Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 07-24-1990 Regular — reading text

are so, then said does apartments case asked they it on less than one acre of land, and apparently it was an oversight. Bill Stone said that is the exact point he was trying to raise; it is question not the of whether 16 units or 31. 17 units are per appropriate, but whether acre specific property owners who have developmental rights now and would not have developmental rights under the new Plan would be provided a method by which they could use their property. The City Manager said the Zoning Code will prevail; the West Florida Regional Council is writing the Land Development Regulations. which will be reviewed by Council. staff, and the Planning Board; and they will specifically look at that issue. Mr. Maney commented has he objected to the Plan on technical reasons for long time, nothing has changed. a He thinks it is important to note also that he objects to the Plan because he has heard many people make comments, at various hearings, having to do with the housing density. He said most of the comments were like the people on Elm Street who keep asking for the same. or lower, densities; and yet he has not seen any recognition of these comments by the Contractor in writing the Plan. He said he obtained a copy of the housing density portion of the Destin Plan, and they did a lot more of the work themselves than they had the Contractor do, and in general their housing densities are about 1/ 2 of Fort Walton Beach' s; so people moving into the area are going to have two choices. they can either go to high density Fort Walton, low density I or Destin. if it is left the way it is. Mr. deVaux then wanted to make sure that Policy 7. A. 3. 6. is what Council wanted to pass because they are trying to redevelop downtown and when he reads that Policy it tells him if you vacate a building down there for 180 days, there is one option. to close it down; you can' t occupy it again. you can' t build to reconstruct it; and he wished to know if Council wanted that Policy in the Plan at this time. 104 7/ 24/ 90 ORD. 1044 ( CONT.) Mr. deVaux said he understood once this Plan is adopted, they have to go by the Comprehensive Plan, and if someone asks for something different, question the first should be is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; if it is not consistent. then they will have to change the Comprehensive Plan or forget about doing what they want to do. The City Manager stated the six months on non- conforming use is a City Ordinance, it does not address the particular situation about selling the building because it wasn' t vacant for six months; but it could if it has been vacant for six months. Mr. Wyatt remarked all the Policy says is the City will continue to do what is already on the book; Council is not prepared to change or make that decision tonight; it is a lengthy process. but there are options on how to make those changes. The City Manager noted the non- conforming use principal is a two way street, it allows a person who has a non- conforming situation to continue use. He said it is a policy decision. if it is to be discussed in the future. then should be put on it the table to be discussed in the future; or. if Council decides tonight amend Plan to delete that. to it is the Council' prerogative. s Following discussion on the policy for non- conforming properties, the City Attorney noted Council will not be able to loosen the standard of Chapter 1288 to permit continuation. or extension. or expansion of non- conforming lots. The Mayor called for the adopt vote on the aotion to Ordinance 1044 reading on second by a and it carried vote of 3 to 2, with Saith, Wyatt, and Wyninegar in favor, and deVaux and Maney opposed ( Rosenbaum absent). ORD. 1097 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH REIATING VACATE PORTION OF TO VACATING AND ABANDONING. A PORTION OF THE RIGHT- OF- WAY ON RIGHT- OF- WAY OF HOWELL DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY; HOWELL DRIVE PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING FOR VACATION; PROVIDING FOR EASEMENT RESERVED; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the ordinance by title only. Mr. Smith moved the adoption of Ordinance 1097 on second reading. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Wyninegar. Mr. deVaux wished to know if this ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by allowing additional curb cuts onBeal parkway. The City Manager stated it is not inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried by a vote of 3 to 2, with Smith, Wyatt, and Wyninegar in favor, and deVaux and Maney opposed Rosenbaum absent).  7/ 24/ 90 105 SPECIAL MINUTES Mr. Saith moved to approve the special Council llinutes of July 2. 1990. Motion was seconded by Mr. deVaux and carried unaniaously with Smith, deVaux. Wyatt. Haney, and Wyninegar in favor ( Rosenbaua absent). HISTORIC SITES BOARD Mr. Maney aoved that a resolution be prepared