Developer briefs council on HarborWalk Village Phase 2 entitlements, parking and traffic concerns

Developers of HarborWalk Village and their legal team briefed the Destin City Council on the history and conceptual plan for Phase 2 of the HarborWalk Village project on April 21, responding to council questions about entitlements, parking, traffic and public benefits.

Dana Matthews, local counsel for the developer, led a historical review of earlier development orders, amendments and project approvals dating back to the original development order and multiple later amendments. Matthews said the project’s zoning entitlements and ‘‘building envelope’’ were established under prior council approvals (documents cited on the record by Matthews) and that the current Phase 2 plan is intended to stay within those previously vested limits, including height and density caps in the development order.

Key points in the presentation and follow-up council discussion:

- Entitlements and history: The team described multiple prior approvals, amendments and technical reviews completed over many years. Matthews said the current Phase 2 entitlements were established under a prior development order and that the present submission is a resubmittal under the allowed envelope for the east 9-acre portion of the site.

- Parking and shared‑use calculations: The developer’s team summarized prior parking studies and verification work done in 2015 and reverified in 2018. Those studies found approximately 1,146 existing parking spaces on site in 2015, which the team said at that time was 72 spaces greater than the requirement for built uses. The developer said additional conversion of commercial to motel rooms in a later amendment reduced the excess but that the project remains vested with current parking calculations. Matthews said the Phase 2 parking garage is anticipated to provide “approximately 500 more than what were required for our entire site” and that the first subphase of Phase 2 is expected to be a parking garage wrapped by motel-style units. Councilmembers repeatedly asked for updated floor‑by‑floor garage plans and an exact parking-space count; the developer said architectural design contracts had just been executed and that a numerical count would be available when final design drawings are prepared.

- Traffic and intersection improvements: Council members emphasized the Stallman/Harbor Boulevard intersection as a key traffic issue. The developer said they are coordinating with the city, Baskerville & Donovan (consultants), and FDOT to improve approaches off the bridge and internal circulation in the project; the developer suggested that additional turn lanes and a new drive aisle at the bridge approach would help reduce queuing. Multiple council members said the eastern turn lane coming off the bridge should be in place before expanded parking is opened to the public.

- Public benefits and boardwalk/tunnel: Matthews reiterated that the development order had included multimodal credits and public‑benefit commitments; the developer said they have voluntarily offered public benefits such as public parking and easement support for a boardwalk connection. The developer told council they would provide easements and design support for a pedestrian connection across U.S. 98 if the city chooses an overpass or tunnel option and that they will cooperate with grant applications for pedestrian infrastructure.

Council members pressed on specifics: how many public spaces will be dedicated versus required spaces for the development, whether employees will have dedicated on‑site parking and when intersection improvements would be installed. The developer answered that many details were conceptual at this stage and must be finalized in the design phase; staff and the developer said those final designs will be subject to technical reviews (stormwater, traffic, building permit) and minor development-order amendment procedures.

Council members requested updated, verified parking counts, a parking‑garage floor‑by‑floor plan when available, and firm assurances on the timing of the eastern turn lane and other traffic mitigations. Several members flagged the shared‑parking credits the project used in past approvals and said they will look for those conditions to be met while the city and developer work on pedestrian/traffic solutions.

The council did not take a formal vote on Phase 2 at this meeting; the session was a question‑and‑answer and informational update requested by staff so councilmembers could review long‑standing entitlements and ask follow‑up questions before any amendment or final design submittal.