Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 06-12-1977 Regular — reading text

most of the communities in this area have this plan. We will be glad to answer any questions that you have. I think it is I the only supplemental program for cancer that is offered on a payroll deduction plan. CATALINA YACHT LEASE Mr. Fred Estergren, Attorney for Catalina Yachts, stated that there is a resolution on the agenda concerning a lease in the Industrial Park. He explained that the amended lease has been given to City Attorney to look over. He explained the changes in the amended lease from the original Blake lease. The new lease picks up the principal balance which is 22 months in arrears. We want to pick up the lease and extend it by the arrears. The rest of the lease is almost verbatim with the original lease. The lease did expire in 1992. It now extends to 1994. In Paragraph 4, all we did was change from $ 270, 000. 00 to $ 249, 000. 00. Para- graph 5 is exactly the same except that we added fiberglass boat manufacturing. In Paragraph 8, we added the last portion which reads, " which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." Mayor said, I think the chief concern of this Council is that we will want to know what the building will be used for and if it will employ people. We want to see many people working. Mr. Estergren replied, there is no way we can tell what will happen. The lease still gives you a control, but adds that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Mr. Hunt explained that we have other I leases in the Industrial Park, with res- trictions on them. pleased our that If we are not careful, we could be setting a precedent. Catalina Yachts I am selected Industrial Park in which to locate. I know the City wants to do everything they can to insure that the business is a success and that you grow and expand, but my primary concern is that the buil- ding will be used for manufacturing pur- poses. 82 7-/: t-?1 Mr. Estergren explained that the difference in Paragraph # 12 is changing ten days to thirty days. Paragraph # 13 added 10 days. Tom Ryan strongly recommended that Council not change Paragraph # 8. We bought this property for the purpose of improving the economic conditions of this area. Cata- lina Yachts could not reproduce this property for this price. The purpose is to improve the economic condition. I think Council should reserve the right to maintain that control. Mr. Rigdon said, as Chairman of the Indus- trial Committee, we want to leave it as it is. The idea is to create jobs out there. The criticism we have had is that we do not have enough control out there. Mr. Estergren said, all I can do is go back and ask them. Mr. Rigdon said we want to keep the original lease as far as changing hands. Walt Smith, City Attorney, said we are taking out that pmrtion which reads, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." I wou1dntt think it would have any affect. Basically the only major difference is that you are holding off 22 months of principal, which they will pay at the end of the lease. Dol1ar- wise you are the same. Mr. Estergren said, I will go back and submit it to them. Walt Smith said, it wouldn' t bother me to sign a lease without that portion in it. Mr. Rigdon moved to accept the proposed lease with the provision that the section which reads, " which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld" be removed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Baughman and carried unanimously. City Attorney read the following resolu- tion: 77. 21 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT  1:2. - ? ' 7 83 WALTON BEACH TO ENTER INTO A NEW LEASE WITH BLAKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF POLK COUNTY AND CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF SAID LEASE TO CATALINA YACHTS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. I REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE: Mr. Brock moved that the resolution be approved. Motion was seconded by Mr. Hill and carried unanimously. Mr. Randy Stokes, representative for OCEAN CITY SUBDIVISION Ricks/ Kendrick/ Stokes/ David, was present to request a zoning change from C- 2 to R~ 2, Lots 301, 302, and 303, Ocean City Subdivision. Mr. Stokes explained that the three lots are adjacent to their property. It is behind the office fac- ility. We came sever~ years ago asking you to change from R- 2 to C- 2. Now we are asking you to change back to R- 2. Mr. Hunt said, there are apartments on both sides of this property, and he moved to approve the rezoning request. Motion was seconded by Mr. Baughman. City Attorney explained that Mr. Stokes will have to go back through the proper channels for the rezoning change. Mr. Stokes asked if Council could give a tentative approval so that they can proceed with their plans. City Attorney replied that if they give tentative approval, it will still be zoned C- 2 until such time as the request goes through the Hearing Panel and public hearings. It would be a gamble on your part if the zoning didn' t make it. Mr. Hunt asked if Council could handle this with a variance rather than a rezoning. I City Attorney replied that you could grant a variance to permit him to construct an apartment and require him to comply with Southern Building Codes rather than C- 2 zoning requirements. Mr. Hunt so moved. Motion was seconded by Mr. Rigdon and carried unanimously. City Attorney said, I would say that you 84 7-/~-?? would have difficulty financing through FHA or VA if you sell in a C- 2 zone. Mr. Stokes replied that they would take the gamble. VARIANCE TO FLOOD ELEVATION Mr. John VanDyke, representing the owner REQUIREMENT: 51 BAY DRIVE of 51 Bay Drive, stated that he would like to request a variance to the flood elevation requirement from 8 feet to 5. 5 feet for construction of a new house at 51 Bay Drive. He explained that the main part of the house will be above the 8 feet. However, there will be a bath- room, laundry room and garage below the required 8 ft. level. Mayor asked if the owner is aware of the higher insurance rates. Mr. Hunt moved that the request be approved. Motion was seconded by Mr. Rigdon and carried unanimously. City Clerk explained that Mrs. Johnson called him today. The contractor did not submit a plot plan showing the ele- vation. As I understand it, the problem is that the contractor did not know the