Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 10-30-06 special minutes — reading text

In response to the question on the payback life span of a monopole, Mr. Livingston replied the life span is 10- 12 years to recoup the cost. He showed an architectural rendering of a monopole sign and commented the structure is attractive, will take care of problems with aesthetics and safety, and it will withstand wind load requirements under the Florida Code of 145 Building mph. Doug Reed, 842 Santa Rosa Court and owner of Merlin' s downtown, spoke in favor of reaching a compromise that would best serve the community, and expressed his position that it is an opportunity to get rid of ugly signs and improve the visual aesthetics of the community, and provide information during times of an emergency. Millie Thrush, 316 Sudduth Circle, mentioned the citizens do not want clutter, and the existing billboards will eventually be removed faster by attrition than monopoles that will last longer. She predicted if a billboard were allowed at the Yacht Club that there would be an uproar from the neighborhood. Susan Myers, 31 Bay Drive SE, implored Council to keep the Vision Plan in mind and the legal fees that have already been spent to reach an agreement. Jackie Hale, 619 Cambridge Avenue, commented natural attrition has been shown to work and asked Council not to consider the proposal presented from Lamar. r i Elliott Mitchell, 187 Brooks Street, owner of the property where one sign is located on the easement by Brooks Bridge, mentioned the billboard will be there forever. He did not dispute their I right to have the sign there but commented the first thing seen when coming over the bridge is two ugly signs. He expressed his view that a monopole is an attractive sign, it is part of redevelopment, and where it can be located on his lot will allow him to develop his property with more parking. He stated he plans to landscape, place in sidewalks, curbs, and gravel, to make it attractive and then there will be two ugly signs. He commented the proposal represents an opportunity to reduce the number of ugly signs that he would not like to see for the next 25-30 years. Charlene Greenwald, 206 Jet Drive, encouraged Council to remember there is a vision for the City that does not include visual clutter. There was no one further from the public who wished to speak.  1 0 Gpecial Council 1 0- 30- 06 LAMAR ADVERTISING cont. Mr. Livingston provided a copy of a letter from Craig Barrett and Jayme Nabors, co-owners of NBI Properties downtown that spoke in support of the proposal from Lamar. He further stated it is Lamar' s position that their proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision Plan, and the CRA Vision as it eliminates existing signage that is less attractive, incorporates good looking signage into the City. He said he was directed by his client to advise Council they are willing to go to three signs instead of four. He further mentioned the faces of the signs would be available to the City for special event 11 1,' messages, Amber Alerts, or in the event of a hurricane to direct traffic to the best route out of town. He i" w."",:',.,.". stated it is a very exceptional piece of equipment that the City could have now as opposed to waiting 20, 411 H~ 30, or 40 years for attrition that may not occur. He respectfully requested Council to give favorable consideration to direct staff and the City Attorney to work with them to develop an agreement to bring back to Council. The City Attorney received confirmation there was no objection to the letter from Craig Barrett and Jayme Nabors presented by Mr. Livingston being entered into the record. The CDS Director offered for the record emails received from Diana Moore and Jerry Moore who are both opposed to billboards and to Council reconsidering any changes. The City Attorney received confirmation there was no objection to the emails being entered into the record. The City Attorney explained she provided a copy of the Modification to Settlement Agreement with some changes she made that would allow the City to have a legally sufficient agreement. She noted specifically paragraph 3, page 2, line 52, that according to the code what is being done is changing a non- conforming use and therefore, including all the zoning districts in any proposal would not be legally sufficient. She noted another significant change is paragraph 10, page 4, line 95- 96 states an off premises sign constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement shall be classified as a legal conforming sign, which cannot be done. She noted those would not be included in any Agreement if Council chose to go forward. She advised Council is free to handle the issue as they wish and will give advice as needed. Mr. Tucker moved to direct staff to move forward to work out an agreement for Modification to Settlement Agreement. Mr. Patterson seconded motion. Mr. Tucker expressed his view on the opportunity to have nice looking signs rather than what is there now. Mr. Patterson expressed his view on the opportunity to create signs in the City that are more pleasing, and the importance of being provided an Amber Alert service. Mr. Minich explained his inability to support the motion because 22 years ago the City said it did not want billboards and it still does not want billboards. Mr. Hartwell explained in making his decision he balanced it against the Vision Plan and cannot support the motion. Mr. Holmes expressed his respect for the Vision Plan but noted it states ugly/too many signs, not too many billboards. He commented they have done a tremendous job to reduce the signage Mr. Holmes explained his support of the motion to keep the City moving in a direction that will be good for everything as a whole. Mr. Campbell expressed his inability to support the motion. 11 Special Council 1 0- 30- 06 107 LAMAR ADVERTISING cont. Mr. Mark Miller expressed his understanding that the motion is to move forward with an amendment to the Settlement Agreement, which may be too narrow and Council may wish to leave it broader. The Mayor stated the motion is to direct staff to move forward with the settlement modifying agreement. Mr. Miller expressed a modification of the Settlement Agreement may not be the best way to achieve it. The City Attorney advised the motion is acceptable. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion to direct staff to move forward to work out an agreement for Modification to Settlement Agreement and it failed by a vote of 3 to 4 with Holmes, Patterson, and Tucker in favor, and Campbell, Hartwell, Minich and the Mayor opposed. The Mayor explained he voted against the motion because he agreed the citizens do not want signs, and he did not want signs. Mr. Tucker expressed his desire to direct staff to work out a solution to the dilemma of the dilapidated signs. The City Attorney advised the Settlement Agreement did not take the signs out of the Code Enforcement issue, which staff can address. She noted it is a difficult issue as to a certain they can repair degree, maintain and operate, and staff can apply code enforcement if necessary. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8: 50 p. m. APPROVED: ~~ MAYOR: It r AMST: CITY CLERK ddm