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

Sign Code Regulations. 3. Off premises signs are allowed in the districts, following zoning including vacant property: HC - Highway Commercial MUMS - Mixed Use Main Street C- 2 - General Commercial MUW- 18 - Mixed Use Waterfront 18 units/ acre M- 1 - Wholesale/ Light IndustrialMUCC1 & 2 - Mixed Use Community Commercial M- 2 - Industrial Park OS - Open Space EF - Educational Facilities YC - Yacht Club This is inconsistent with the Vision Plan, Comprehensive Plan, CRA Plan and Land Development Code. 4. The specific locations of the 4 signs to be initially constructed, reconstructed or relocated are the existing locations shown in the table below. This is inconsistent with the Sign Code Regulations and does not meet the ideals of the City's Vision Plan. 5. A conditional building permit will be issued for 1 billboard conditioned on the removal of 2 billboards. This is inconsistent with the Sign Regulation and does not meet the ideals of the City's Vision Plans. 6. LAMAR receives credit for the billboard that was removed at Sunrise and may transfer the credit to a third party. This is inconsistent with the Code Sign Regulations. 7. Each billboard constructed is limited to 2 facings which shall not exceed 400 sq. ft.; no side by side or stacked facing. The size is inconsistent with the standards design of Exhibit A and the construction of billboards is inconsistent with the Sign Code Regulations. 8. The advertising message must meet the static display of 6 seconds, message changes simultaneously over a period of 3 seconds or less and does not display any illumination that moves or changes in intensity during the static period. Permitting billboards is inconsistent with the Sign Regulation. 9. Each shall be erected to such height as is reasonably necessary to achieve clear visibility to the 2 sign facings but not greater than 55 feet. This is inconsistent with the design referred to above. The size is inconsistent with the design standards of Exhibit A and the construction of billboards is inconsistent with the Sign Code Regulations. 10. A billboard constructed under this agreement shall be classified as a legal conforming sign. This is inconsistent with the Sign Code Regulations and inconsistent with the Vision of the City since 1994 and all land use plans and regulations. Below is a table which lists each of the remaining 7 nonconforming billboard structures with the redevelopment potential of the property on which they are located, if the property is leased, the Page 3 of 5  is proposed to zoning of the property, how many sides the billboard has, and if a billboard remain initially at the location in the proposed modified settlement agreement. The modified settlement agreement requests that billboards be permitted in a number of districts as discussed below under "Modified Settlement Agreement". TABLE OF EXISTING BILLBOARDS Modified location of the Billboard Redevelopment lease Zoning 0 Number Isettlement Structure Potential Property of Sides I\ greement proposal 1. 3 Eglin SE ( S 0 High - CRA Yes ~- 2 1 Remove Hollywood) ( Florist) 2. 29 Eglin SE ( S of Perry) High - CRA Yes C- 2 2N; 1S New bill- Board 3. 252 MSP SE ( S side Oi Parking lot - Ease- MUMS ~ New bill- Brooks Bridge) ( parking CRA ment Board lot for Sailwatch) 4. 51 MSP SE ( Fish Mid) High - CRA Yes MUMS ~ New bill- Board 5. 13 MSP SW (VII of Beal) High - CRA Yes HC 2 Removed 6. 407 MSP SW ( Cit~ High - Sale pending Yes HC 2 Removed limits) 7. 206 Brooks St. SE High - CRA lies MUMS 2 New bill- Pat's Bait Shop) board FINDINGS: Staff finds that the proposed modification to the Settlement Agreement is inconsistent with: The Comprehensive Plan; The Vision Plan of the residents of the City of Fort Walton Beach; The CRA vision for the CRA Plan update; The Sign Code Regulations; and The land Development Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council not agree to modify the Settlement Agreement. Submitted by: Missy McKim Community Development Services Director Concur Do Not Concur Page 4 of 5 Joyce Shanahan Date City Manager Attachments: A - Original Settlement Agreement B - Letters from LAMAR Outdoor Advertising C - Modified Settlement Agreement proposed by Lamar Outdoor Advertising Page 5 of 5  IN THE CJRCUIT C9URT OF TIm FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA LAMAR TEXAS Lllv1ITED P ~ TNERSHIP d/b/ a LAMAR ADVERTISING OF FORT WALTON, P laintif:t: CASE NO. 00- 202- CA vs. CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, Defendant. I SETTLE:MENT AGREEl1\ ENT Plaintiff, LAMAR TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSIDP d/ b/ a LAMAR ADVERTISING OF FORT WALTON ( hereinafter " Lamar"), by and through its undersigned attorney, ~ dDefendant, CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH (hereinafter City''), by and through.its undersigned attorney, hereby jointly stipulate and agree to enter into this Settlement Agreement of the above- styled cause of action as follows: 1. Lamar and the City shall execute the Joint Motion. (copy attached hereto, hereinafter " Joint Motion") and file the same with the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. lDOO- 2487..  2. Upon entry of an order by the 1 st D. C.A.granting the relief set forth in the Joint Motion, and the approval and ratification of this Settlement Agreement by the Circuit Court, Lamar and.the City stipulate and agree as follows: . a. Eight billboard structures owned by Lamar are located on F ederal- Aid Primary Highways (''PAP Structures"), and eight billboard structures owned by Lamar are located on non- f~ deral- aid highways. The non- federal- aid highway structures are identified on Exhibit " A" attached. hereto. The FAP Structures are identified in Exhibit HI' attached hereto. b. Within 90 days from the later of, (i) the date. the 1st D. C. A. grants the. relief referenced in paragraph 2 above, or ( ii) the' date the Circuit Court approves and fies rati; .: this Settlement Agreement, Lamar shall remove the eight billboard structures identified on Exhibit " A" which are located on non- federal- aid highways. c. Lamar' s eight billboard structures located on F.AP highways B") are subject to the provisions of 9479. 15( 2), Fla. Stat. (2001), Exhibit <' as that section is presently worded; provide~ however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to contractually require the City' s compliance with that statutory provision if it is subsequently repealed or amended. d. ; Lamar shall promptly dismiss with. prejudice, or cause to be dismissed with prejudice, the following pending litigation styled as: Brown. Brown & Brown. et aI. v. City of Fort Walton Case No. 00- 2763- CA, in the Circuit Beach., Florida., Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida; and R.Christensen S& D Root, et al v. Municipal Code Enforcement Board of the City of Fort Walton. 2 Beac~ Flori~ Case Numbers 00- 2527- CA through 00- 2534-CA, challenging the City' s Sign Code and the implementation of the Sign Code. Lamar shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any cl~ loss or judgment of any kind, including attomeys' fees and costs, resulting from or incurred in the following 'pending litigation stYled as: Brown. Brown & Brown, et al. v. City of Fort Walton Beach, Case No: 00- 2763- Florida., CA, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida; and R: Christensen & S & D Root. et a1 v. Municipal Code Enforcement Board of the City of Fort Wa.lton Beach, Florida, Case Numbers 00- 2527- CA through 00- 2534- CA, in the event Lamar fails to dismiss or cause the dismissal of said litigation as provided herein. e. . The City shall dismiss with prejudice, and vacate and waive any fines or penalties which have accrued ~ all' pending Code Enforcement proceedings involving any of the sixteen structures identified.in Exhibits " A" and " B" attached hereto. 3. Lamar agrees to release the City from any claim which it had, .or now has, that the City' s