legendary told that we considered the structure 10 stories >> Thursday of last week. >> Is that the first time Daniel? >> No sir. We had a meeting with their team
earlier that week to tell them it was 10 stories. They were told the first time I heard >> when when is the first time we told them that this would we consider this 10 stories >> it was uh last week as if I don't recall. >> Okay. Last week and the plans have been
the same. >> Okay. Kale you you wanted to jump in. >> Just there's staff also that's no longer here. We don't know if they had those conversations before. So I I don't know that they can answer what the former community development director communicated
>> because it it look you know again I didn't receive it till last week but looked like 10 stories to me you know the new community development director says it's 10 or 11. All right I don't know what the old community development director said you know but I know what
what I saw when I saw the plans. So hopefully the old community development director did and and while I appreciate it, I'm going to go ahead and make my motion. And if I don't get a second, I'm perfectly happy with that. I move to find that the applicant is not in
compliance with the existing development order 10-02 for the reasons set forth in the staff report and allow the applicant to avail themselves of the options set forth in exhibit A which include applying for a major
deviation or returning to council with additional compliance review which basically gives you exactly what you're if you want to come back in two weeks or a month or whatever and say we did this we took out So, whatever. But there there's just too many
things here. I I'm not against or for the project. You know, I understand you have a right to build. I'm a private property rights uh person, but it's just there's just too many non-compliant elements to this. And that's my motion. >> All right. I have a motion. Do I hear a
second? >> I'll second that. >> All right. With a second on the floor. Any further discussions? Councilman Dustin. >> Thank you, mayor. There are a number of other issues that have concerned me. I agree with the
staff's report that there are, you know, two or three items here that are not in compliance and it it doesn't meet the compliance with the order. But there there a couple other I'd like to just kick around and discuss. um our use of
the multimodal, the old multi multimodal which after all gave the project and still gives the project going forward some substantial reductions in parking and also prohibits excess parking.
The uh the problem with that is is if we wave it and allow excess parking to be included um now we've we've included that excess parking. I suppose, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, as we go in, go forward
to phase 2B. So, can that parking flow through to to the next one if we sanctify it in this application? >> It it can, but I believe that their numbers include phase 2b, but I will let
staff testify to that. >> Parking numbers, >> parking in units that go with parking. Yeah, I mean everything that we were provided was for phase 2 A and 2B. So that means uses, parking, everything. >> Just explain what we mean when we say
that we don't have all the information about phase 2B. We don't know the allocation. >> Yeah. So phase 2B, we don't have any floor plans for that. So we don't know how big the units are, if that would affect the parking. Again, we're going they're based on the 2002 parking. So I I believe condo units are based on
dwelling unit and hotels would were based on rooms. Um, so again, without those floor plans, I couldn't tell you what the parking demand would be off the top of my head, >> which is precisely the point I make. How can we possibly make a decision on that? Um, in addition to the, you know, it's like
we're having our cake and eating it, too. We don't we don't have to provide 40% less parking because we're operating under the old multimodal, but we want to provide extra parking that's going to be used later down. So
that part to me is is not quite legit. We need to come to a conclusion about which parking calculations we're going to use. The old multimodal, which I agree were incorrect, or the new. And so that decision, I don't know how we
can make that tonight. The other uh the other part of this that bothers me quite a lot is that intersection of Solomon is the worst intersection we have in town. >> Uh
we are proposing to if square feet are right, we're proposing to double the impact with new retail and new condos. So, not only is it the worst intersection in town that you can't hardly get through during the summer, we're going to make it handle twice as
much from this particular project. And I understand that 50% of the people going through are not stopping. They're just driving through Dest. They still have to get through Dest if we if we hold them up. That that intersection is a nightmare now. And so
we're talking about the economic impact and the host study said I think what 700 800 billion. So uh 10% of that 10% of that is 70 million. 1% is 7 million. Half a percent would be 3.5 million.
I would appreciate it if we could work with the applicant to figure out how we can make that intersection better. And you know, I'm committed to spending city money on it, but I need to find out what the developer is committed to going
forward and help us fix that terrible problem that we all live with every day of the year, most especially in the summer. So, we need to come together and figure out how we can address that issue. Uh, you
know, I don't know, Dana, you mentioned $300 million worth of construction. So even if we use that number, 10% is 30, 1% is 3 million, half a percent is 1.5. If we could work together to try to figure out how we can make that
intersection usable more than it is now before we pile twice as much use onto it. You know, I would love to see us come up with some create creative ways to do that and and commit to it. But at the
moment I agree that we have got too many discrepancies here to find that this is not a major deviation. >> Right. Uh Councilwoman Traml, >> I agree with what >> I I agree with what they've said
basically. And one thing I noticed in addition to all of those was was in place when you guys started. Uh by the way, this looks vastly different than what you presented years ago. So that's that being said, I think it's a better
plan, but there isn't a transit stop. And I do know that we do have we don't have public transit, but we have the Harbor Haulers, which is a company that will provide transit there, and there isn't one there. Um, and I think right
now they are hauling people to to the to the boardwalk to Emerald Grand. I've seen it happen. So, I think that would benefit your whole development if you had that.
Um, and I didn't see that in here, which I don't think staff pointed out, but I I think it's a I think it's a good deal. Um, they didn't point it out to me if it's in there. I didn't find it. But um and um I don't agree with the ingress on
the east side simply because I think if you create an ingress on the east east side, you're going to have to create a cut for the people going west to come in that direction, which is not involved in any of this either. So, we've created a a
log jam there, too. Even though the the turn lane is long enough, I don't want them turning now in two places instead of one. Um, so that that gave me a concern. Um, I didn't agree with the um one to one square footage,
restaurant versus hotel versus restaurant versus hotel. I mean, I know where you all are. I just wish you'd make a decision one way or the other. um because a restaurant is vastly different than a hotel room as far as parking
goes, as far as all of that goes. So, um in that regard, but but I would say if you could shave off a floor or two of the whole project, leave your top the way it is, aesthetically pleasing,
cut a couple floors off the the u I guess you call it hotel. I'm not sure what you're calling that building. Um I think that would be more economical and it would be more pleasing to the rest of us, but um anyway, that's my concerns in
addition to what they were they brought up. >> All right, Councilman Bagby, >> this question for the staff. So, and this was a little confusing to me because we we it looked like we were transferring uh from one DO to another DOU that in
phase one they were given X. Well, they didn't use all of X. They used X minus 20 of two or three different areas. So, they transferred it to phase 2 A and then which is a different DO by the
way. Uh, and then if they don't use it there, because they're not over on any of them. So, that that was that I understood cuz that was what I was originally thinking. What the heck is are they telling me all this for? Can we
just keep cascading down through 2B or 3F or whatever we end up doing these entitlements to all the future subsequent phases. >> Is staff going to answer that question
or Okay. >> Yes. Um what it currently says in uh DO10-02 is the applicant reserves the right to build all unused density and intensity approved in development order 02-55 and
the first amendment number 04-13 and all requested improvements. So under the current development order approvals, they have an amount of square footage, density and intensity that is approved and that will carry on if it they
continue operating under this these same development orders that will carry on through all future approvals. >> Okay. And then the 10-02 is phase two, phase 2 A and 2B now. But but
it doesn't include any other areas. Right. >> Correct. It's it's only the phase 2 A and 2B currently. I just didn't want, you know, 20 years from now somebody going, why did they approve this back in
O2 that it just keeps I understand one and two phases one and two because I agree with the applicant. You know, personally, I probably wouldn't build a condo building right now, but that that's not my decision. That's their decision. But at some point, I just want
to know when those entitlements when those those chickens come home to roost, so to speak. And that was just that was an education thing that has nothing to do with what we did. >> All right. Uh, Councilman Braden.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I guess my concern is, um, why you have a hard time getting everything together and getting it to staff so they can get it to council? you prefer to pass a portion of it, want the
council to pass a portion of it and then work with staff later um when it's Mr. Boss is clearly upset because staff keeps changing and things keep changing. So, I don't know why you
want to work with staff um with that. I mean, kind of do, but um it's just concerning to me that you don't want to put everything out in the open. You just want to get the bare minimum to council, let them approve it, and then
go to staff and start tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and it's um I don't know. It's just real concerning to me. We're um and I appreciate what staff is the report they put together. It's amazing. um
everything's there for us. Um in line um unlike some reports we've gotten in the past where it's refer to page 10, refer to page 20, everything's kind of nobody can even follow it and that was there was a reason behind that. So um those
are my concerns for tonight. Thank you, mayor. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> So what happens uh we are in compliance. What's the next steps in the process? >> Can you repeat that?
>> Yeah. So, if they're in compliance, then they will go to TRC for their technical review committee review, which is staff level, and that would be a minor development order amendment or a minor deviation. If they were not in compliance, they
would have the option of either applying for a major development order or coming back to council. just the compliance part >> for the compliance >> but in compliance we go to TRC >> and are there requirements for plans and civil drawings and all that during TRC
>> I'll let uh Daniel answer what the requirements for TRC are yes >> yeah full scale dimensioned engineer drawings would be required for any kind of development order review TRC review etc plan landscape plan everything >> and then at the TRC which is a staff
level >> it's it's the internal staff as well as Destin Water users, Destin Fire. Yeah. All the utility providers. >> If there were things not in compliant with code, you would have a choice to >> Yeah. >> If there was anything that was not
compliant with the land development code that they are held to at the time, whether that be today's or the one that they're already vested under, um they would staff would require a resubmit. They would have to fix any kind of non-compliant aspects of that plan, whether it be engineering or planning, and then they would just resubmit until
the land development code is met. So, I know Miss Cop doesn't like hypotheticals, but hypothetically they're in compliance. They go to TRC with these plans at 106.75 ft with the setback issue with all these things.
What's going to happen at TRC? >> Uh staff would raise that com we would make that comment that they exceed building height or whatever the comment may be and they would revise their plans and resubmit accordingly if they were in a normal TRC. raise that comment, meaning you would >> Yeah, we would provide that comment to
them saying, "Hey, here's the code reference that you're violating. Please revise to comply with code, >> meaning it wouldn't progress to the next next stage." >> Correct. No, they would we would we're not able to approve anything that doesn't comply with the land development code. So, essentially, if it wasn't revised, we would be stuck in TRC
review. >> Mr. Matthews, what would you do at that point? come here for >> well if if you're in compliance tonight and then you go to the TRC and they say you're not you don't meet the code
because of these five things here's the facts you don't meet the code go back and fix it that's what they're going to tell you then what would you do >> to answer your question is if you in the staff report as we requested from staff for them to put in the staff report that we were asking you to find that we were
substantially compliant ient with the plan uh the amended DO that was issued back in 2009 and to allow staff through the TRC process to tweak these other areas. That's if you would agree to that then we don't have to come back because
staff we would deal with staff on that and we would have to comply with the land development code and the comp plan as you know that the provisions that we've been dealing with. So you said >> so it's all it would be all it was was another process to allow us to work with
staff. I understand the motion. I've just heard from four different people who apparently want to hear want it to come back to them. So I think this is kind of a mood issue at this point. >> No you can >> matter. It's all good. >> No no I'm not mad. You can ask me
anything you want to. >> Nope. I'll just go a baseball game. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Traml. >> I guess this is for the our attorney over here. Um, if we approve this tonight and say it's in compliance, then what they have presented here now
becomes compliant. >> Yes. >> So, instead of the 100 ft, it would be 106 feet or wherever they judge the whatever it is. Um, and then all of the things that we have cited as out of compliance would then be viewed
by staff as being in compliance. They would be found in compliance with their development order, but they would still have to go through technical review committee for technical review. The reason that this is above a technical review committee is because of
the criteria that we have in the staff report on page two where certain things are above a minor deviation pursuant to the terms of their existing development order including increases in height. It doesn't say small increases or increases
of you know less than seven feet. It says increases in height. We also have the stories issue because staff has said that there's 11 and not nine. And then um you know any amendments to conditions in the final development order which we talked about. There's a couple of those.
And then you know with things like the transit stop that you brought up if the open space is decreased from what it needs to be that could also be a major. So, not saying that um they can't go to TRC, but these issues have to be
reviewed by council before staff doesn't have the authority to say that these are met with these plans, if I might add. Nor do we want that authority. I want someone to find what a tweak is. And I think we have found we've got ourselves in situations over
time that we really don't want to be in for a lack of a definition of a tweak or a minor deviation. So we appreciate the sentiment we're hearing from council tonight. >> Thank you. >> All right. Yeah. I just because I don't
want Kevin to re leave with the wrong idea because Daniel's response to you made it sound like, "Oh, we'll fix everything." No, they won't fix. >> Yes, I was going to make that clarification. We're going to go on the clarification.
>> Yeah, we're going to go on the council's >> Don't make me start pulling out development orders that y'all approve that we're in ma major >> error. >> Not major error, minor error. Oh yeah, that's just a couple of feet there. That's okay. >> No, no. Yeah, this situation is rather
unique. So, I was going to clarify it to Kevin's question. I mean, if the council finds it compliant, as as proposed today, staff would approve it as council found compliant. As Larry just said, we do not have the power to wave the land
development code. So, I mean, yeah. Uh, Councilman Dustin, >> just one more confusing question on my multimodal question. By their own testimony by of their expert in the parking, they are
showing us that they're providing 4 to 500 extra spaces. How can that possibly be in compliance with the old multimodal which prohibited extra spaces? I've built two businesses in town now where they said you can only have this many spaces and if you build
one space more, you're not going to get a building permit. So, how is it possible to do that? >> Under the old code at the time, no. >> Okay. So, but but we have testimony here tonight saying that four or 500 extra
spaces are being provided and they're using the old multimodal which was in effect in 200. >> I think they're asking you because of the change in the code since that time to consider the actual logistics at the harbor and the new code.
>> Go ahead, Mr. Tatum. >> Yeah, that's exactly what we're asking. We understand what the old code said. I believe I think I stood up here and said that. If I didn't, that's what I intended to say. We understand that was the rule for the most get it. I think we all agree it was bad idea, but that was
what was approved. Um, however, given that it's been removed from the current code, there's nothing that stops this council from just applying that to us if we agree that it can be applied to us.
Um, in that situation, we still end up providing a surplus of parking. And to your point, regardless of which model you look at for determining parking, we still have a surplus of parking. Whether it's 580, 212, or 190 something. Yeah,
>> there's still a surplus of parking there. Um, which also I think does address the issue that was raised about phase 2b. Um, >> so that Yeah, that's my request. And honestly, my request tonight of you is that not necessarily that you find it in
compliance across the board, but that you find it's substantially in compliance except for these issues raised by staff and you let us go to staff and work out those issues. And if we can't, then we're right back here with you.
>> I mean, that's understand. I'm trying to figure out a way around the dilemma of the multimotal visas. No, >> we could agree to say yes, you can provide extra parking and you could agree to say we're going to calculate our parking according to the new code which is allows us to use extra parking.
Is that a solution? We'll have to look at it, but there has to be some kind of a solution. >> That's called cherry picking. you would you would still end up with some excess parking to some degree whether it's 500 or 150 or whatever it is there would still be some extra parking
>> the other thing is under under 10 um 1002 whatever it was whatever the do number is um it says approved under the under the particular plan then it says as amended by the multimodal which has been amended again by you guys so I
don't think it's a large legal leap of faith to say that this that part of it doesn't apply and we are more than providing what we need for both phases even though we're not building the other phase because this is a need from the city. I don't think it is illegal to do
that because I think it was contemplated that you amend that you amended that section of the code anyway for that for whatever >> I think there's room for you >> there may be room for both of us to come sir on that particular issue. >> Yes sir.
>> Thanks. All right, not seeing any further discussions, questions, everything's answered. All right, we do have a motion and second on the floor. Everyone knowledgeable what we got on the floor? >> We reread the motion, please. >> Ray, do you have that for us?
>> I believe Mr. I believe Mr. Beagby uh read the uh motion for determination of non-compliance. >> Yes. Um move that uh the proposed plans and
development program for the project Harbor Walkability phase 2 minor deviation to a major development order are not in compliant with the previously approved development orders and must uh proceed through the established review process for a major deviation to a major
development order based on the evidence submitted and findings made of public. >> He modified it. Read it again. >> Okay, >> hit that button. >> I move to find that the applicant is not in compliance with the existing
development orders for the reasons set forth in the staff report and allow the applicant to avail themselves of the options set forth in exhibit A of the staff report, which include applying for a major deviation or returning to
council for an additional compliance review. So they they can come back. They can get with staff. I mean the staff I thought the staff report I agree with Mr. uh Brad I thought they did a great job on their report. You
know my I don't know that everybody has the same exact same set of issues. Mine's the stories the setback you know what I covered. But I think everybody's been very clear what they would like to see. And then to Stephen's point, I I
think y'all have and the staff, I think y'all have a way ahead to get something that we could consider. >> All right. And then I Councilwoman Traml with the second. Is that correct? >> All right. Thank you. All right. With that, and with the motion being reread,
I'll call the vote. >> Mayor, my computer doesn't like my password tonight. >> All right. Um, seeing that this is a quasi, we will just go down the roll just so we are absently
clear. Councilman Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And for the record, uh, Councilwoman Abear, >> abstain. >> But thank you. All right. So, I have one abstension and one, two, three, four,
five. Yay. Uh, the motion passes. And with that, we'll have public comments. Anyone wishing to speak? All right, seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.