City of Marco Island - City Council Meeting 2/3/03

THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND

City Council Meeting Agenda

Chairman: E. Glenn Tucker

City Council: John A. Arceri, Heyward E. Boyce, Terri DiSciullo, Vickie Kelber, Michael F. Minozzi, S. Jeannette K. Patterson

City Manager: A. William Moss

City Clerk: Laura Litzan City Attorney: Rich Yovanovich

Monday, February 3, 2003, 6:00 PM

Frank E. Mackle Jr. Community Park,1361 Andalusia Terrace

Marco Island, Florida

Notice: Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be heard.

2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

(A) Council Minutes for January 21, 2003 (Regular Meeting)

(B) Council Minutes for January 27, 2003 (Special-Called Meeting)

5. PRESENTATIONS

(A) Fire-Rescue Report Fire Chief Michael Murphy.

ORDINANCE / DISCUSSION First Reading Petition R-02-03, William G. Morris, as agent for Morans Barge Marina, requesting the rezoning of .54 acres from A-ST to C-4 for vehicular parking for development of a condominium/hotel project located on property adjacent to the foot of the Goodland Bridge, north of and contiguous to San Marco Road, Marco Island, Florida.

ORDINANCE(S) / DISCUSSION First Reading(s) LDCA-02-01 and LCDA-02-02, Ron Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, representing the Aviary Assisted Living Facility, is requesting amendments to the Marco Island Land Development Code (LDC) affecting zoned CF(community facility) and group housing standards.

RESOLUTION Public Hearing Petition V-03-01 Wayne Homes, Inc., as agent for Peter and Suzanne Weinstein, property owners, requesting a 2.5 foot variance from the required 18-foot front yard depth requirement for a singlefamily home under construction on property located at 1472 Butterfield Court, Marco Island, Florida.

RESOLUTION Public Hearing Petition V-02-10 Jamie B. Greusel representing the Harbour Boat Club Condominium, requesting a 9 foot variance from the required side yard setback of 15-feet to 6-feet for construction of a new carport facility located along the west property boundary, for property commonly referred to as the Harbour Boat Club, located at 961 Swallow Avenue, Marco Island, Florida.

RESOLUTION Public Hearing Petition V-03-02 Randy C. Elliott of RCE Contractors, Inc., as agent for Elyse Auerback and Craig Bagin, property owners, requesting a 4.5 foot variance from the reuired 25-foot rear year setback requiredment for a single-family home lecated at 1088 Old Marco Lane, Marco Island, Florida.

DISCUSSION Mackle Park Operations Report.

DISCUSSION Appointment to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.

DISCUSSION Appointment to the Planning Board.

DISCUSSION Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning.

DISCUSSION Commercial Signage, Multiple Tenant Locations With Less Than 125 Linear Feet of Frontage.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISCUSSION

8. FUTURE AGENDA

9. PUBLIC COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)

We encourage our citizens to participate in the governing of Marco Island. Public comments are appreciated. We respectfully ask our citizens to be courteous, and to respect the rights of others to petition City Council and express their opinions. We also ask that Public comment be limited to four minutes.

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: Bryan Milk, City Planner

6(A) Date: January 27, 2003

Business: 1^st Reading - Ordinance

Subject: Petition R-02-02, William G. Morris,

agent for Morans Barge Marina, is requesting a

Rezone from A-ST to C-4 Department: Community Development

William G. Morris, agent for Morans Barge Marina seeks to rezone .54 acres of “A-ST” (rural agricultural) to “C-4” (general commercial) for the purposes of providing additional density and vehicular parking for development of a new condominium/hotel project. The petitioner proposes to build a 10 story hotel/condo development on the adjacent 1.46 acre “C-4” marina site and include the subject .54 acre site for additional density and parking purposes. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the foot of the Goodland Bridge, north of and contiguous to San Marco Road (SR-92).

Presently, the subject .54 acre site is 300 feet x 75 feet, and consists of mangroves, a gravel parking lot, fuel tanks and a sewage pumping station, which are being used by the adjacent marina, restaurant, and hotel. According to the petitioner, Morans Barge Marina encompasses 1.46 acres of “C-4-ST” zoned property and has provided marina facilities, hotel rooms, wet slips, and restaurant uses for approximately 50 years.

The petitioner has assembled both properties, and is currently seeking an administrative site development plan approval (SDP-02-02) for a 10-story condominium/hotel development. In doing so, the petitioner will demolish all of the existing marina, hotel, and restaurant structures currently on-site, and start with a new slate. The configuration of both properties and their location adjacent to the water and the abutting right-of-way, creates unique challenges for building setbacks, heights, parking, landscaping, and density for the petitioner. Absent from the original site development plan submittal package was a boundary survey. The survey was received on November 11, 2002, revealing that .54 acres of the property was zoned “A-ST” and not “C-4-ST” as initially claimed by the petitioner. In accordance with the “C-4” zoning district regulations, hotel/motel units are calculated at 26 units per acre, and multi-family condominium units are calculated at 12 units per acre. The “A-ST” zoning of .54 acres of property on the petitioners site development plan represents a potential net loss of 14 hotel rooms, or 6 condominium units.

The allowable hotel density of 26 units/acre on 1.46 acres provides a total of 38 rooms. The petitioner has stated for the record that 38 hotel rooms may not be economically viable for the subject project, and without additional rooms and overall rooms sizes of approximately 2,500 square feet each, the project could be economically infeasible. Although the existing marina, hotel, restaurant, and wet slips are water related and water dependent uses, the proposed rezone is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan. A through discussion and evaluation of this petition is provided for in the attached staff report.

The Planning Board heard this request at the January 10, 2003 meeting and voted 4 to 2 to recommend denial with Herb Savage abstaining. The Marco Island Civic Association, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and residents of Goodland opposed the rezone petition (correspondence attached).

Legal Counsel for the City will advise City Council that it may not approve a rezone petition if Council finds the petition inconsistent to the Comprehensive Plan. Should Council find the request inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan but still desire to consider a rezoning of the property at a later date, then staff should be directed to initiate the process for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the Future Land Use designation for the subject parcel from “preservation/conservation” to “community commercial”. Based on the implied desire to consider the rezoning in said manner, staff will also bring forward several companion variance requests. Thus, Council can react to the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, and associated variances at one public hearing.

Should Council not wish to support the application for rezoning, then a motion to deny would be appropriate. The applicant can then proceed with a Site Development Plan (SDP) on the 1.46-acre C-4 portion of the property. Based on SDP revisions, the petitioner may or may not need any variances for their desired project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Discussion. Motion to deny rezoning as requested. Should Council support the rezone petition, motion to table the petition, with the understanding that staff expedite a small scale comprehensive plan amendment.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: K. Greg Niles

6(B) Date: January 28, 2003

Agenda Section: Discussion Ord. 1^st Readings

Subject: LDCA-02-01 Land Development Code Department: Community Development

Amendment to the CF zoning district standards

Regarding maximum height & maximum lot coverage;

And LCDA-0202 Land Development Code Amendment

To the Group Housing standards of Ordinance 02-33

Regarding maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) &

Ron Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, representing the Aviary Assisted Living Facility, is requesting amendments to the Marco Island Land Development Code (LDC) affecting land zoned CF (community facility), and group housing standards. As the two petitions and the amendments sought are interrelated, they have been consolidated into one staff report for discussion purposes. The amended text is identified by underline and ~~strike through~~ .

The proposed amendments to the CF zoning district pursuant to petition LDCA-02-01 are as follows:

30-325(5) Maximum height of structures. 30 feet, except for antennas and towers, which is 40 feet. In the case of other care housing facilities (Ord. 02-33.18.9), the maximum height of structures shall not exceed 50 feet, provided that for each foot of height over 30 feet, the structure shall be setback an additional foot beyond the minimum required setbacks, as measured from the wall plane of each exterior wall.

30-325(7) Maximum lot coverage. 76 percent of the total lot area, except in the case of other care housing facilities (Ord. 02-33.18.9), where the maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 40 percent of the total lot area.

The proposed amendments to the Group Housing standards pursuant to petition LDCA-02-02 are as follows:

Ord. 02-33.18.10 Maximum floor area ratio (FAR). ~~The maximum floor area ratio shall not exceed a factor of 0.45 (0.45 times the area of the property equals the gross floor area.~~ Reserved.

Ord. 02-33.18.10.5 Maximum density. The maximum density of the development shall not exceed the underlying zoning district residential density, the applicable Future Land Use Element residential density allocation, or 26 units per acre, whichever is most restrictive.

The petitioner desires to construct a new Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) on a 5.7 acre site along San Marco Road which is zoned CF (community facility). Currently the LDC limits building heights in the CF district to 30 feet, and for the desired use, a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.45 is applicable.

The petitioner believes the current height and FAR regulations are overly restrictive, and merit consideration for change. In developing the proposed LDC text changes, the petitioner provided for a narrow application, affecting only "other care housing facilities". For Council's information "other care housing facilities" includes assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes. Due to the complexity of these matters, staff urges City Council to review the attached staff report and memorandum to the Planning Board for a full briefing.

Staff reviewed the proposed text amendments in the context of a) the need and justification for the change, and b) relationship to the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Staff concluded that approval of each of the proposed amendments would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff further offers the following opinions on the amendments sought:

1. Maximum height. Staff agrees that the current 30 foot limitation could be overly restrictive, and thus supports an increase to 40 feet. Further, staff believes that any increase in maximum height should incorporate an increase to setbacks.

2. Change to maximum lot coverage. Staff believes that if the height is increased to 50 feet, and the FAR is modified to Reserved, then the 40% lot coverage proposal should be approved. However, if the 50 foot increase is not approved, then this proposal should not be approved, as additional lot coverage may be necessary to plan for a building at a lower height.

3. Floor Area Ratio. Staff supports the elimination of the 0.45 FAR requirement for "other care housing facilities", as that is the only land use which is subject to this standard.

4. Maximum density. This is an amendment initiated by staff to clarify how density would be calculated for other care housing facilities. Staff encourages Council to consider adoption of this amendment now or in the future.

Because of the interrelationship of the proposed amendments, staff offers the following recommendations for Council's review and consideration, identified as Options A, B and C. Staff prefers Option A.

A) 1. Approve a height increase in the CF district for "other care housing facilities to 40 feet, and incorporate setback increases.

2. Approve the deletion of FAR and replace with "Reserved".

3. Deny the change to maximum lot coverage, unless desired by applicant.

4. Approve maximum density amendment as presented.

B) 1. Approve a height increase in the CF district for "other care housing facilities to 50 feet with setback increases.

2. Approve the deletion of FAR and replace with "Reserved".

3. Approve the change to maximum lot coverage.

4. Approve maximum density amendment as presented

C) 1. Deny amendment to height increase, leave at 30 feet.

2. Deny amendment to FAR and deny change in lot coverage, or

Approve the amendment to FAR and approve change in lot coverage.

3. Approve maximum density amendment as presented.

The petitioner made an informal presentation to the Planning Board on December 6, 2002, and participated in the public hearing on the proposed LDC amendments on January 24, 2003. At the hearing on January 24^th, the petitioner unveiled a site plan and architectural renderings of their desired project, a five-story structure designed in anticipation that the proposed changes to the LDC will be approved as presented. The desired project contains 24 assisted living units on the first floor and 100 independent living units on floors 2 through 5. A copy of the petitioner's proposal is included in Council's Agenda book for informational purposes.

At the Planning Board's public hearing it became evident that the Board recognized the need and importance of a care facility for the island. It was also implied that the Board could be supportive of a facility similar to that depicted on the petitioner's renders at the subject site. However, the Planning Board felt that a project such as this should be reviewed and approved as a conditional use. The Board felt that through the conditional use process the project could be reviewed on a site-specific basis, and that in conjunction with any necessary conditions, a site plan and architectural renderings would be attached as exhibits thereto.

In all other zoning districts, a group care housing facility such as the proposed Aviary would be subject to the conditional review process. However, in the CF district, this type of use is listed as a permitted use, and therefore subject only to staff review through the site development plan review process.

Again, due to the complexity of the amendments sought, and the simultaneous unveiling of the desired project, the two became intertwined, and discussion focused more on a local application than a district or use wide perspective. Staff has been instructed by, and concurs with the Planning Board, that a text amendment be initiated to make group housing projects on CF zoned property a conditional use. However, with only four island properties zoned CF (YMCA, Resident's Beach, the Yacht Club, and the subject site), the urgency to make this amendment will depend on Council's actions this evening.

The applicant has stated for the record that if the amendments as presented are approved, then the site plan and renderings for their project will remain unchanged, thus the comfort and protection provided through conditional use review are for all intents and purposes satisfied.

At the conclusion of the January 24, 2003 public hearing the Planning Board voted 5 to1 to recommend denial of petition LDCA-02-01 and 5 to 1 to recommend denial of petition LDCA-02-02.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Discussion of proposals and Options A, B and C. Based on Council's desired action, staff will assist in crafting appropriate motions.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: A. William Moss

6(L) Date: January 8, 2003

Subject: Mackle Park Operations Report Department:

At the September 16, 2002 city council meeting, staff was instructed to review the contractual agreement between the city and the YMCA for the operation of Mackle Park. Staff was asked to make a recommendation on how the Mackle Park Community Center should be operated in the future. Specifically, the council discussed having the city operate the parks community center, which includes scheduling the fields at Winterberry Park and the Tommie Barfield Ball Field.

Managing island park facilities became an unexpected component of city government when Collier County gifted four of the seven public spaces located on the island to the city following the 1997 incorporation. Mackle Park, Winterberry Park, the Racquet Center and Leigh Plummer Park became city property on or about October 1, 1998. The ball field and tennis courts at the Tommie Barfield Elementary School, while owned by the Collier County School District, were scheduled and maintained by the county parks and recreation department. The city assumed these responsibilities from the county department through an intergovernmental agreement with the county school district. The county parks and recreation department discontinued recreational programs on the island as part of this transition and programming became a function of the city.

Since this transfer of services from the county to the city was generally unexpected, the city sought a quick solution to this programmatic and operational dilemma. The city entered into a contract with the YMCA to manage facilities and programs, excluding the Racquet Center, on September 10, 1998 as an alternative to hiring city staff. The initial term of one year was extended through 2001. Subsequent contracts in 2001 and 2002 were executed each for a one year period.

During the budget process for FY-02 and FY-03 members of the community and several citizen advisory committees prompted city council discussion on recreation programming in general and specifically on the operation of Mackle Park. The result of these discussions includes this review of Mackle Park operations and the city assuming responsibility for infield maintenance at all city ball fields and building maintenance at Mackle Park including custodial services. Funding for these maintenance contracts became part of the Parks Maintenance budget in FY-03 with a corresponding fund reduction in the citys contract with the YMCA.

The results of the study on Mackle Park operations are included herein. To summarize, staff recommends that the city assume the day-to-day responsibility of managing Mackle Park and the scheduling of other city facilities. The basis for this recommendation is:

- The city now has the appropriate management dedicated to managing parks and recreation functions and facilities

- Financial savings within the base contract can be re-directed to facility and recreation program expenses

- Establishes clearer lines between city responsibility and contractor responsibilities, making the city directly responsible for the facility, allowing the YMCA to focus on their facility and recreation program development

- Eliminates perceived conflicts between the YMCA as contracted facility manager and the YMCA as an independent program provider

- Increases the number of hours the community center is open throughout the year, particularly during the summer months when school is closed

Staff further recommends that the city management of Mackle Park and other facilities commence immediately, providing the YMCA with notice, per the contract, that the city will conclude the portion of the agreement for “Supervision and Coordination of Use of Facilities” in one hundred twenty (120) calendar days and assume said Mackle Park facility management on Tuesday, June 3, 2003. The grace period of one hundred and twenty (120) days allows the city time to hire necessary staff; update facility policies and grants the YMCA time to address changing staff assignments and priorities.

The Mackle Park staff hired by the city will possess previous experience in the recreation profession and will undergo background reviews as required by city policy. Staff will also enlist volunteers to supplement the functions of city staff at Mackle Park.

The review of Mackle Park operations also focused on the high cost for contracted custodial services at both Mackle Park and the City Racquet Center. Replacing the contractor with a staff maintenance position provides cost savings over the existing contract and grants expanded utility an employee will provide to essential maintenance issues not provided by the contractor, such as playground maintenance, litter patrol, etc.

The changes recommended affect only the “Supervision and Coordination of Use of Facilities” section of the current YMCA contract. The contract provisions for recreational programming will remain in effect. The City Administration sees the YMCA staff and facility as a valuable community asset and will continue to work with the YMCA by sharing resources, concepts and plans to provide the citizens of Marco Island with creative and cost effective recreation programs.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Inform the YMCA that the city intends to terminate the current agreement for the “Supervision and Coordination of Use of Facilities” portion of the current contract. Providing immediate notice to the YMCA allows for city personnel to begin managing day-to-day operations by June 3, 2003.

2. Remove Mackle Park from the “Custodial Services” contract. City staff will perform the custodial services assigned to the contractor

3. Authorize the hiring of a Mackle Park Supervisor, Recreation Leader (2), a part-time Recreation Leader and a full-time Parks Maintenance Worker. (Refer to “Attachment A” for salary information. Current YMCA employees, working at Mackle Park, may apply for the new positions but will not simply be placed in these positions as part of this transition consistent with the citys personnel policies. The most qualified applicants available for the salaries offered will fill the position[s].)

4. Authorize new operating hours for Mackle Park, beginning June 3, 2003: Monday through Sunday from 8 am 10 pm. The community center will then be open approximately 98 hours each week. This will be the year-round schedule.

The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee voted unanimously to endorse the above recommendations (as amended in the final report) at their meeting on January 14, 2003.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: Kelly Michele Smith

6(C) Date: January 14, 2003

Business: Resolution

Subject: V-03-01, requesting a 2.5-foot variance from the Department: Community Development

18-foot required front yard depth for a single-family house.

Wayne Homes by Centex, representing Susan and Peter Weinstein, property owners, is requesting a 2.5-foot variance from the required 18-foot front yard depth requirement for a new single-family home located at 1472 Butterfield Court.

In July 2001, the City of Marco Island issued a building permit for the construction of a single-family home at the subject property which is located on a cul-de-sac. In December 2002 it was discovered that while the house complies with the 25-foot front yard setback it does not comply with the 18-foot front yard depth requirement. Unfortunately staff did not catch this error at the permitting or spot survey stage of construction. There are three areas of encroachment that total 20.79 square feet. One area is the front entry which encroaches a total of 3.95 square feet, another area is a powder room which encroaches a total of 14.16 square feet. The third area of is a study which encroaches a total of 2.68 square feet.

The petitioner has stated that a literal interpretation of the LDC would create an undue hardship for the property owner because it would require that the non-conforming areas of the structures be removed. Staff is also of the opinion that a literal interpretation could create an undue hardship for the property owner because the encroachment was not created by the property owner. Granting this variance will not be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code. The intent of the LDC is to provide setbacks for structures and requires adherence to setback requirements when permitting and constructing structures. Staff does not, however, believe that granting this variance would be injurious to the neighborhood.

The City Council will be acting as the Citys Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter. The Planning Board heard this request at their January 10, 2003 meeting and voted 3-1 to recommend denial of petition V-03-01 to City Council. Staff has since requested that the petitioner provide additional information from the project architect or engineer regarding the feasibility of removing the areas of encroachment. To date no information has been received.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct required public hearing; Motion to approve resolution, if desired. Council may wish to table this item until information requested of the petitioner is received and evaluated by staff.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: Bryan Milk, City Planner

6(D) Date: January 14, 2003

Business: Resolution

Subject: V-02-10, Jamie Greusel, agent for

Harbour Boat Club Condominium requesting a Department: Community Development

side yard variance for a new carport

Jamie Greusel, agent for Harbour Boat Club Condominium, is requesting a 9 foot variance from the required side yard setback of 15 feet to 6 feet for the purpose of constructing a new carport over ten existing parking spaces located adjacent to the western property line. The Harbour Boat Club is located at 961 Swallow Avenue.

The Harbour Boat Club is a three-story, 28 unit multi-family condominium which provides both under building parking and parking along the western property line. Approximately sixteen parking spaces are located at grade underneath the existing condominium, the remainder of the spaces exist along the western property line.

Pursuant to the petitioners exhibit, the proposed carport will be located towards the middle of the existing parking lot, approximately 160 feet from Swallow Avenue, and approximately 6 feet from the western property line. The carport structure will be installed over existing parking spaces. Presently, there is an existing six-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the western property line, which is located adjacent to Marisol Plazas landscape buffer which appears to be approximately 10 12 feet wide. Each of the condominium buffers are void of trees and consists primarily of grass, light poles, and over head power lines. The petitioner is responsible for providing a landscaped hedge between the western property line and the existing parking lot.

The Planning Board heard this request at their January 10, 2003 meeting and voted 5 to 0 to recommend conditional approval with Herb Savage abstaining. The conditions of approval are provided for in the Resolution of Adoption. No members of the public spoke in objection to the petition, however, staff received a letter from Francis Kelly (attached) who was opposed to the design.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct required public hearing; motion to approve resolution if desired.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: A,. William Moss, City Manager

6(G) Date: January 20, 2003

Business: Discussion

Subject: Appointment to the Collier County Coastal Department: City Manager

In February 2001 Collier County established a nine-member Coastal Advisory Committee. The Committee was created to assist the Board of County Commissioners with its establishment of a unified beach erosion control and inlet management program and to advise the BCC and TDC of project priorities with respect to available funding sources. Of the nine-member Committee, three members are to be from the City of Marco Island. The BCC is required to appoint Marco Island representatives from a list containing one or more qualified applicants submitted by the Marco Island City Council.

The three registered electors from Marco Island currently serving on the Coastal Advisory Committee are James Snediker, Ashley Lupo, and Robert Stakich. Mr. Stakich has submitted his notice to the City Manager of his intent to resign from the Committee.

City Council should recommend a replacement for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. City Council may wish to designate one of its members or a Marco Island citizen. Should Council prefer to select a Marco Island citizen, Council may nominate a Marco Island citizen or ask the City Manager to solicit resumes from interested citizens.

Desired qualifications for membership on the Coastal Advisory Committee should be based upon familiarity with coastal processes, inlet dynamics, coastal management programs, or demonstrated interest in such programs; relevant education and experience; leadership and involvement in community affairs; and willingness to attend meetings and to undertake and complete assignments.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: K. Greg Niles

6(I) Date: January 27, 2003

Business: Discussion

Subject: Interlocal Agreement for Public Department: Community Development

School Facility Planning

For the past several months staff and counterparts from Collier County, Naples, Everglades City, and the School Board have been working on an Interlocal Agreement to satisfy statutory requirements for joint planning. Attached for Council's review is an Agreement denoted as "Draft" which will need to approved by the three cities and the school board.

A collaborative effort went into the development of this proposed Interlocal Agreement. While mainly a document directing staff level interaction and cooperation, staff was insistent that three areas of concern be specifically addressed:

1. That charter schools receive equal standing and consideration as all other public schools.

2. That execution of this Agreement fully satisfies the city's requirements for cooperative planning.

3. That any future school board project will adhere with our site development plan requirements, unless modified through a separate agreement.

Staff has reviewed the draft Agreement and found that the document as a whole, and the three areas of special concern, have been satisfactorily addressed.

As this Agreement will also be presented to Naples and Everglades City, there could be some minor changes to the text. As such, staff will bring this matter back at the February 17^th meeting to advise Council of any significant changes. However, staff would also like to report that Council is in support of the draft Agreement as presented.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion; motion to support the Interlocal Agreement as present, with final approval and execution to occur at the February 17, 2003 meeting.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by:

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

Meeting Date: February 3, 2003

Agenda Item: Prepared By: K. Greg Niles

6(J) Date: January 27, 2003

Agenda Section: Discussion

Subject: Commercial Signage, multiple tenant locations Department: Community Development

With less than 125 linear feet of frontage

Currently the city's sign code states that, "Single or multiple tenant buildings located on a parcel having less than 125 linear feet of frontage are permitted a single ground sign per parcel, with a maximum of 32 square feet of sign face and a maximum of 20 square feet of copy area. Copy is limited to building reference name and street number."

Within the city there are several multiple tenant commercial locations that have less than 125 linear feet of frontage. Per city code, these locations can only list the building or center's name and street address. Individual tenants cannot have their business name on the sign. This limitation has upset many business owners.

Over the past several months, staff has been working with the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. Utilizing the Committee as a sounding board for the business community, staff and the Committee looked at potential changes to the code that would provide some signage relief. Attached for Council's information are rendering depicting desired changes to the code. The renderings depict a sign that allows up to five (5) tenant names per side, and that there could be different tenant names on both sides of the sign. All other parameters would remain in the text. The changes sought have been fully endorsed by the Governmental Affairs Committee.

In effect the desired change would allow directory style signs on lots with less than 125 feet of frontage. If Council supports the change desired, staff will initiate an amendment to the sign code.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion; motion to have staff initiate sign code amendment, if desired.

Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager

Council Action: Motion by: Second by: