Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-14-06 ‎(regular)‎ — reading text

favor and Holmes and Minich opposed ( Pullen absent). to come back with a The Mayor inquired if Council wanted to give a suspense time for the City recommendation on a timeline to give to the Fair Association. June 30, Mr. Minich moved to extend the termination date of the current license agreement until 2008. Mr. Patterson seconded motion. to Discussion included that the extension will allow the Fair Association the opportunity to continue operate and fulfill binding contracts, as well as give the City time to work out the possibility to sell a portion to the Fair Association or to consider other options. Also, that Council can adjust City codes/ regulations for the circumstances if they choose to. until June of It was noted if the motion carries, all aspects of the license agreement will remain the same 2008, including that the Fair Association will have to install city- required fire alarms; plus the City would still have theoption to give the Fair Association the required 180 days notice of termination. be able to be Mr.Charles Rigdon stated that between the City and the Fair Association, a solution should continue to do its work. found so the City is protected and compensated and the Fair Association can  Special Council 10- 25- 06 101 ABANDONMENT PLAN cont. Mr. Charles Rigdon remarked that once the issue of selling the property is resolved one way or another, then both parties can sit down and negotiate a feasible solution, but 90 days is not an adequate amount of time. He advised the Fair Association is willing to partner with the City, and requested extra time to make ar angements that would be acceptable to both. As a matter of clarification, the City Manager advised the Fair Association is required to install a fire alarm monitoring system, not a sprinkling system, in buildings currently housed on the property; however, any new buildings that may be constructed would require a sprinkling system. It was noted the deadline of 90 days for a fire alarm monitoring system to be installed had almost passed, but it was not enforced because the lease had been terminated. Mr. Charles Rigdon advised that after working with the City' s Fire Department, the Fair Association has a price of $36, 000 for a fire alarm monitoring system. Mr. Minich advised he wanted to amend his motion to include the verbiage "or until legally disposed" in the event a sale should occur before June 30, 2008. Mr. Patterson accepted the amendment to the motion. Council discussion included the need to encourage the Fair Association to attract more business, thus allowing the City to be better compensated, and to encourage the City to move faster in the sale process. It was also mentioned that if the property is sold, there is no guarantee that it would be sold to the Fair Association. Mr. Hartwell expressed his feeling that extending the lease would not solve anything as the 180 days clause remains and the issue could come before Council again at any time. The City Attorney clarified the first motion made was to move forward on determination of the legalities of selling the property, and any other follow- on motions are contingent upon the original motion. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion to extend the termination date of the current license agreement until June 30, 2008, or until legally disposed, and it carried by a vote of 4 to 3 with Patterson, Campbell, Minich and the Mayor in favor and Holmes, Tucker, and Hartwell opposed Pullen absent). The Mayor advised that with the passage of the motion to extend the termination date, issues # 3 and # 5 requested by the Fair Association in their October 2, 2006 letter to the City are moot; issue # 3 involved making an offer to purchase all facilities and equipment currently owned by the NWF Fair Association, and Issue # 5 requested a period of 180 days from the date of final decision by City Council to remove all facilities and above ground improvements. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7: 55 p. m. APPROVED: MAYOR: ATTEST: CITY CLERK ddm/ lve  103 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 30, 2006 nRODUCTION 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 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 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 10- 30- 06 LAMAR ADVERTISING cant. 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 if what is needed is a decision on whether or not to go forward, without getting into the specifics of the language of the modification. 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