Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 01-22-08 regular agenda — reading text

approve the Development Order as presented in the document. She submitted the staff report for the record. It was questioned whether the comments in the memoranda are not requirements. The CDS Director explained the requirements in all the memoranda stated as requirements will have to be met. She thought the applicant had concern with the CDS /CRA memorandum dated 10 -31 -07 where there was discussion about pulling the building forward and some of the pedestrian friendly items. She said those were just discussion items, not requirements.  Regular Council 1 - 8 -08 272 SITE PLAN APPROVAL cont. The CDS Director said the basic site plan is what Council is approving, there are no major changes, but before the building permit can be issued there are a lot of technical items that are not part of a site plan that have to be met, and that is what the DRC is presenting to the applicant so their engineers and architects are aware of specific items that will need to be included in the building permit application. It was requested that the applicant affirm their agreement with the Development Order and have a Mr. Carter stated they clear understanding of what are conditions and what -are requirements. have no problem meeting the requirements shown in the memos and thought the CDS Director summarized their position very well. Clarification was requested that Council is only talking about at this time approving the Development Order with the conditions a -f of # 7 Prior to issuance of a building permit and with the conditions a -b of # 8 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The CDS Director explained the Development Order is conditioned on each of the DRC memoranda which are all technical requirements that will have to be met, and those are also part of the Development Order. She noted Mr. Carter said they have no issue with any of those technical requirements. In response to the question on whether or not the applicant understands and agrees to the DRC memoranda, Mr. Carter stated the reason for the 11 - 19 -07 revised plan is a result of the DRC memoranda, and they have no problem with the requirements in the memoranda. He said it was the discussion about major site plan changes that gives them concern and asked if there was some language that could clarify that that was not intended. The CDS Director said there would be no objection to strike from the Development Order in # 1 the language " and CDS /CRA Memorandum dated 10/ 31/ 07 ". She said there are no specific conditions within that memo that are in addition to anything that is not already stated. She thought that would clarify everything for the applicant, it is not substantive as far as anything being presented. Mr. Carter acknowledged that would satisfy their requirement. It was questioned whether the DRC memoranda are references to complying with the City ordinances and regulations. The CDS Director acknowledged it is to enforce the ordinances and regulations of the City and State. The Mayor opened the floor for questions from the public. As no one wished to speak, the public question portion was closed. Mr. Hartwell moved to approve the Development Order with the conditions stated, to include the change in the Development Order which strikes " and CDS /CRA Memorandum dated 10/ 31/ 07 ".Mr. Minich seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor. PUBLIC HEARING: ORD. 1749 —AMENDING BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS The City Attorney read the ordinance by title. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8. 01. 15, DELINQUENT TAX CHARGE, OF CHAPTER 8. 01 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO CONFORM WITH RECENT CHANGES BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO CHAPTER 205, FLORIDA STATUTES; AMENDING THE DATE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS SHALL BE SOLD FROM AUGUST 1 OF EACH YEAR TO JULY 1 OF EACH YEAR; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.  Regular Council 1 - 8 -08 273 ORD. 1749 cont. The Mayor opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed. Mr. Garvie moved to adopt Ord. 1749 on second reading. Dr. Pullen seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor. PUBLIC HEARING: ORD. 1748 —EXPAND DEFINITION OF LANDMARK SIGN The City Attorney read the ordinance by title. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR, AUTHORITY; AMENDING SECTION 12. 20, DEFINITIONS, TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF LANDMARK SIGN; AMENDING SECTION 12. 82. 04, LANDMARK SIGNS, TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW DEFINITION; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The CDS Director stated based on direction from Council there is a proposed ordinance that defines landmark signs and provides additional language that a landmark sign is unique, has historic value, is associated with one or more historic figures, events, or places, or is considered significant as evidence of the history of the product, business, or service advertised. She mentioned that the definition addressed the situation that was at hand at the time and also provided the City with a broader and more specific definition of a landmark sign defining exactly what it could represent. She noted based on the Code, Council may identify a landmark sign by resolution and language was taken out that stated " so long as such sign is an on premises sign that is a prominent feature of the streetscape" as that did not give much direction to Council on exactly what is a landmark sign. She felt the definition will give Council guidance on what could or could not be considered a landmark sign if someone requested Council make a designation. She mentioned the Municipal Planning Board by a 3 to 1 vote recommended approval of the Ordinance. She mentioned her understanding that the original request has found an alternate location for the Coca Cola bottle they wanted designated as a landmark sign and will probably not use the revision; however, there has been another request for a landmark sign if it is adopted. She mentioned Council would need to consider if this is something they want to have added to the ordinance in order to allow them to, with some guidance, designate landmark signs. She noted the definition includes not only existing signs but new signs, and whether new signs are actually a landmark is a question of policy for Council. She noted in the staff report that the City Manager did not concur but it is presented to Council based on direction to present a change in the ordinance that would address the concerns presented to Council. The CDS Director confirmed that a landmark sign as defined in the ordinance now was a pre- existing condition and a new landmark sign would have a historical significance as determined by Council. She also confirmed that McDonald' s has expressed interest in applying if the ordinance is adopted. It was questioned why the landmark signs that no longer exist for First City Bank and Islander's Surf & Sport were not deleted from the ordinance. The CDS Director explained staff was concentrating on just the revision to deal with the direction of City Council. The Mayor opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed. The City Manager explained she did not concur with staff recommendation at this time because when it was presented to her Mr. Ring indicated they were thinking of placing the sign on the roof; however, she read in today's paper that might not be the plan. She said if there is no standing issue she did not recommend bringing it forward. Quo, Dr. Pullen moved to adopt Ord. 1748 on first reading. Mr. Hartwell seconded motion.  Regular Council 1 - 8 -08 274 ORD. 1748 cont. Mr. Miller moved to amend Ord. 1748, Section III, paragraph 1 to delete those signs that no longer exist, the Islander' s Surf & Sport monument sign and fiberglass shark and the First City Bank electronic time and temperature sign. Mr. Hartwell seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion to adopt Ord. 1748 as amended and it carried by a vote of 6 to 1 with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, and Hartwell in favor and Minich opposed. AWARD FROM HOMELAND SECURITY Consideration of a request to accept an award from the Department of Homeland Security, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program. Mike Dutton, Fire Chief, said the Fire Department will receive two items from the grant. He explained one is a four -gas meter that will sense if there is gas and how volatile it is, and the second detector will allow them to ' shoot an unknown item with a laser to identify the product through the walls of the container. He said both detectors are advanced of what the department currently has and they are free. He explained the grant was advertised to all the haz mat teams and although they do not have a haz mat team but are part of a haz mat team, they applied, as well as the haz mat team, and the fire department received it: Mr. Minich moved to accept the grant from the Department of Homeland Security, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program. Mr. Reeves seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor. CRA FUNDS TO PURCHASE TWO LOTS Consideration of a bequest to use CRA funds to purchase two lots at 110 and 112 Methodist Avenue for the construction of two Habitat for Humanity homes and reimburse Habitat for Humanity for these purchases. If approved, sufficient funds are available in the CRA Fund. The CDS Director noted the CRA Board recommended approval. In response to the question on the amount of money, the CDS Director replied they do not have an exact figure at this time but there is a cap of up to $ 175, 000.00 for both lots which will include reimbursement up to the appraised value of $ 135, 000 plus costs of the appraisal, survey, title work, closing fees and demolition costs. It was questioned why the item was on the consent agenda with an expenditure of up to $ 175, 000. The City Manager replied it was part of the budget. It was noted that the market value in 2007 was $ 127, 000 and it was questioned why the City is paying above the market value. Nitsi Bennett, President/ CEO for Habitat for Humanity, said the property has been appraised at 135,000; within three months it went down around $ 40,000. She said initially when they spoke with Ms. Sledge it was sitting at $ 160,