Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 10-30-06 special minutes — reading text

103 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 30, 2006 INTRODUCTION A special meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, October 30, 2006, at 7: 00 p. m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Mike Anderson Councilmen: Mike Holmes; Bill Patterson; Bob Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem; Jim Tucker; Jim Hartwell; and l Mike Minich. Absent: Dr. Wayne Pullen Also present: Joyce Shanahan, City Manager; Finance Director (Position vacant); Helen Spencer, City Clerk; Toni Craig, City Attorney; and media CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He requested anyone who wished to address Council to approach the podium after being recognized, and then state his or her name and address for the record. PLEDGE The Mayor led in the Pledge of Allegiance. LAMAR ADVERTISING - REQUEST TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consideration of a request by LAMAR Texas Limited Partnership, doing business as ( d/ b/ a) Lamar Advertising of Fort Walton, to modify the settlement agreement pursuant to Case No. 00- CA- 202 LAMAR Texas Limited Partnership d/ b/ a LAMAR Advertising of Fort Walton vs. City of Fort Walton Beach. The Mayor stated the meeting will be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding with the City Attorney to give the oath, then the applicant will address Council, then staff will address Council, and then the public will be given an opportunity to address Council. The City Attorney gave the oath to all individuals who expected to speak on the issue. Jerry Livingston, attorney representing Lamar, briefly went over the request submitted by Lamar to modify the Settlement Agreement. He explained the proposal is to remove the existing seven billboard signs remaining within the City and request the right to reconstruct four off-premise monopole signs, with each sign limited to two advertising facings not to exceed 300 square feet in size. He mentioned the four reconstructed monopole signs will substantially advance the aesthetic objectives of the City, particularly in the downtown core area, by reducing the number of sign faces and is within the City' s vision to eliminate visual clutter. He acknowledged the Settlement Agreement Lamar is obligated to follow, and expressed r they simply have a proposal they think will answer some of the interests of the City and will advance the visioning elements of the City in its growth management plan. He expressed the issue this evening is whether Council wants to pursue the idea of removing the wooden structures that exist and replace them with four cleverly designed monopole structures that are very attractive. He said if Council is interested, the attorneys can work out an agreement that protects and advances the interest of the City. It was noted there are ten findings by staff that recommend not agreeing with the modification. Mr. Livingston responded that staff's recommendations state that the proposed elements of the Modification Agreement do not comply with the growth management plan elements, but what they are offering to the City will substantially advance the visual impact of the structures. 1 0 4pecial Council 1 0- 30- 06 LAMAR ADVERTISING cont. Concern was expressed over the section in the agreement that stated the signs shall be erected to such height as is reasonably necessary to achieve clear visibility, but not higher than 55'. Mr. Livingston clarified the intent is only to have the signs at a visual height that can be read. The Mayor commented Council did not need to get into the language of the agreement, but to decide whether or not they are interested in moving forward with modifying the agreement, and staff can be directed to work out the particulars of an agreement to bring back to Council. He asked the City Attorney i\ li if what is needed is a decision on whether or not to go forward, without getting into the specifics of the I! I'. i,." I,'".".",. ,',:""" language of the modification. Ii' I The City Attorney replied it is not an easy issue and it is completely Council' s decision, and how to work out the particulars is Council' s decision. She noted the line item document she prepared and will explain her suggestions when it is her turn. She said whether or not to move forward is Council' s decision, and how to move forward is also Council' s decision. Mr. Livingston stated, on behalf of Lamar, they simply request that Council decide to move forward and direct staff to sit down to work out the particulars as it would be difficult to negotiate a contract modification in this setting. He expressed the hope that Council will decide to move forward as they think there is great benefits to the City is doing so. Missy McKim, CDS Director, emphasized that the City is not under any obligation to consider any amendment to the settlement agreement. She recalled it was a long drawn out lawsuit with over $70, 000 to settle the lawsuit and amend the sign code. She noted Mark Miller, the attorney who was originally involved in amending the sign code, represented the City in the lawsuit, and drafted the settlement agreement, is present this evening to provide information to Council. She then went through a power point presentation that included the sign regulation and lawsuit timeline, the Stipulated Agreement/Settlement Agreement, pictures of the seven existing billboards; In response to a question on the impact to the signs on leased property with a high potential for redevelopment, the CDS Director explained most of the leases have a termination clause and when that property redevelops it will terminate the lease and there will be the removal of the billboard as typically a billboard is not conducive to new mixed use residential and commercial development The CDS Director continued with the presentation which covered a recap of where they have been and current status of billboards, the City of Fort Walton Beach' s vision, the resident' s statements on signage, the redevelopment potential of billboard sites, why settle for non- conforming billboards, Lamar's proposed amendment as originally presented. In response to the request for clarification on the request in the proposed amendment for credit to replace the billboard removed at Sunrise, the City Attorney noted she had crossed out those issues in the Agreement she believed would not be legally sufficient if Council went forward with it as drafted. She explained they want credit for the billboard they lost to redevelopment; so if they do a 2 for 1 exchange on some other billboards, they want that counted toward their ability to put in a new one. She further clarified that as part of the Settlement Agreement, relocation would be Council' s decision. The CDS Director continued with the presentation which included staff findings that the modification to the Settlement Agreement is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision Plan of the residents, the CRA vision for the CRA Plan update, the Sign Regulations, and the Land Development Code; and staff's proposal that Council not amend the Settlement Agreement and Council continue to encourage properties in the CRA to redevelop and eliminate the non- conforming structures, and that the City continue to encourage and provide for the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the community character.  Special Council 10- 30- 06 105 LAMAR ADVERTISING cont. In response for the request for clarification on the billboards on leased property, the CDS Director explained it is a lease with the property owner and if the property is sold, Lamar can negotiate a lease with the new property owner to keep the sign on the as is; and if it is blown down or property, destroyed, it then cannot be reconstructed. She further explained, under the Settlement Agreement, Lamar can keep the seven existing signs, continue to maintain and repair them due to normal wear and tear, and change the r- posters periodically, but they cannot tear them down and replace them. Some discussion was held on the repairs that can be made to the signs and the criteria for replacement of a damaged sign. Mark Miller, attorney who represented the City on the sign code disputes, echoed Mr. Livingston' s remarks in that the question is in Council' s sole discretion whether or not do it, there is nothing compelling Council to do it, there are no problems with the Code or the Settlement Agreement; there is a request from a member of the public to take some action and it is Council' s decision. He commented the issue about non- conforming signs is not peculiar to Fort Walton Beach, and the of concept a non- conforming use is that there is a use that was permissible when it was put up so it can stay, but it will not be encouraged and the theory is that sooner or later that non- conformity will be gone. He also echoed the comment by Mr. Livingston in that it does not behoove anyone to try to work out the details of any Agreement this evening. He said if Council decides it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Settlement Agreement, or do something else, then they will attempt to arrive at an agreement that will accomplish the purposes.