Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 10-30-06 ‎(special)‎ — reading text

7 billboard structures remain as nonconforming structures 11 12 3  CITY OF FORT WALTON RESIDENTS' STATEMENTS CH' s VISION ON SIGNAGE The City of Fort Walton Beach is a small, 4--" . 1 ~~;,:, p'.."'. 1994 Vision Plan: family oriented seaside community that Community Liability; Ugly{Too Many Signs boasts of its historical downtown, Goal: Oear the City of visual dutter: poor signage, utilities, trash, ugly buildings technology research park and adjacent 2004 Vision Plan: military bases. Enhance the visual quality" UglyT{ oo Many Signs ranked THIRD in Community Liabilities Beautify arterial and major collector roadways" Goal: A City dear of visual dutter, I. e., poor signage, utilities, trash, ugly buildings 13 REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WHY SEITLE FOR NON- ARD SITES OF BIL~ B<? CON!_<?~ BILLBOARDS 1 f\1ING Location Redev. Lease Zoning Sides No new billboards have been permitted since 1984 Potential Existing billboards must be maintained for safety Existing billboards may not be Improved or replaced 3 Eglin SE ( 5 of Hollywood) High - CRA Yes C-2 1 5 are located on leased property with a high potential to 29 Eglin SE ( S of Perry) High - CRA Yes C-2 2N; 15 redevelop; lis located on property with a pending sates contract; 1 is located on an easement for the blllooard. 252 MSP SE ( S Side of Brooks Parking Iot- Ease- MUMS 4 6 are located In the CRA which is in the process of Bridge) CRA ment redeveloping Yes MUMS 2 A billboard Is not complimentary, compatible, or Sl MSP SE ( FISh Mkt) High - CRA condudve to new development 13 MSP SW ( W of Beal) High - CRA Yes HC 2 If LAMAR is permitted to replace billboards on existing 407 MSP SW ( Oty limits) High - Sale Yes HC 2 sites, then the site will be less likely to redevelop In a pending manner antidpated by the CRA Plan 206 Brooks St. SE High - CRA Yes MUMS 2 15 4  LAMAR' s PROPOSED AMENDMENT STAFF FINDINGS J..." PErmits 4 billboards each with 2 faces not exceeding 400 sq. ft. The modification to the Settlement each, monopole not higher tlJan 55' ( per agreement) All new structures are legal confonnlng SIgns Agreement: Faces may be changed at Intervals by electronic, mechanICal or by Is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan remote control Each may be constructed, reconstructed, or relocated Is not consistent with the Vision Plan of the Design standards per Exhibit A ( not cooSlstent with proposed residents of the my agreement): 25' tall with a 15' pole and 10' high by 22. 5 size sign 225 sq. ft.) Is not consistent with the CRA vision for the CRA PermItted In HS C- 2, M- 1, M- 2, MUCC- 1, MUCC- 2, MUMS, MUM- 24, Plan update MUM- 1S, EF, 0::., and yc. Provides a credit for LAMAR to replace the billboard removed at Is not consistent with the Sign Regulations and Sunrise or to amvey it to a 3"'party. land Development Code 17 18 Jl STAFF PROPOSAL The Comprehensive Plan states: " The City shall encourage and provide for the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the community' s character..."(Land Use Objective A.4.) Staff proposes that Oty Council NOT amend the settlement Agreement. Staff recommends that City Council continue to encourage properties in the CRA to redevelop and eliminate the non- conforming structures. 5  ATTACHMENT A Original Settlement Agreement  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND POR.OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA LAMAR TEXAS LIMITED P A+tTNERSHIP d/b/ a LAMAR ADVERTISING OF FORT WALTON. Plain1lff: CASE NO. 00- 202- CA vs. CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, Defendant. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Plaintiff. LAMAR TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/ a LAMAR ADVERTISING OF FORT WALTON ( hereinafter " Lamar"), by and through its undersigned attorney, ~ d Defendant, CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH (hereinafter City"), by and through its undersignedattomey, hereby jointly stipulate and agree to enter into this Settlement Agreement of the above- styled cause of action as follows: 1. Lamar and the City shall execute the Joint Motion. (copy attached hereto, hereinafter " Joint Motion") and file the same with the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. IDOO- 2487..  2. Upon entry of an order by the 1st D. C. A. granting the relief set forth in the Joint and the approval and ratification of this Settlement Agreement by the Circuit Motion., Court, Lamar and.the City stipulate and agree as follows: . a. Eight billboard structures owned by Lamar are loca.ted on F ederal- Aid Primary Highways (" FAP Structures"), and eight billboard structures owned by Lamar are deral- aid highways. located on non-f~ The non- federal- aid highway structures are identified on Exhibit " AS! attached hereto. The FAP Structures are identified in Exhibit En attached hereto. b. i) the date the 1st D. C. A. grants Withi.n 90 days from the later of, ( the. relief referenced in paragraph 2 above, or ( if) the. date the Circuit Court approves and t,ifes ra. this Settlement Agreement, Lamar shall remove the eight billboard structures identified on Exhibit " A" which are located on non- federal- aid highways. c. Lamar' s eight billboard structures located on F AP bighways Exhibit " B") are subject to the provisions of g479. 15( 2), FIa. Stat. (2001), as that section is presently worded; provided,however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to contractually require the City' s compliance with that statutory proVlslon if it is subsequently repealed or amended. d. ' Lamar shall dismiss with. prejudi.ce, or cause to be promptly dismissed. with prejudice, the following pending litigation styled as: Brown. Brown & Brown. et aI. v. City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Case No. 00- 2763- CA, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida; and R.Christensen D et a1 v. Municipal Code EnfoTcement Board of the City of Fort Walton. S& Root., 2 Beac~ Flori~ Case Numbers 00- 2527- CA through 00- 2S34-CA, challenging the City' s Sign Code and the implementation of the Sign Code. Lamar shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any cl~ loss or judgment of any kind, including atto11leys' fees and costs, resulting from or incurred in the following 'pending litigation styled as: Brown, Brown & Brown. et aI. v. City of Fort Walton Florida, Case No. 00- 2763. Beach.. CA, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida; and ~ Christensen & S & D Root, et a1 v. Municipal Code Enforcement Board of the City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Case Numbers OO. 2527- CA through 00- 2534- CA, in the event Lamar fails to dismiss or cause the dismissal of said litigation as provided herein. e. . Tbe City sha.1l dismiss with prejudice, and vacate and waive any fines or penalties which have accru.ed ~ all pending Code Enforcement proceedings involving any of the sixteen structures identified in Exhibits " A" and " B" attached hereto. 3. Lamar agrees to release the City from any claim which it had, or now