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

his effort and an apology was expressed that he has had to go through hoops to get a flag pole put up. The question was asked on what provisions will be made to keep children from trying to climb the pole. Mr. Odom said there is nothing on the outside of the pole and was unsure how it could be climbed, and he would not be opposed to putting a ring around it 20 feet off the ground so they cannot get to it. The question was asked on what provisions will be made to make sure lightening does not skip and electrocute anyone under the shelter of the buildings in the children' s playground. Mr. Odom stated the flag pole provides more protection because not only does the base contain several tons of steel that acts as a grounding rod but in the bottom of the hole there is an additional grounding rod so that the flag pole is extremely well grounded and iflightening were to hit it the lightening would go straight into the ground. He said the code is very strict on electrical grounding for the structure. It was commented that people have asked why Mr. Odom wants to put the flag pole there and why it is not put with the present memorial that is already here ( City Hall), and it would not be a problem because it would be on a public land and would not create a mushroom effect. The comment was made that the way the ordinance is written that within 1 mile other businesses could not have one. The question was asked on how to address that problem and if Mr.Odom had an objection to putting it there. Mr. Odom stated it is his money and he wants to put it where he wants it. In response to the question on the real reason for putting it there, Mr. Odom stated he wants it on his property, ifhe is going to spend his money to do it he wants it to be his tribute to the military. He said he is not interested in spending his money to put it down here for it to be the City' s tribute to the military. He wants to have a statement that he is patriotic and has a love for the country and ifhe is going to spend a huge sum of money to do it, he wants it to be on his location. The question was asked why it had to be higher when they have gone through six years of study on heights and fought the height problem because the City Council came back to them and said to keep anything below the tree heights, and it was asked why Mr. Odom had an objection to staying below 70'. Mr. Odom stated he did not agree with the City' s height limit, he did not like it and did not like it when it was done, and he has a different viewpoint on height. The comment was made it is a flag, not a building, and it will be beautiful flying in the air. The Chairman asked if there was any public input. Bob Rettie, 317 Sudduth Circle, expressed admiration for everything Mr. Odom has done to improve the community. He expressed concern on the one flag pole per square mile and his belief that the laws should apply equally to all citizens and if Mr. Odom gets one then the rest in that mile will not have equal opportunity. There was no one else from the public who wished to speak. Page 4 of 8 ReQular MPB meetinq 5- 3- 07 ORD. 1724 cont. Mr. Scott moved to recommend to City Council approval of Ord. 1724, draft May 3, 2007 CDS. Ms. Glover seconded motion. Comments included that it is putting the Board in a position of trying to overcome a problem of height limitation; that if one is allowed then someone else will come along and there will be a mushroom city; that the military mission is more important than having one flag; if the flag were moved down here where it is with the other area it would be supported; and if an exception is made for one the other citizens will want one and then there is a problem on their hands. The question was asked of the City Attorney that if a flag pole was approved at that height if it would open the door for buildings to be built that tall. The City Attorney responded no, they could not. She explained it is being looked at as an accessory structure; the size of a flag pole as it being a structure, it is not a building. She said when the Comprehensive Plan talks about maximum heights, it talks about maximum building heights, and it does not refer to any other structures. Mrs. FIasco asked the City Attorney if she could abstain from the vote because she is in favor of flags of integrity and not in favor of other types of flags. The City Attorney replied no. Discussion was held on height limitations and comments included there are already the regulations on structures 60' or 70' and a flag pole is a structure, and it would have to come to the Board as a modification, that all the federal cemeteries have up to a 60' flag on a 60' pole, and the ceiling for structures should be left as it is. The City Attorney commented that the building heights came from the study but there is a May 3rd opinion from the ex- officio member that says 200 feet is not a problem with a flag pole and the conditions the military suggested, and she takes that as the military' s position. She said the conditions about oversized poles within one mile do not restrict anyone from going up to the limit within the area. She said this is not just an amendment that affects Uptown Station, which is why it was expanded to all districts, they are not looking at just one person' s property, they are looking at the entire City and there are places that are more than one mile where they can imagine a taller structure. She stated the focus is not just on this one applicant because he is bringing something forward that applies throughout the City. Further discussion included comments that if it is allowed for the applicant then no one within 1 mile radius cannot put up a flag pole ofthat height; that there is a restriction to the other people; it would create a quagmire with future problems. In response to the comment that anyone can ask to put up a flag pole as long as it does not go over the 200' the City Attorney explained as long as it did not exceed the height in that district. She noted the military recommendation is a limit of no more than lover-sized poles, which meant exceeding the height limits. Mr. Greene explained if the ordinance is passed, what the military would not want to happen is for someone within the 1 mile radius of Uptown Station who would want to put up a 200' flag pole, or someone who would want to put up poles for all 50 states, which would cause a problem. Page 5 of 8 Regular MPB meetinQ 5- 3- 07 ORD. 1724 cont. Mr. Mitchell pointed out there is no requirement in the ordinance to limit anything to one mile, that is one of the considerations the Board would make upon an application but it is not a criteria. In response to the comment that perhaps it should be made as part of the criteria. The City Attorney stated that it should not as that is the purpose of a conditional use on a property, the use is particular to that parcel and a lot of issues have to be taken into consideration and the code already sets those out. She said between staff and the Board, they will be considering what the conditions are on that property. In response to the question on where it would be in writing so that future Boards are aware ofit, the City Attorney stated it is in writing for the conditional uses because it says it has to comply with all laws and be consistent with the area, so there are some that are currently in the conditional use requirements already and then there is the catch all that says and anything else that is necessary. The question was asked where the I mile radius would be in writing. The City Attorney explained it would be in the Board' s approval ofthe conditional use and the Board will see it when the application comes to the Board. The question was asked where it could be caught if there are two applications and it is not included in the applications. The City Attorney stated that the Board would point it out to staff, and staff will have to have a complete process of approving and analyzing flag poles and it is better left as a conditional use and the Board will be the final approval authority for the conditional use permit. She said if the Board sees something they are not satisfied with they would be able to ask staffand the applicant to bring it to the Board, and the military will have to be involved in it because of the height. Ms. Glover called for the question. The Chairman challenged the question and asked ifthe Board was in favor of calling for the question or if there were further questions on the issue. The Chairman called for the vote on taking a vote and it failed by a vote of 2 to 5 with Glover and Scott in favor and FIasco, Gercak, McDonald, Wayne, and Wilson opposed. It was commented that the military requested the ordinance not to allow a cluster offlag pole and that it be put in the ordinance that they cannot put in more than one pole in a 1 mile grid area, and it is not in the ordinance. The City Attorney advised that it not be done because as a conditional use process the Board will cover those, the Board has a greater ability to control the use under the conditional use criteria. The Chairman called for the vote on the motion to recommend to City Council approval of Ord. 1724, draft May 3, 2007 CDS and it failed by a vote of 3 to 4 with Fiasco, Glover, and Scott in favor and Gercak, McDonald, Wayne, and Wilson opposed. The City Attorney stated it will still go forward to City Council. Mr. Odom stated there is an option now in the Code, as an exceptional use, to put up 500' tall cellular towers and it does not make sense to him not to allow flag poles. Page 6 of 8  MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD MAY 3, 2007 MEETING AGENDA ITEM 2. MPB CASE# 07- 9- LD CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY; AMENDING CHAPTER 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. ( LEGISLATIVE) ( CDS STAFF) ( SEE BACKUP)  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members MuniCiPal" p, nning Board V ^ THRU: Missy McKim, CDS Direct~' FROM: SUBJECT: Len Mitchell, Planning Manager / IIYJ1 Request to Amend the C- 2 General Commercial District to Permit a Flag Pole Greater in Height than 70 feet as Conditional Use- Requested by Jason Carter, Agent for Eglin 99, Ltd. REQUEST: The City has received an application from Eglin 99, Ltd. to amend the land Development Code LDC) by adding the land use " Flag Poles as conditional use, height exception" as a conditional use to the C- 2 General Commercial District. The request is not site specific except as it applies to the C- 2 General Commercial District. The applicant' s agent is Jason Carter. 8ACKGROUND~ According to the application, the applicant would like to install a landmark flag pole at Uptown Station as a tribute to the area' s military personnel. The applicant inquired about height limitations with regards to flagpoles and specifically about the ability to locate a 170' flagpole at Uptown Station. The applicant was advised by staff and the City Manager that the