Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-14-06 ‎(regular)‎ — reading text

credit for the billboard they lost to redevelopment; so if they do a 2 for 1 exchange on some other billboards, they want that counted toward their ability to put in a new one. She further clarified that as part of the Settlement Agreement, relocation would be Council's decision. The CDS Director continued with the presentation which included staff findings that the modification to the Settlement Agreement is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision Plan of the residents, the CRA vision for the CRA Plan update, the Sign Regulations, and the Land Development Code; and staff's proposal that Council not amend the Settlement Agreement and Council continue to encourage properties in the CRA to redevelop and eliminate the non- conforming structures, and that the City continue to encourage and provide for the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the community character. Special Council 10- 30- 06 105 LAMAR ADVERTISING cont. In response for the request for clarification on the billboards on leased property, the CDS Director explained it is a lease with the property owner and if the property is sold, Lamar can negotiate a lease with the new property owner to keep the sign on the property, as is; and if it is blown down or destroyed, then it cannot be reconstructed. She further explained, under the Settlement Agreement, Lamar can keep the seven existing signs, continue to maintain and repair them due to normal wear and tear, and change the posters periodically, but they cannot tear them down and replace them. Some discussion was held on the repairs that can be made to the signs and the criteria for replacement of a damaged sign. Mark Miller, attorney who represented the City on the sign code disputes, echoed Mr. Livingston' s remarks in that the question is in Council's sole discretion whether or not do it, there is nothing compelling Council to do it. there are no problems with the Code or the Settlement Agreement; there is a request from a member of the public to take some action and it is Council' s decision. He commented the issue about non- conforming signs is not peculiar to Fort Walton Beach, and the concept of a non- conforming use is that there is a use that was permissible when it was put up so it can stay, but it will not be encouraged and the theory is that sooner or later that non- conformity will be gone. He also echoed the comment by Mr. Livingston in that it does not behoove anyone to try to work out the details of any Agreement this evening. He said if Council decides it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Settlement Agreement, or do something else. then they will attempt to arrive at an agreement that will accomplish the purposes. 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 Building Code of 145 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. 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 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 10- 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 Plan, the Vision Plan, and the CRA position that their proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Vision as it eliminates existing signage that is less attractive, incorporates good looking signage into the of City. He said he was directed by his client to advise Council they are willing to go to three signs instead four. He further mentioned the faces of the signs would be available to the City for special event traffic to the best route out of town. He messages, Amber Alerts, or in the event of a hurricane to direct stated it is a very exceptional piece of equipment that the City could have now as opposed to waiting 20, 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 noted specifically changes she made that would allow the City to have a legally sufficient agreement. She non- conforming paragraph 3, page 2, line 52, that according to the code what is being done is changing a 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 if Council chose to sign, which cannot be done. She noted those would not be included in any Agreement will advice as needed. go forward. She advised Council is free to handle the issue as they wish and give 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. want Mr. Minich explained his inability to support the motion because 22 years ago the City said it did not 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. not too Mr. Holmes expressed his respect for the Vision Plan but noted it states ugly/ too many signs, to reduce the signage many billboards. He commented they have done a tremendous job be good for Mr.Holmes explained his support of the motion to keep the City moving in a direction that will everything as a whole. Mr. Campbell expressed his inability to support the motion. 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 modifying the settlement 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 they can repair to a certain degree, maintain and operate, and staff can apply code enforcement if necessary. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8: 50 p. m. APPROVED: MAYOR: ATTEST: CITY CLERK ddm  CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 14, 2006 Consent Agenda Consideration of a request to amend the " Plan of Operations 2006" for the NWF Fair Association City Manager)