POLISCOPE

The public record

DESTIN (OKALOOSA COUNTY) · LOCALDecisions publishedPartial coverage

November 7, 2024 Local Planning Agency Meeting (2024-11-07)

Thursday, November 7, 2024 · Government meeting record

The 30-second read

Recorded outcome

The Destin Local Planning Agency met to review proposed updates to the Land Development Code regarding signage regulations and glossary definitions. The board discussed restrictions on vehicle signs, digital signage, and clarified definitions for open space and charter vessels.

Why it matters

The proposed changes to the Land Development Code will dictate what types of signs residents and businesses can display on their property and vehicles, and will redefine how 'open space' is calculated for local development projects.

What happens next

No later meeting or follow-up date is stated in the reviewed record.

An official outcome record - an action agenda or minutes - is published for this meeting.

Record text

No recording or transcript is held for this meeting.

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2024 - 5: 30 P. M. DESTIN CITY HALL BOARDROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Wood called the Local Planning Agency Workshop to order on Thursday, November 7, 2024, at 5: 30 p.m., in the Destin City Annex Chambers; with the Pledge of Allegiance immediately following. 2. ROLL CALL: Members Present Members Absent Staff Members Present James T. Wood, Jr. Corey Ledbetter Kimberly Montgomery Deputy City Clerk Todd Buhr Steven O' Connor Principal Planner Jay Purut Sherry Burney Planner Marcie Bell Ashley Dominguez Planner Gary Jarvis Jesse Hernandez Planner Kim Kopp, City Attorney 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 3, 2024, Minutes Motion by Agency member Bell to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2024, meeting with Agency member Jarvis providing the second. The motion passed 5- 0. 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. LDC Draft Article 8- Signs Regarding 8. 07— Prohibited signs, Agency member Jarvis inquired about vehicle signs that are added to the vehicle, for instance, campaign signs that people have driving around locally, and asked what type, if any, of those are prohibited signs. According to Mr. O' Connor, if the signs are constructed for the back of the truck, they are prohibited. If they are attached to the vehicle, such as a magnetic sign, or wrapped on the body of the vehicle, they are prohibited. Chairman Wood questioned vehicles he' s seen that have a large American flag that protrudes overhead and wave as they are driven. Mr. O' Connor referred the members to Exempt signs and read, " Standards of political or religious, governmental or other jurisdictional authority, provided that these do not contain any commercial speech, commonly known as flags, are exempt." Chairman Wood referred to the chart in portable signs and spoke of how generally, in a residential neighborhoods, property owners are not going to have permanent commercial signs and questioned staff what kind of noncommercial 25' square foot max, individual sign with a total of 50', would

normally be allowed. According to Mr. O'Connor, any kind of sign, thought or idea that promotes and is protected by the First Amendment, and provided some examples. Regarding the language for permanent noncommercial language, Agency member Buhr suggested making it N/A across the board for residential neighborhoods, which would in turn make it default to whatever is exempt. Mr. O' Connor agreed, and Chairman Wood agreed to that change as well with no other comments from the Agency members. The City Attorney informed the members that they can regulate time, place and manner but not content. She then advised that as they are going through the language to keep in mind where, how, and when they can go, for what period of time, ifpermanent or temporary, and nothing more, not what type of sign it is or what it' s going to say. In Section 08. 08.02( D) on page 2, Agency member Buhr suggested adjusting the language referencing the application. In 08. 03. 04( C) on page 6, for the public traffic control signs, he asked staff who it is intended for. According to Mr. O'Connor, it is intended for the Governing Jurisdiction of the right of way, and he can add language to make it clear of that intent. In 08.02.04(A) on Page 3, for near straight and driveway sections, he feels that signs should not be able to go in those areas at all. Staff agrees that there is not a reason to have a sign in a clear visible triangle, at all. In 08. 03. 04, page 6, in the digital and electronic signage section, the members discussed at length there being a timeline to be put in place making any of those types of signs nonconforming, with an attrition date to where the property owners would be given a certain length of time, then at that timeline date, they would have to be removed. According to the City Attorney, she has had discussions on this subject with Council, individually, and expects it to be discussed at an upcoming Council meeting, adding that it is considered a time, place and manner restriction. Staff informed the Agency members that they would start working on the draft language to be brought back for their review and input, as well as it will be sent to Council at their workshop on this article for their input. In Section 08. 07.01 ( E), page 10, Agency member Buhr asked staff's input on signs in the right- of-way (ROW). Mr. O' Connor asked the Agency members if they wanted to allow signs or not in the ROW, because if not, it would need to stay. The members agreed for it to stay as it is. In Section 08. 07. 01 ( J), prohibited signs, Agency member Buhr asked for clarification on the difference between inflatable signs and holiday decorations. Mr. O'Connor explained that any holiday decorations are allowed during the timeframe for the holiday, but inflatable commercial signs are not. Regarding rigid materials language, Agency member Buhr feels that needs to be defined. According to Mr. O'Connor, staff could either add a definition or add regulations into the sign code that are clear to what rigid materials are, and asked which he would prefer. According to Agency member Buhr, he would defer to whatever staff decides is best.

B. LDC Draft Article 11 - Glossary discussion According to Mr. O' Connor, for the definition of Open Space, in Article 4, anything not for vehicular use or covered by a building, is considered open space. Meaning that an entire backyard could be covered by concrete and so long as they have their stormwater properly installed, it counts towards open space, noting Destin is the only municipality he has ever heard or worked for with this in the open space definition or requirements. Staff is proposing the following language, " A portion of the space that is not occupied by the building coverage or vehicular usage, or impervious surfaces, for the purposes of this paver usage is not considered open space." If the paver surface is pervious. Agency member Jarvis suggests the definition of helmsman to State of Florida US Coast Guard Captain and change Party Boats / Charter Fishing Boats to Charter for Hire Vessel. In additional discussions, the decision was to change it to Fare Carrying Vessels and refer any other language throughout to the Fare Carrying Vessels definition. Agency member Bell thanked staff for adding East Pass to the beach definition, but suggested adding " of Mexico" after the word, " Gulf". The definition for a bedroom was agreed to be updated to FDE definition. There was a brief discussion regarding Substantial Improvement definition, which is regulated by FEMA. The City Attorney noted that she and staff have been discussing this and would ensure that they have the correct verbiage for their review before their next meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Wood opened the public for comment, but with no one present, he closed the public portion of the meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Having no further discussion at this time, the m-.- ting adjourned at 7: 00 p. m. A! . .)-d an . op' oved thisC 10 day I 2025. Ja,-Ts Wood, Jr. Chairman Kimberly Montg 1-ry Deputy Clerk

Official record

ArtifactSourceState
AgendaNot published in the sources we holdunavailable
Agenda packetNot published in the sources we holdunavailable
BudgetNot published in the sources we holdunavailable
Action agendaNot published in the sources we holdunavailable
Transcript or captionsNot published in the sources we holdunavailable
AttachmentNot published in the sources we holdunavailable

Coverage and corrections

Records considered

  • November 7, 2024 Local Planning Agency Meeting (2024-11-07)

Not claimed by this page

  • Verified meeting decisions with item-specific public-source evidence
  • Item-level plain-language summaries are not available; this page does not infer individual agenda items.
  • Item-linked, attributed deliberation
  • A source-grounded next meeting date
  • Official outcomes have not been published.
  • A transcript is not available.
  • No audio or video recording is linked.
  • Speakers have not been reliably matched to public profiles.
  • Named people and places have not been reliably resolved.
  • An individual roll-call roster is not available.

No source correction or revision history is recorded for this meeting. A corrected artifact will appear here as a new version rather than replacing what is shown above.

Canonical record: df941ac6cc537db6e285969be3cf3ec5. This page changes as stronger artifacts are published; it never overwrites an agenda with minutes.

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record