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

report and stated there is a notarized copy of the document.  4- 5- 07 Regular MPB meeting FINAL PLAT APPROVAL- REGGIE' S SUBDIVISION cont. The City Attorney stated the Board will condition the approval on the submission ofthe notarized document to staff. She received commnation from the applicant that the metal shed and concrete pad will be removed. The Chairman opened the public hearing. As there was none, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Glover moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Final Plat for Reggie' s Subdivision located at 1&7 E. Audrey Drive NW, with the conditions that the applicant, or successors in title, shall remove the metal shed and the concretepad at least three (3) feet from the new property line prior to the application for a Final Development Order Bui(lding Pernlit) for Lot 1, and that a copy of the notarized Owners Consent and Designation of Agency be provided to staff. Mr. McDonald seconded motion. Mr. Cloer stated the shed has been removed but the concrete slab is still present. The Chairman called for the vote on the motion and it carried unanimously with Fiasco, Gercak, Glover, McDonald, Scott, Wayne, and Wilson in favor. ORD. 1724 C-ONDITIONAL USE TO PERMIT FLAG POLE GREATER THAN 70' The ordinance was read by title. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ( 1724) OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY; AMENDING ARTICLE 12.423, C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, VOLUME IV, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDINGFORRENUMBERING SECTION 12.423. 02 AND SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 12.423. 02 ENTITLED CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES AND ADDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE A FLAG POLE GREATER THAN 70 FEET IN HEIGHT AND CRITERIA FORAPPROVAL; RESOLVING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Requested by 99 Eglin Ltd. Jay Odom, owner of 99 Eglin and Uptown Station, handed out pictures that showed the Central Park just completed at Uptown Station. He gave some background the remodeling that has taken place at Uptown Station and the reason for his request because they would like to do something monumental and spectacular to honor the area' s military personnel, and they came up with the idea of a 170' flag pole to fly the American flag. He said when he applied for a permit for the flag pole he found out that flag poles are determined to be a structure and under the same height restrictions as buildings so he drafted an ordinance that would amend the code to allow a flag pole ofthat height. He showed a drawing of the proposed flag pole location at Uptown Station that shows it is surrounded by commercial businesses and is over 500 feet to the nearest residential neighborhood. He said he would like to be allowed to put up a 170' flag pole and would defer to the City Attorney and staff on the best course of action to achieve his request to permit flag poles that exceed the height pennitted in C- 2 zoning. In response to questions on the maintenance ofthe flag, whether there will be lighting on the top ofthe pole, and the size of the flag, Mr. Odom replied the flag will need to be replaced three times a year, he believed the FAA will require a light on top ofthe pole, and the flag will be 30' x 60'. Len Mitchell, Long-Range Planning Manager, explained once the application was received on the request to add a Section to the C-2 zoning district to allow a conditional use, an ordinance was drafted,Exhibit B, that included some good standards suggested by the applicant for Federal approvals that might be needed, design, setback, signage, lighting, maintenance and inspection. He said in reviewing the zoning structure of the Code and with the determination that a flag pole is a structure and subject to the height limitations they were talking about structures and not uses, his concern is that they were talking about a conditional use being in the language but they were actually talking about a structure. He explained the difference is that conditional use is something the Board would allow on a site by site review basis but it is not something they would expect to have on every property in that zoning district. Page 2 of 6  ReQular MPB meetinQ 4- 5- 07 ORD. 1724 cont. Mr. Mitchell relayed the other issue the City Attorney raised is the narrowness of the request in that it was requesting this large flag pole as a conditional use in only the C- 2 District. He said in discussion among staff it was concluded the rules in place.are adequate; the. same standards proposed are already part of conditional use process criteria. He said the City Attorney has drafted an alternative, Exhibit C, to simply add a section Flag Poles to conditional uses which would state " Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 12.94, flag poles 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 development". He said that would overcome the issue of constraining the conditional uses to only one land use or zoning category. Mr. Mitchell said flagpoles are permitted as normal accessory uses which have to meet the height requirements of the zoning district; the request is to allow flagpoles in C- 2 to exceed the permitted height of 70' up to a maximum of200' upon approval of a conditional use and subject to a number of criteria. He reported, based on the application, there does not appear to be a need to amend the ordinance to allow flagpoles higher than the heights allowed in the various zoning districts, but staffrecommends ifthe Planning Board would like to see flag poles taller than what is allowed in the current districts to direct staff to prepare an ordinance incorporating the City Attorney' s recommendations and return it for approval. He reported he sent it to Mr. Greene for his comments. Mr. Greene wished to know the tallest structure allowed within the C- 2 district. Mr. Mitchell replied the tallest allowed would be 70'. Mr. Greene stated he has not talked with the people at the airport and asked if Mr. Mitchell had talked with them. Mr. Mitchell replied he had not, but stated they we are not talking about approving the flagpole for Uptown Station today, that we are talking about whether or not to consider the change in the Code and it could be for any property in the C- 2 District. Mr. Greene received confirmation that the request as presented woul( represent triple the current height limitations for a flag pole. Mr. Odom commented with the criteria imposed on the setback requirements they proposed, it would have to be an extremely large piece of property in order to have a tall flagpole. He said he proposed criteria that the minimum setback from a residential property line would be at least 200' and they have 29 acres of property, and the top of the flagpole is 6" wide The question was asked what the shop owners think. Mr. Odom replied they are ecstatic, not only about the flagpole idea but with everything that has been done there. Nitsie Bennett, 101 Methodist Avenue and President for Habitat for Humanity with headquarters at Uptown Station, stated she spoke with all the neighbors and it means a lot to them. She spoke in favor of having something special to honor the military and asked the Board for their support. A question was asked whether the flagpole would survive a hurricane. Mr. Odom stated the flagpole is designed for hurricane type winds; it has to be engineered, designed, and inspected to meet the wind load requirements. He commented that in the draft ordinance he prepared they would have to obtain Eglin' s permission. Mr. Mitchell stated their research indicate that the poles are installed in segments. In response to the question whether other flags would be flown below the American flag, Mr. Odom responded no. The question was asked the velocity of wind to make the flag erect. Mr. Odom believed it would be a 4 mile an hour breeze. It was commented then with the flag erect,it will be stretched out to 60'. Mr. Odom stated the flag itself is made out of sailcloth and is not a solid structure. As there was no one further who wished to speak, the public input was closed. The City Attorney was asked her opinion. Page 3 of 6 Regular MPB meetina 4- 5- 07 ORD. 1724 cont. The City Attorney said if someone tried to get a permit to erect a flag pole, it would be seen as a structure based on the defInition in the Code and staff would be able to approve it as an accessory structure ifit is stated that it is allowed in the zoning district. She said the C- 2 District has no conditional use provisions in it now, and it also does not have any accessory use provisions at the current time. She said there has been no public hearing, other than what is being done now; public input has been very limited, however, they can assume that all public input would probably be very positive to the entire issue. She said as a conditional use there is a long series of things that have to be looked at, evaluated, and made as conditions; the conditional uses are temporary type uses, they are only going to apply to the one owner and the one parcel they are dealing with. She said where this parcel is large enough to perhaps handle a 170' flagpole they could not put that same flagpole at a smaller parcel, so the other issue is how far it should be extended within the District, and what they are doing is extending it to all parcels and that would perhaps not be appropriate, and staff would be in the position of being restrained to the height limitations that are currently in the ordinance because they would have changed it to suit the conditional use within that area,but all those specifications in the f:irst draft ordinance are not the only things that need to be considered. She said there are already provisions that, in her opinion,would cover it. She said the next issue, in her opinion, is how many ofthe Districts do they apply the conditional type use. She said the way she drafted the ordinance Exhi ( bit C), it expands it more to almost anything except for residential use. She said there will be the review by Eglin, there will be the review by the FAA, and any requirements they have will be put into the Conditional Use Order. She said what the ordinance does as well is it does transfer basically from staff specific written instructions to the Board to look at the property and determine whether or not the use is appropriate for the property they are dealing with, so it helps avoid some of the issues. The City Attorney expressed, in additional to support of the military, there needs to be other reasons to modifY the Land Development Code, and in the Exhibit C draft Ordinance the reasons why can be filled in and brought back to the Board. The question was asked if the City Attorney is recommending it go back to staff to fIll in all the " whys". The City Attorney agreed and to give a few more and it will give stafftime to look at all the issues a little more. The question was asked if what is proposed then a flag pole could be put up in other districts as well. The City Attorney replied that is part of the issue as well, can another flag be flown and is that an issue of free speech; those issues will come up and staff would need to know what is going to be allowed on the conditional use such as it would not allow advertising flags, an American flag is