Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 02-23-2010 special — reading text

e L MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA BUSINESS RETENTION PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FEBRUARY 23, 2010 INTRODUCTION A special meeting of the City Council of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, was held on Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at 5: 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, with the following members present: Mayor Mike Anderson Councilmen: Mike Holmes, Dennis Reeves, Bill Garvie, Bobby Nabors, Bill Patterson, and Dick Rynearson Seat 2 - vacant Also Present: Robert Mearns, City Manager; Helen Spencer, City Clerk; Toni Craig, City Attorney; Department Directors and Media CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He requested anyone who wished to address Council to approach the podium after being recognized, then state his or her name and address for the record. MOMENT OF SILENCE /PLEDGE The Mayor asked everyone to join him in a moment of silence in honor of Councilman Virgil Miller 20th. who passed away Saturday, February The Mayor then led in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Reeves moved to approve the agenda as the business of the day. Mr. Garvie seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, Patterson, and Rynearson in favor (Seat 2 vacant). BUSINESS RETENTION PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Business Retention Panel ( BRP) Recommendations Implementation Plan. The City Manager went through a power point presentation on the items in the BRP recommendations. He reported of the nine recommendations three have been in progress since inception of the Panel, one is currently under study for future consideration, two need Council direction, and three are policy matters for Council to decide. The City Manager went over the recommendations that are work in progress and require no action of Council. He reported the recommendation to implement plans in the Land Development Code to offer flexibility and incentives for redevelopment upon certain conditions is part of the Land Development Code updating process currently in progress; the recommendation to maximize the incentive potential of the CRA to encourage private reinvestment with proper cost/ benefit analysis has been under consideration by staff and presented to the CRA for comment and action; and the recommendation to adopt an economic incentives program that encourages industries to relocate within the City limits is part of the Economic Implementation Plan under analysis by the Economic Advisory Group and is also part of the Comprehensive Plan process in implementing the eleven strategic planning areas. Special Council 2/ 23/ 10 BRP RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN cont. The City Manager then went over the two recommendations staff believe to be high priority that will expedite the development review and permitting process and requests direction from Council. The first recommendation is to expand the category for expedited and minor projects in order to increase staff level review and approval authority because preparing items for Board review requires time and resources which cost both the developer and the taxpayer; and the second recommendation is to re- evaluate the adopted comprehensive fee schedule to allow for incentives and fee waivers or reductions for new development and redevelopment, with. criteria established that is based on qualitative cost/ benefit analyses such as money generated through construction activity, increased taxes, and additional jobs created. The City Manager went: over the recommendation that is currently under study to review the activities, ordinances, the membership, and the qualifications for membership on the Historic Sites and Structures Advisory Board. He reported the Board is looking for grant funds to conduct another analysis of historic sites and structures in the City and update the map that identifies archaeological sensitive sites; and staff is seeking insight from the Archaeological Institute of UWF on how to proceed to update the map and how to create criteria for identifying a historic structure. He discussed the issues with the demolition permitting process and the regulatory authority of the Board that should not regulate and control, and the need to review the history of the Board, the original enabling ordinance of the Board as an advisory Board, the membership, and qualifications of membership on the Board. He said this will be revisited for further action after he meets with the City Attorney to discuss reducing the scope of the Board and he and staff meet with the Archaeological Institute at UWF on Thursday. The City Manager then went over the three recommendations that are policy decisions that lie within the realm of City Council. He reported the first recommendation is to amend the City' s Land Development Code to remove the development review authority of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) as it adds time to a development application that has little or no value added. Some discussion included agreement that CRA review does slow down the process and it costs the developers money, and goes beyond the scope of their mission. The City Attorney advised to remove the CRA from the site plan review process will require an ordinance to go before the Municipal Planning Board then City Council for two readings. The City Manager went over the second recommendation that City Council should perform the functions of the CRA Board because there is a perception that the CRA Board has become something larger than originally intended by having the ability to review plans for development and as structured has slowed down development. Some discussion included comments that the CRA is an important tool and the Board serves a valid purpose; that the Board' s input is valuable; that Council reviews and approves the CRA budget; and that eliminating the CRA review of projects will streamline the process and remove the need to take over the rest of the authority of the CRA. The City Manager went over the third recommendation that City Council should review the existing sign ordinance, which establishes that all nonconforming signs must conform to the City' s sign ordinance by July 12, 2011, as it is an economic hardship on businesses at the present time.  91 Special Council 2/ 23/ 10 BRP RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN cont. The City Attorney advised the issue has been long running and mentioned the litigation with Lamar Signs over the ordinance that set into place that all signs should be in conformance by 2011. She mentioned another issue in the litigation and the settlement included an agreement to review the sign ordinance every two years. She said in this situation the best thing for the City would be to review the sign ordinance and come back with suggestions on how to address the issue. She also mentioned there was an amendment to the final settlement that changed the initial amortization schedule for certain billboards. She said this is a big issue and it will affect all the businesses that have signs older than 2001. Some discussion included comments that minor modifications to signs require an upgrade to the 2011 standards; that the cost is exorbitant and unrealistic; and it is important this issue be worked on now. The City Attorney noted there are two different issues which make the sign code very complicated. She said if certain changes are made which are stated in the code, then they have to conform to the current code, which is different than the sign litigation on Highway 85 and 98. She said the bottom line is during litigation the City agreed to go through a sign review every two years, which is where they are right now, and that sign ordinance review will help with some of the issues. She confirmed that Council can extend the amortization date to when they want, within State Statutes. The City Manager thanked the members of the Business Retention Panel for a great job and he acknowledged Michael Beedie, Tim Bolduc, and Samantha Abell for a great job in providing support to the Panel. He believed the Panel exposed the City to what the people are feeling and thinking so staff could bring it to Council for action. The Mayor opened the floor for public comment Brian Rosales, 412 Holmes Blvd, discussed the recommendation on incentives and cautioned Council to be careful about the public /private partnerships and the incentives given to developers. Tom Rice, former Vice -Chairman of the Business Retention Panel thanked City Council for the opportunity to serve on the panel, and thanked the City Manager and staff for their guidance with an open canvas to review everything to identify opportunities and obstacles. There were no further public comments. Mr. Nabors to moved authorizeCity Manager and staff to proceed with the the recommendation to expand the category for expedited and minor projects in order to increase staff level review and approval authority; and to re- evaluate the adopted comprehensive fee schedule to allow for incentives and fee waivers or reductions for new development and redevelopment. Mr. Rynearson seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, kw Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, Patterson, and Rynearson in favor (Seat 2 vacant). Mr. Nabors moved to amend the Land Development Code to remove the development review authority of the Community Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Reeves seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, Patterson, and Rynearson in favor Seat 2 vacant). Special Council 2/ 23/ 10 BRP RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN cont. Mr. Reeves moved to review the existing sign ordinance, as soon as is possible, to include a review of the July 2011 timeline. Mr. Holmes seconded motion. Mr. Garvie moved to hold any sign ordinance changes in abeyance until a new ordinance is in effect. Motion died for lack of a second. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion to review the existing sign ordinance, as soon as is possible, to include a review of the July 2011 timeline and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, Patterson, and Rynearson in favor (Seat 2 vacant). ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5: 50 p.m. PPP MAYOR: ATTE T: C Y CLERK 554