Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 09-11-2007 workshop agenda — reading text

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 i signs. The City Attorney advised the Settlement Agreement did not take the signs out of the Code I 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. i i I ADJOURNMENT j The meeting adjoumed at 8: 50 p. m. I i i APPROVED: I ATTEST: MAYOR: I I 1 CITY CLERK I I l ddm i I j I i I l oJ  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: October 25, 2006 To: Joyce Shanahan, City Manager From: Missy McKim, CDS Director SUBJECT: LAMAR' s request tomodify the Settlement Agreement REQUEST: Consideration of request from lamar Outdoor to modify the Settlement Agreement. BACKGROUND: The residents of the City of Fort Walton Beach developed a mission which they have consistently supported silice 1994. This mission, according to the Vision Plan, is to be lOa small, family oriented seaside community that boasts of the historical downtown, technology research park and adjacent military bases." Further it states, " a beautiful City has evolved that is characterized by the following elements: beautiful views and vistas to the Bay and Santa Rosa Sound; low-rise profile of development; a City clear of visual clutter, i. e., poor signage, utilities, trash ugly buildings; tree planting programs throughout the City; quaint downtown community plaza and retail center; numerous parks; series of bikeways and pedestrian ways a throughout the City, appropriate new architectural development; the highest possible water quality in our beautiful Bay and Sound; and an aesthetically pleasing, revitalized City core area." The City is dedicated to its mission and is working diligently to protect and promote those elements that characterize the vision for the City. In addition the residents of the City and the CRA Board of Commissioners are constantly working to encourage and guide the redevelopment of the core area of the City. . To that end, the City has modified its sign regulation over the last 5 years. In addition, staff conducts an annual sign workshop to gamer feedback from residents and businesses alike. Specifically the section of the City' s sign code which addresses billboards, known as off premises signs, is outlined in 12. 82. 06. The Code defines an off-premises sign as " an outdoor sign which advertises or directs attention to an establishment, business, merchandise service, commodity, attraction or entertainment that is sold, produced, manufactured or furnished at a place other than the property on which the sign is located. This type of sign is prohibited. Such signs include, but are not limited to, signs commonly known as billboards." In addition, section 12. 80.04 states that a non- conforming sign is a sign in existence prior to February 23, 1988, which does not conform to the provisions of this code. Further the Code allows for normal repair, maintenance and upkeep on non- conforming signs. However, it does not permit replacement of the non- conforming sign, nor its modification that would continue or increase the nonconformity; nor may it be altered to extend its useful life, nor permit its reestablishment after damage or destruction. Specifically the codes states:  The restrictions on nonconforming signs do not preclude normal repair, maintenance or upkeep. A nonconforming sign shall not be replaced with another nonconforming sign; relocated, unless such relocation will bring the sign into conformity; modified in any way that would continue or increase the degree of nonconformity; structurally altered so as to extend its use life; reestablished after damage or destruction if the cost to repair the damage or destruction exceeds the lesser of (1) the value of the sign as ref/ ected on the owner's last tangible property tax return filed prior to the date of damage or destruction; or (2) 50 percent of the original cost of the sign, including the cost of installation; or permitted in instances where a change in use, occupancy or ownership occurs which necessitates alteration of the sign in any manner. The purpose of nonconforming standards is to permit structures that no longer meet the City code " to continue until they voluntarily are removed removed or asrequired by these regulations", but not to encourage their continuation. The nonconformities provisions are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities to preserve the integrity of the city' s land development code and to be consistent with goals, objectives and policies of the city' s comprehensive plan. In addition, the City' s Code a/so requires all signs to be adequately maintained in a safe and structurally sound condition. LAMAR is able to maintain the billboards, change the copy, and remove the copy when tropical storms threaten the area. As long as the structures have been adequately maintained in the past, and continue to be adequately maintained, they will be able to continue to exist. After receiving notices of violations for not removing their nonconforming signs, LAMAR filed a lawsuit against the City. In 2002, the City settled the lawsuit which left 8 billboards on Federal Aid Primary roadways. One of the 8 has been removed because the property is in the process of redeveloping leaving 7 remaining billboards. With future redevelopment of the properties on which the billboards are located, it is expected that all of the billboards will be eventually removed. DISCUSSION: In May 2006, the City received a request form LAMAR to modify their settlement agreement. The City Council, after meeting in executive session, announced that they would hold a Special Council Meeting to discuss the request to modify the settlement agreement. Currently six of the 7 remaining nonconforming billboard structures are located on property with a high potential to redevelop. One of these properties is under contract for sale. One is located on property located at 252 Brooks Street on which LAMAR has a permanent easement for the billboard and a parking lot has been approved to serve the Sailwatch Condominium project located across the street. The remaining 5 properties with billboards are located within the CRA, on properties that are ready to be redeveloped. As these properties redevelop, the billboard will not be compatible with the new project, as we saw at the recently approved project known as Sunrise, and will be removed permanently. The major points of LAMAR' s proposed " modified settlement agreemene and staffs findings are listed below: 1. Permits 4 billboards with advertising messages that may be changed at intervals by electronic or mechanical process or by remote control and requires 4 billboards to be Page 2 of 5  removed. LAMAR is requesting that they be given credit for the one billboard that has been removed. This is inconsistent with the Sign Code Regulations. 2. Requires each sign that is constructed, reconstructed or relocated to meet the design standards in Exhibit A: 25 feet high, 2 - 225 feet faces, and monopole. The construction or relocation of a billboard is inconsistent with the