Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 05-22-2007 regular agenda — reading text

ON THE DAY OF 69 , 2007. 70 71 72 73 74 75 MIKE ANDERSON, MAYOR 76 77 78 ATTEST: 79 80 81 HELEN A.SPENCER 82 CITY CLERK 83 Approved as to form and legal 84 sufficiency. 85 86 87 88 TONI L. CRAIG 89 CITY ATIORNEY 90 91 92 Note: Deletions are noted by strikethroughs; additions by underlines. 93 94 Codification Instructions: Section II, codified as new section 12. 731. 06 95 Section I, III, IV, V, are not codified. 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA MAY 3, 2007 INTRODUCTION The Regular Meeting ofthe Fort Walton Beach Municipal Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 5: 00 p. m. in the Council Chambers of Fort Walton Beach City Hall with the following members present: Richard Gercak, Chairman; Judith FIasco, Vice- Chairman; Glenda Glover; Lee McDonald; Charles Scott; Bill Wayne; and Janet Wilson. Absent: Howard Hill, Okaloosa County School Board ( Ex- Officio). Also present: Len Mitchell, Long-Range Planning Manager; Toni Craig, City Attorney; and Larry Greene, Chief, Eglin Mission Enhancement Office ( Ex- Officio). CALLTOORDEWROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. MINUTES Mr. Scott moved to approve the April 7, 2007 minutes. Ms. Wilson seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Fiasco, Gercak,Glover, McDonald, Scott, Wayne, and Wilson in favor. ORD. 1724 -CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMIT FLAG POLE GREATER THAN 70' The ordinance was read by title. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE 1724) ( OF THE CITY OF FORT WAL TON BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY; AMENDING ARTICLE 12. 94 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT FLAG POLES AS A CONDITIONAL USE; RESOLVING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Requested by 99 Eglin Ltd. Len Mitchell, Long-Range Planning Manager, recalled the Board heard a presentation at the last meeting and instructed staff to add some purposes to the draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and bring it back for the Board' s consideration. He said since then it was re- reviewed and there is now a more recent version. He handed out copies of an email received this morning from Larry Greene with comments and recommendations on the proposed flag pole ordinance. Mr. Greene reported on the Eglin and Hurlburt comments and recommendations regarding the proposed flag pole ordinance for consideration to be included in the ordinance: 1. The ordinance should clarify max height should be no more than 200 feet above ground level Must avoid a 200 foot flag pole on top of an existing structure). 2. The ordinance must not allow a " cluster" of flag poles. One flag pole will not impact the military mission. However, a " cluster of oversized poles" will create a tall and wide radar and visual/ optical instrumentation impairment. Recommend verbiage to state a density limit of no more than lover- sized pole within a given 1 mile grid square. 3. The ordinance must require FAA approval prior to flag- pole installation. ( For example, FAA and/ or FCC regulations require lighting and alternating color striping on towers at 200 feet.)  Regular MPB meeting 5~3~07 I I ORD. 1724 couto Mr. Mitchell then handed out copies of a revised Ordinance 1724 stamped " Draft MAY 3, 2007 CDS" titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY; AMENDING CHAPTER 12. 731 HEIGHT AND AREA EXCEPTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT FLAG POLES UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AS A CONDITIONAL USE; RESOLVING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Mitchell explained the purpose of the recent draft is primarily to deal more cleanly with those flag poles that were not over the maximum height in the zoning district. He pointed out the proposed additional language beginning on line 41 that would amend the Chapter in the supplemental regulations regarding height and area exceptions by adding a section regarding flag poles that would state " Flag poles are permitted as accessory structures in each zoning district, subject to the height and setback requirements applicable to any accessory structure." He then pointed out the additional language suggested by the City Attorney beginning on line 45 that would state " Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 12. 94 ( which is the chapter that deals with conditional uses), flag poles, up to a maximum of200 feet above ground level, may be considered and authorized as a conditional use in the following zoning districts: all commercial districts, all industrial districts, all mixed- use districts, all redevelopment districts, and in planned unit developments." He explained that the proposed ordinance deals with the entire subject matter of flag poles and where they can be erected in various districts. The question was posed on whether there would be a differentiation between public land and private land. Mr. Mitchell stated there is already a differentiation between public and private land on the Land Use Maps and that is one issue that the Board may want to consider including in the description of those areas of the zoning districts for commercial, etc. He mentioned there are public use categories for community facilities, educational facilities and recreational facilities which should all be included as well, although if owned by the City it would probably be exempt from the regulations. The comment was made that a flag pole of200' would diminish the respective size and area ofthe monument in front of City Hall. Mr.Mitchell noted that any flag pole over the maximum height in the zoning districts that are allowed would have to come before the Board as a conditional use under the ordinance, except they would not be allowed in residential zones. The question was asked on the setback requirements for accessory structures. Mr. Mitchell responded it would vary with the zoning district. The question was posed on how the City would provide protection from inappropriate flags, and whether the ordinance could state to display appropriate flags on property. The City Attorney responded no, and that is the door that is opening by addressing flag poles, it is a matter of free speech and the City cannot infringe upon free speech. She said there are regulations under the United States Code that say how to fly flags but someone cannot be stopped from flying another flag. She confirmed that someone could fly other than the American flag. Page 2 of 8 ReQular MPB meetinQ 5- 3- 07 ORD. 1724 cont. Mr. Mitchell reminded the Board that the situation mentioned already exists and it is not a new situation introduced by the ordinance. He noted the ordinance is not carte blanche for someone to put up a 200'flag pole, they would have to come before the Board to get a conditional use permit for the taller flag poles; so anything over 70' in the zoning districts listed will come before the Board for approval, and less than 70' will be allowed as accessory uses. He said the ordinance is not proposing that everyone fly flags at 200'. The question was asked ifflags at docks are excluded from the restrictions under section 12. 94. The City Attorney replied that is an accessory structure and it is not a problem as long as it does not exceed the height. The question was asked on the height of the tallest existing structure at Uptown Station. Mr. Mitchell replied he was unsure but it would be a one story building. The question was asked whether the conflicting provisions section was needed in the ordinance. The City Attorney explained it is needed as a catch all; however, under the conditional use provisions there are a series of steps that have to be gone through for the analysis and if in analyzing one for conditional use there is a discrepancy between two different provisions of a conditional use and a zoning district, it would be covered in case there is a problem that was not found in the code. Confusion was expressed on the ordinance as written, with the comment that it was written as a general ordinance and it was questioned whether the Board would then need to put the body of the ordinance in as a second motion or whether there it would be put together as one because it refers back to a paragraph in the Land Development Code. Mr. Mitchell stated the City Attorney drafted the ordinance and approved it as re- written. Confusion was then expressed and the question asked whether the Board would make one motion that would now incorporate paragraphs 1 and 2 in the ordinance. The City Attorney explained the Board would make a recommendation that City Council pass Ordinance 1724, draft version May 3, 2007 from CDS. She commented it is a peculiar issue and is something that generally would be incorporated in the overall Land Development Code amendments, but staff is trying to make it work and they have been working on it since the last meeting. She said the version in front ofthe Board marked with the CDS draft is approved, there is no problem, it is her understanding the applicant has seen it and agrees with it, and it also incorporates Mr. Greene' s suggestion regarding the ground level height measurements. Jay Odom, owner of99 Eglin and Uptown Station, stated he would be happy to put a restriction on his conditional use that it will only be an American flag and he believed as the applicant he can volunteer to put that restriction on his application, it cannot be imposed on him but he can volunteer to do it. The question was posed on why 200' if the tallest building in that area is 40 feet and it was commented that individuals have said they do not want to see anything above the tree lines, and people would rather see a church steeple than a flag pole that high. Mr. Odom responded that his original application is for 170' because he would like to do something special for the area that is a tribute to the patriotism and the military, and commented the City' s water tower across the street is 170 feet high. He said to go over 170 feet would require a different style, it would be a monumental increase in the size of the structure and it would be astronomically expensive. He said the 170 foot height would be in sync with the water tower and it can be seen from around the area, and it will be lighted so it can be displayed all the time. Page 3 of 8 RSQular MPB meetinQ 5- 3- 07 ORD. 1724 cont. The question was asked if the flag will fly 24/7 and ifthere would be a spot light sufficiently bright to illuminate it. Mr. Odom stated it will fly 24/7 and to fly it at night correctly it has to be lit, and mentioned it will take approximately three new flags a year to keep it in tip- top shape. Mr. Odom was commended on