THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
City Council Meeting Agenda
Chairman: Michael F. Minozzi
City Council: John A. Arceri, Heyward E. Boyce, Terri DiSciullo, Vickie Kelber,
S. Jeannette K. Patterson, E. Glenn Tucker
City Manager: A. William Moss
City Clerk: Laura Litzan City Attorney: Rich Yovanovich
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 21, 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.
1. ROLL CALL
2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Greg Niles, Community Development Director
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(A) Council Minutes for April 7, 2002 (Regular Meeting)
5. PRESENTATIONS
(A) Police Department Report Police Chief Roger Reinke
6. BUSINESS
(A) DISCUSSION / APPEAL Public Hearing An appeal filed by Blake Wishart of Marco Dock & Lift, Inc., representing John Putnam, property owner, challenging the denial of BD-02-29 by the Marco Island Planning Board which requested a 5-foot extension from the maximum permitted 20-foot protrusion into the waterway to allow for a 25-foot boat docking facility for property located at 1420 Salvadore Court.
(B) DISCUSSION Annual Level of Service (LOS) Report Concurrency Management.
(C) DISCUSSION FEMA Letter of Final Determination Revised Flood Maps.
(D) DISCUSSION Pedestrian Beach Access at Northern Boundary of Marco Beach Resort PUD (Marriott/Mass Mutual Property).
(E) DISCUSSION Donation of “Homeland” Dolphin Debut Statue.
(F) DISCUSSION Raised Platform for City Council.
6. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISCUSSION
7. FUTURE AGENDA
8. PUBLIC COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
9. ADJOURN
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: April 21, 2003
Agenda Item: 6(f) Prepared By: Dana Souza, Recreation Coordinator
Date: April 11, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Raised Platform for City Council Department: City Council
BACKGROUND:
In response to a citizen s inquiry at the February 3, 2003 meeting, City Council directed staff to provide information on acquiring a raised platform for City Council meetings that would enable the public to see council members.
In January, 1999, staff researched the cost associated with moving City Council meetings from the YMCA to Mackle Park. That analysis included the cost of leasing or purchasing a stage. The approximate cost to lease a stage is $1,012.20 per month; the approximate cost to purchase a stage is $10,011.00.
At the February 18, 2003 meeting City Council directed staff to investigate the purchase of portable lightweight bleacher/risers similar to those in use at Tommie Barfield Elementary School. The approximate cost to purchase an appropriate number of these portable risers would be between $6,635.00 and $8,280.00. A portable riser, on loan from Tommie Barfield Elementary, will be on display at this meeting for Council s inspection.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and further direction.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: April 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: Kelly Michele Smith
6(A) Date: April 14, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion/Appeal
Subject: An appeal challenging the denial of BD-02-29, Department: Community Development
5-foot boat dock extension request for 1420 Salvadore Court
BACKGROUND:
At their February 21, 2003 meeting, the Planning Board considered petition BD-02-29, which requested a 5-foot extension from the maximum permitted 20-foot protrusion to allow for the addition of an outside walkway for an existing boat docking facility for property located at 1420 Salvadore Court. Staff found the extension requested to be consistent with the review criteria outlined in Section 54-115(a)(3) of City Code and recommended that the Planning Board approve petition BD-2-29. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Board voted 6-0 to deny the extension requested.
Blake Wishart of Marco Dock & Lift, Inc., representing John Putnam, property owner, is appealing the decision of the Planning Board. As the subject boat dock extension is for a single-family property, the Planning Board has final authority to deny the petition without further review of City Council. Pursuant to Section 54-115(c) of City Code, Mr. Putnam has standing to request an appeal of the Planning Board s decision. A letter requesting the appeal and the appropriate fee for the appeal was submitted to the City Manager within the 14-day appeal period. The appeal has been advertised and scheduled for public hearing at this meeting.
City Council will be acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter. Attached for Council s review is the letter of appeal filed by Blake Wishart, the staff report presented to the Planning Board, correspondence received prior to the Planning Board meeting and a copy of the minutes from the February 21, 2003 Planning Board meeting. A resolution for approval is also attached should Council wish to approve the boat dock extension requested.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct hearing; affirm decision of the Planning Board, or reverse decision and approve resolution authorizing the extension requested, if desired.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: April 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: K. Greg Niles
6(B) Date: April 14, 2003
Agenda Section: Resolution Public Hearing
Business:
Subject: Annual Level of Service (LOS) Report Department: Community Development
Concurrency Management System
BACKGROUND:
At the April 7, 2003 meeting, City Council received and discussed the Annual Level of Service (LOS) report. The report tracks development impacts on adopted LOS standards, and provides a mechanism to forewarn Council of potential LOS deficiencies over the next five years. As noted in the Executive Summary (copy attached), and chart provided at the beginning of Tab B of the report, the City is operating within adopted LOS standards, and with minor exceptions, will continue to operate in full compliance throughout the five-year horizon.
Adopted Level of Service standards apply to the following areas: 1. Transportation; 2. Potable Water; 3. Sanitary Sewers; 4. Stormwater Drainage; 5. Community Parks; and 6. Solid Waste.
Currently the City is primarily responsible for transportation, stormwater drainage and community parks facilities. Solid waste is managed through agreements with Collier County. Potable water and sanitary sewers are primarily within the control of a private entity (Florida Water Services). Due to on-going issues with that private entity, detailed evaluation of facility capacity and future capital expenditures have proven difficult to ascertain, and therefore the report utilizes information gleaned from permit applications.
Per Chapter 30, Article X (Concurrency Management System) the Planning Board is required to conduct a public hearing on the contents of the Annual LOS Report, and if the current LOS is below adopted level of service policy standards, must discuss and recommend three potential strategies to resolve those deficiencies. The Planning Board considered this report at the March 21, 2003 meeting, and after the required public hearing determined that no corrective actions as stated in City Code are warranted at this time.
Attached for Council's consideration is a resolution to accept the findings of the LOS report. Per City Code, Council must conduct a public hearing prior to adopting the resolution. Once the resolution is adopted, staff will forward the report to DCA as part of the City's first AUIR (Annual Update and Inventory Report).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct required public hearing; motion to approve attached resolution.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: April 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: K. Greg Niles
6(C) Date: April 14, 2003
Agenda Section: Discussion
Business:
Subject: FEMA Letter of Final Determination Department: Community Development
Effective Date for Utilization of Revised
Flood Maps
BACKGROUND:
On April 2nd the City received a Letter of Final Determination (LFD) from FEMA stating the revised based flood elevations as shown on the preliminary flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) are final, and will become effective on October 2, 2003. As the flood elevation information on the preliminary maps is considered the best available data, FEMA wrote, "effective with the date of this letter, we encourage your community to use the BFE data presented on the preliminary FIRM and FIS for regulating floodplain development...".
Per the new flood maps, large areas of the City (primarily east of Bald Eagle Drive) will have a net decrease or no change in required elevations. Smaller areas (Caxambas, Hideaway, and Gulf locations) will have a net increase in elevation, possibly combined with a change to a velocity zone designation. Realizing many projects are currently under design, staff has offered June 2, 2003 as the effective date on which the City will review and permit structures under the new flood maps. A copy of a memorandum to the development community is attached for Council's review.
Staff discussed the proposed course of action and effective date with the Planning Board on April 11th, and received their support. Staff has brought this matter to City Council for discussion purposes, and to either affirm the June 2nd effective date, or to set another date. Based on Council's action, staff will work diligently to convey information to the development community, and to expedite the review and approval of plans submitted before the deadline.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion; motion to affirm June 2, 2003 effective date for utilization of new BFE information for permitting new construction.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: April 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
6(D) Date: April 14, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Pedestrian Beach Access at Northern Department: City Manager
Boundary of Marco Beach Resort PUD
(Marriott/Mass Mutual Property)
BACKGROUND:
On March 3, 2003 City Council discussed the option to utilize a 15-foot wide strip of land to accommodate pedestrian beach access along the northern boundary of the Marriott Resort PUD. After discussing the issue and receiving public comment, City Council directed the City Attorney to report to Council on the feasibility of limiting the 15-foot pedestrian beach access strip to Marco Island residents only.
The option for a pedestrian beach access was provided to the City by the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company upon approval of the PUD in 2001. The 15-foot wide strip of land is along the northern property boundary and is reserved for a period of ten years from the date of approval of the PUD. The reservation period may be extended for up to two additional five-year periods by approval of the City Council. The strip of land may be used to accommodate pedestrian beach access should the majority of City Council vote to approve such access during the reservation period.
As requested the City Attorney has reviewed the language in the Marco Beach Resort PUD pertaining to pedestrian beach access and conducted research with respect to the following issues:
1. Whether the City can restrict use of the access point to only the City of Marco Island residents and
2. Whether the City can transfer the use rights it obtained under the PUD to another party such as the Marco Island Civic Association.
The attached report from the City Attorney indicates that, “In order for the City to distinguish between residents and non-residents of the City with respect to beach access, the City must be able to determine that a valid public purpose exists for the distinction and that the implementation of the distinction rationally relates to carrying out that purpose.” As to the question whether the City could transfer its rights under the PUD to an organization such as the Marco Island Civic Association so that such an association controlled the pedestrian beach access, the City Attorney indicates that, “Without a specific reference in the PUD language as to permissibility of assignment of transfer, it would appear that the public right created could not be transferred to another entity.”
Following the Council meeting of March 3rd and the subsequent media reporting (which was unable to convey the full context of Council s discussion), a Collier County Commissioner took exception to a perceived attitude of exclusiveness and a desire to limit access by the public to a beach for which public funds are used to renourish and maintain the beach. Concurrently, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, of which Councilman Arceri is a member, is once again debating the merits of utilizing public
funds (TDC) for a $4+ million renourishment project at Hideaway Beach, the dredging of the Collier Bay channel, and the dredging of the Caxambas Pass with subsequent renourishment of the beach at the south end of Marco Island. Councilman Arceri, and Councilman Tucker, who is a member of the Tourist Development Council, can speak directly as to the challenges to obtain a fair share of TDC funding for Marco Island, whose tourism industry generates approximately 26% of the TDC revenues to Collier County.
While Chairman Minozzi has transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners a history of Marco Island as it relates to public beach access, meetings with one Commissioner and the County Manager suggest that pedestrian beach access and public funding of beach maintenance and renourishment projects may be linked, despite a persuasive argument that Collier County itself set the pattern for beach access on Marco Island and did not exercise opportunities to improve this access during Marco Island s development.
While it remains to be seen whether the proposed beach access at the Marriott Resort property will affect future funding for Marco Island projects, it is clear that the issue of beach access has been troublesome for the City since its incorporation. Each year the City Council and staff and citizens have addressed and persuaded Collier County citizen advisory committees, County staff, and the Board of County Commissioners to fund projects. Those who have opposed funding each year do so primarily because of questions regarding public access.
The City Manager suggests that public access to the beach on Marco Island is adequate and, in many respects, far exceeds that found in other areas. The Deltona Corporation granted to Collier County the 32 acre Tigertail Beach Park and the 1,000-foot gulf front property to the Marco Island Civic Association. The developers of the Cape Marco PUD provided a public beach access, known as the South Beach access) and property for public parking to both Collier County and MICA. Access to the beach for boaters is also available through the Collier County boat ramp at Caxambas Park, also granted by the Deltona Corporation and subsequently improved by the Hideaway Beach developers as a condition to their PUD.
On the other hand, the City Manager suggests that exercising the right to the 15-foot wide strip of land to accommodate public beach access may be responsive to those members of the public who seek other means of beach access. City Council may wish to exercise its right to approve public access that will have minimal negative consequences under the following conditions:
1. City Council vote to approve public beach access;
2. The beach access will open for public use within one year following the completion of the construction of the sixteen story condominium adjacent to the public access way;
3. No property will be acquired for public parking or public restrooms, nor will such restrooms be constructed on the beach or within the 15-foot access way;
4. No parking will be permitted along the South Collier Boulevard right-of-way (the reconstructed South Collier Boulevard with curbing and roadside landscaping will not accommodate right-of-way parking).
While the beach access will be available to the public, regardless of residency, the existing conditions suggest that the access way will be predominately used by residents within walking or bicycling distance or those who are otherwise able to get to the site without disrupting traffic and private property.
While recognizing genuine concerns raised during the meeting of March 3rd, City Council may wish to consider the following:
Ø Those traveling a distance to enjoy the Marco Island beach will look for convenient parking and access, which are not available at the proposed location.
Ø Those seeking access to public restroom facilities will go to those three locations with convenient access, parking, and public restrooms.
Ø At an approximate distance of one-half mile to the Residents Beach, unauthorized intrusion to that property should be no greater than the current condition.
Ø The issue of security to adjacent properties will exist whether or not a pedestrian beach access is created.
Ø Parking in nearby residential areas will be less convenient than the existing beach access locations with adequate facilities.
Ø While neighboring residents may currently traverse across the existing parking lot at the Marriott for beach access, that opportunity will be eliminated when the new condominium is constructed.
Ø Collier County should be encouraged to address current deficiencies at Tigertail Beach so that the beach is more accessible for the public.
Ø Delaying public access until completion of the condominium tower is prudent and necessary to protect the public from significant construction activities.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: April 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
6(E) Date: April 15, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Donation of “Homeland” Dolphin Department: City Manager
Debut Statue
BACKGROUND:
The Art League of Marco Island and the Marco Island YMCA, using the volunteer services of citizens and area artists, created the Dolphin Debut.
Presented for public preview on February 24th at the Marco Island Yacht Club were thirty-six dolphin statues. They were then displayed throughout Marco Island and were subsequently auctioned at the Marriott s Marco Island Resort on April 13th. The funds raised from the event benefit the Marco Island YMCA and the Art League of Marco Island.
On display at the entrance of the City Hall building was the “Homeland” Dolphin that depicted the many streets and sights on Marco Island. Anne Henegan was the initial sponsor for artist Robert Eder. She donated $3,000 for the dolphin to be created. At the auction she outbid two others to win “Homeland” for $6,000. Anne Henegan has offered to donate “Homeland” Dolphin to the City of Marco Island.
If accepted by City Council, “Homeland” Dolphin will return to City Hall where the citizens may continue to enjoy the artistic creation. The dolphin may later be relocated to other sites as may be deemed appropriate in the future.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept with appreciation the donation of “Homeland” Dolphin and commend Anne Henegan for her contribution and community spirit. Additional recognition should be given to the artists, sponsors, those who bid for the statues, and the many volunteers who made the Dolphin Debut a successful and memorable community event.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
| 
