The proposal outlined key features, including content-neutral regulations, exemptions for government signs, and a new approval process. The draft also included specific provisions for different sign types, such as temporary signs and personal expression signs. Concerns were raised about the potential economic impact on business owners who would need to replace nonconforming signage. The council discussed incorporating a sunset date for such signs, with some members advocating for a grace period to allow businesses to adjust to new requirements.

The meeting also touched on the issue of billboards, particularly the city’s authority to regulate them along the highway. While the state of Florida allows local governments to adopt more restrictive regulations, the council weighed the option to maintain the existing 15 billboards and prohibit any additional outdoor advertising signs. Some council members supported the status quo, suggesting no addition to the current number of billboards, while others expressed concerns about the visual impact and potential legal challenges.

Another point of contention involved the placement of temporary signs in right-of-ways, which sparked a debate over balancing the needs of non-profit organizations and community groups with legal and aesthetic considerations. The city attorney highlighted the challenges of selectively authorizing signs in public spaces, drawing attention to the equal protection clause. The council deliberated on the feasibility of creating designated zones for such advertising and the necessity of legal guidance on issuing permits for signs related to special events.

The meeting also covered a range of other topics, such as the implications of rezoning and the expansion of Activity Center 6 (AC6) designation. Public comments revealed a strong opposition to the proposed expansion due to concerns over the impact on residential areas, the permitting process, and the emotional and financial toll on families intending to build homes. Commissioner McDowell empathized with the residents and highlighted the need for fairness.

The council’s discussion on AC6 also included consideration of the city’s commercial footprint and the need for balance between residential needs and the city’s revenue and infrastructure requirements. The complex issue of allowing single-family homes in certain areas of AC6 was debated, with a consensus among some members to allow such development. The discussion extended to the broader implications of rezoning and the sustainability of the city, with the council recognizing the need for proactive communication with property owners potentially affected by changes.

In addition to the sign regulations and AC6 discussions, the council addressed emergency management and community programs. Stacey Lasalle, the Emergency Management Coordinator, stressed the importance of preparedness, including having an evacuation plan with multiple routes and a “go bag” with essentials. The Aquatics Manager introduced the “Float for Life” program, aimed at teaching children lifesaving water skills. The Solid Waste team spoke about recycling practices and the importance of educating new residents.