Chairman Whitehead called the Regular Meeting of the Board of County

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 BOARD CHAMBERS, THIRD FLOOR, ESCAMBIA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 223 PALAFOX PLACE, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA ((5:32 p.m. pm. - 10:37 p.m.) pm.) Present: Commissioner D. M. "Mike" Whitehead, Chairman, District 1 Commissioner Willie J. Junior, Vice Chairman, District 3 Commissioner Thomas G. "Tom" Banjanin, District 4 Commissioner Michael T. "Mike" Bass, District 2 Commissioner Wilson B. Robertson, District 5 Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit Court Mr. Thomas L. Forrest, Interim County Administrator Mr. David G. Tucker, County Attorney Ms. Doris C. Harris, Representing the Deputy Clerk to the Board CALL TO ORDER Chairman Whitehead called the Regular Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 5:32 p.m., in Board Chambers, third floor, Escambia County Courthouse, 223 Palafox Place, Pensacola, Florida. He said Commissioner Banjanin would lead the invocation and Commissioner Bass would lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Upon inquiry from Chairman Whitehead, Commissioner Robertson said he had no items to add to the agenda. Commissioner Banjanin said he had no items to add to the agenda. Commissioner Bass said he had two (2) items to add to the agenda; one concerning two (2) fences that encroach onto County right-of-way; right-of way; and one concerning approval of 9/7/ rkd

2 projects for the County Incentive Grant Program through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Commissioner Junior said he had one item to add to the agenda concerning problems with moving power poles out of County rights-of-way. rights-of way. Commissioner Banjanin said he had one item to add to the agenda concerning the road construction project at the University of West Florida (UWF). Chairman Whitehead said he had one item to add to the agenda concerning Sharp Reef Subdivision. Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and carried unanimously, adopting the agenda as prepared and duly amended. ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Whitehead said that the 5:32 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, for consideration of the petition to vacate several road rights-of-way rights-of way in Quinavista Subdivision, would be rescheduled to September 21, 2000, at 5:34 p.m., pm, due to the petitioner, Mr. James Mahon, owner, Rod and Reel Marina & Storage, not advertising the date and time of the original Public Hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and carried unanimously, approving the Minutes of the Regular Board Meetings held July 6, 2000, and July 20, 2000, and the Special Board Meeting held July 27, /7/ rkd

3 ADOPTION OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH PROCLAMATIONS Interim County Administrator Forrest said Employees of the Month had their names affixed to a plaque and their photographs framed, and both were displayed on the wall in the main entrance to this building. After requesting Mr. Linkous to approach the lectern, Interim County Administrator Forrest read the Proclamation. Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and carried unanimously, adopting and presenting a Proclamation commending and congratulating Mr. Clayton E. Linkous, III, Paramedic, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division, Public Safety Department, Community Services and Economic Development Agency, for being selected from the two (2) Board of County Commissioners' Agencies as one of the two Employees of the Month for September, Mr. Linkous said he would like to thank the Board for his selection as Employee of the Month. After requesting Mr. Littlejohn to approach the lectern, Interim County Administrator Forrest read the Proclamation. Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and carried unanimously, adopting and presenting a Proclamation commending and congratulating Mr. Steven Littlejohn, Code Enforcement Officer II, Code Enforcement Division, Neighborhood and Environmental Services Department, Public Works and Land Management Agency, for being selected from the two (2) Board of County Commissioners' Agencies as one of the two Employees of the Month for September, Mr. Littlejohn said he would like to thank the Board for the honor. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Interim County Administrator Thomas L. Forrest 9/7/ rkd

4 I. l. CONSENT AGENDA 1B. 18. Adoption of Proclamation Proclaiming "Try Transit Week" After requesting Ms. Woodyatt to approach the lectern, Interim County Administrator Forrest read the Proclamation. i = Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and carried unanimously, adopting and presenting to Ms. Nedra Woodyatt, Resident Manager, Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT), the Proclamation proclaiming September 10-16, 2000, as "Try Transit Week" in Escambia County. Ms. Woodyatt said on behalf of ECAT's passengers, she would like to thank the Board for its support. 1C. Adoption of Proclamation Proclaiming "Steven Mays Day" After requesting Mrs. Mays to approach the lectern, Interim County Administrator Forrest read the Proclamation. Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried unanimously, adopting, and presenting to Mrs. Melanie Mays, the Proclamation proclaiming September 24, 2000, to be "Steven Mays Day" in Escambia County, with Mr. Mays to represent Escambia County in the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, competing in the 129-pound sport of Greco Roman Wrestling Class. Mrs. Mays said her husband, Steven Mays, boarded a flight this morning to Sydney, Australia; therefore, he was unable to attend tonight's Meeting. She said she would like to thank the Board and the community-at-large for its support. 9/7/ rkd

5 4. Approval of the Report of the C/W CNV Budget Workshop Session for Fiscal Year Chairman Whitehead said the Committee of the Whole (C/W) Budget Workshop Session for Fiscal Year was held August 24, 2000, and the C/W made the following recommendations: A. That the Board approve the Clerk of the Circuit Court s Fiscal Year Budget Request, requesting the rollover of $500, of the current year appropriation for court software be reduced from $300,000, to $50,000, as submitted in an August 17, 2000, memorandum from Wanda M. McBrearty, Deputy Finance Director, Clerk of the Circuit Court. (Recommended 3-1, with Commissioner Bass voting "no" and Commissioner Robertson absent.) B. That the Board take the following action regarding the request to establish a trust fund for maintenance and preservation of St. Michael s Cemetery: (1) Approve re-classifying $15,000 to St. Michael s Cemetery from the amount set aside for the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board; and (2) Approve setting aside $25,000 on a 3-to-1 match (the County matches $1 for every $3 raised by the private sector). (Recommended 4-0, with Commissioner Robertson absent.) C. That the Board retain the 3% merit increase County-wide for Fiscal Year (Recommended 3-1, 3 1, with Commissioner Bass voting "no" and Commissioner Robertson absent.) D. That the Board approve directing the Interim County Administrator to report at the September 7, 2000, Regular Board Meeting with a recommended budget to fund the $2,100,000 shortfall in the Fiscal Year Budget. (Recommended 4-0, with Commissioner Robertson absent.) E. That the Board approve setting aside $250,000 out of excess collections in the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) Fund 351 to assist in providing a special facility at the Westgate School to accommodate the "Snoezelen" project which would provide children severely impaired with sensory, physical and mental disabilities with a special environment to meet their needs. (Recommended 3-1, with Commissioner Bass voting "no" and Commissioner Robertson absent.) Commissioner Robertson said he was out-of-town when the C/W CNV Budget Workshop was held and he had a revised recommendation to present to the Board concerning Item "E." 9/7/ rkd

6 He said the C/W had recommended that the Board approve $250,000 for the "Snoezelen" project, and he was requesting the Board approve increasing the allocation for the project, from $250,000 to $500,000, subject to the School Board of Escambia County allocating $500,000 for the project, with the additional funds to come from excess collections in the One Cent Local Option Sales Tax Extension (LOST II) ll) Fund 351, Fiscal Year , if available, or if not, out of the Fiscal Year excess collections, with the County's contribution of $250,000 to remain if the School Board did not allocate $500,000 for the project. Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Bass, that the Board add the revised recommendation to the existing recommendation as a substitute. There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and the motion carried unanimously, approving to amend the August 24, 2000, recommendation of the Committee of the Whole and approving to set aside $250,000 out of excess collections in the Local Option Sales Tax Extension (LOST II), ll), Fund 351, to assist in providing a special facility at the Westgate School to accommodate the "Snoezelen" project, which would provide a special environment to meet the needs of children severely impaired with sensory, physical and mental disabilities, as follows: Increasing the allocation for the "Snoezelen" project, from $250,000 to $500,000 subject to the School Board of Escambia County allocating $500,000 for the project, with the additional funds to come out of excess collections in the One Cent Local Option Sales Tax Extension (LOST II) ll) Fund 351, Fiscal Year , if available, or, if not, out of the Fiscal Year excess collections, with the County's contribution of $250,000 to remain if the School Board does not allocate $500,000 for the project. Chairman Whitehead said the Board would now consider the balance of the August 24, 2000, Report of the C/W CNV Budget Workshop Session for Fiscal Year /7/ rkd

7 Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried unanimously, accepting the balance of the Report of the Committee of the Whole Budget Workshop Session for Fiscal Year held August 24, 2000, and approving the following recommendations: A. Approving the Clerk of the Circuit Court's Fiscal Year Budget Request, requesting the rollover of $500,000 of the current year appropriation for court software be reduced from $300,000, to $50,000, as submitted in August 17, 2000, Memorandum from Wanda M. McBrearty, Deputy Finance Director, Clerk of the Circuit Court; B. Taking the following action regarding the request to establish a trust fund for maintenance and preservation of St. Michael's Cemetery: (1) Approving to re-classify $15,000 to St. Michael's Cemetery from the amount set aside for the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board; and (2) Approving to set aside $25,000 on a 3-to-1 match (the County matches $1 for every $3 raised by the private sector); C. Approving to retain the 3% merit increase County-wide for Fiscal Year ; and D. Approving to direct the Interim County Administrator to report at the September 7, 2000, Regular Board Meeting with a recommended budget to fund the $2,100,000 shortfall in the Tentative Fiscal Year Budget. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 1. Approval Concerning Traffic Conditions on Dog Track Road at Blue Angels Elementary School Ms. Diane Rodriguez, Silver Creek Drive, said she was asking on behalf of the children and concerned residents of Escambia County, that the Board consider declaring the section of Dog Track Road located between Blue Angel Parkway and U. S. Highway 98 as an unsafe roadway for children walking to and from school. She said she had a petition with approximately 300 signatures, and would obtain more if necessary. Ms. Rodriguez said the area past the northern entrance of Blue Angels Elementary School, from Dog 9/7/ rkd

8 Track Road to U. S. Highway 98, was partially wooded and had a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph) and the County was in the process of constructing asphalt walkways which were six (6) to eight (8) feet off the roadway. She said in a similar situation, Bauer Road had been declared an unsafe roadway which meant that the school children who resided within close proximity to the school were allowed bus service and were not required to walk to and from school. Ms. Rodriguez said it was not safe to walk along Blue Angel Parkway, and perhaps guardrails or fencing would provide a safer alternative; however, the danger of the wooded and secluded areas must also be considered. She said due to the unsafe walking conditions, 160 children were presently designated as "car riders," with the high number of car riders causing a build-up of traffic along Dog Track Road when school adjourned. Ms. Rodriguez said there was neither a turn lane, nor room to pull over to get out of the line of traffic which caused added risk to the children walking home from school. She said, today, upon exiting the school, no one was directing traffic and it was impossible to see around the line of cars coming south on Dog Track Road. Ms. Rodriguez said she would request the Board visit the Blue Angels Elementary School between the hours of 1:20 p.m. pm. and 2:20 p.m., pm, to observe the traffic congestion first hand. During lengthy comments, Chairman Whitehead said the Board would send the matter back to Mr. Michael Orr, Traffic Engineer, and direct Mr. Orr to visit, within a weeks time, the Blue Angels Elementary School/Dog Track Road area during the 1:00 p.m. pm. time frame, and report back to the Board with his findings. Ms. Rodriguez said she had sought relief from the District School Board; however, the School Board stated it did not have the funds to provide additional buses. She said no 9/7/ rkd

9 additional buses would be required, as half-empty buses travel past walking children on a daily basis. Upon inquiry from Ms. Rodriguez, Chairman Whitehead said he was unsure of the guidelines with regard to designating a roadway as "unsafe," and he was not sure why Bauer Road had been declared an unsafe roadway, and he commented further. Commissioner Robertson said if the Board designated a single roadway as "unsafe," it should address all roadways throughout the County. He said it would be unfair to single out roadways near one or two schools and not look at all schools. Commissioner Robertson said Ms. Cindy W. Anderson, P.E., County Engineer, had provided the Board with a memorandum in which she addressed the issue and she had advised the Board that adequate shoulder existed alongside Dog Track Road. He said the wooded area, although it might seem scary or suspect, was a safety perception and there was no reason to say it was unsafe; therefore, the two or three areas of concern outlined by Ms. Rodriguez did not meet the criteria for declaring a roadway as an unsafe roadway (Chapter Florida Statutes). Chairman Whitehead said the question before the Board was whether or not a traffic hazard was being created and could the road adequately handle the traffic. Ms. Angela Toussaint, Bridgecreek Drive, said her concern was that the School Board contended that funds were unavailable to bus the children who reside near the elementary school and the School Board considered those children "walkers"; however, near-empty buses on the way to the school passed by their homes daily. She said she would request that the Board of County Commissioners assist in getting the School Board to reverse its decision, inasmuch as the School Board would not be required to spend 9/7/ rkd

10 additional funds, but would simply need to direct one of the many buses that pass by the homes of those residing near the school to stop and pick up those children. Ms. Toussaint said many children come from homes where both parents worked and the parents were unable to leave theirjobs to pick up their children from school. Ms. Tara Strada, American Court, said the school bus picked up children residing two blocks away from her home and then passed by her street on its way to the school. She said if a child stood at the corner, the bus driver had, on occasion, stopped and picked up that child. Ms. Vicki L. Ho, Silver Creek Drive, said three (3) years ago she collected signatures and attempted to have speed humps installed along Silver Creek Drive; however, she was told by the "traffic commission" that speed humps could not be installed on a main thoroughfare. She said there were no sidewalks along Silver Creek Drive and cars parked along the roadway, not in driveways, which required elementary school children, who were required by the School Board to walk to school to walk around the cars and walk into the roadway, presenting a very dangerous scenario. Chairman Whitehead said if Ms. Ho would meet the petition requirements, speed humps could be installed within thirty (30) days of approval because the County had changed its criteria. Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board send a letter to the School Board that they reconsider their busing policy in this area and ask for the School Board's assistance. Commissioner Robertson said he would request that the letter request that the policy be addressed on a County-wide basis. 9/7/ rkd

11 Motion seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and brief discussion followed. There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and the motion carried unanimously, approving to send a letter to the Escambia County School Board requesting that it reconsider its County-wide busing policy as it related to providing transportation for school children residing in close proximity to their schools ("walkers") and were not granted bus privileges, noting that walking to and from school along busy roadways was dangerous, and many working parents were unable to drop off and pick up their children, with parents of "walkers" having reported that school buses pass by their homes, but were not permitted to pick up their children due to the School Board's policy. APPROVAL TO WAIVE THE READING OF LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS Upon inquiry from Chairman Whitehead, the Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit Court, said the Clerk s Office had received certified affidavits for the following five (5) Public Hearings on tonight's agenda. He said notification was not provided for the 5:32 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, which had been rescheduled for September 21, 2000, at 5:34 p.m. pm. He said the County Attorney's Office had advised that the 5:37 p.m. pm. Public Hearing did not require separate advertisement. Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried unanimously, waiving the reading of the legal advertisements and accepting, for filing with the Board's Minutes, the certified affidavits establishing proof of publication for the following five (5) Public Hearings: A. The 5:31 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal on August 21, 2000, for consideration of the petition to vacate a portion of the twenty-foot-wide unopened alleyway running east and west in Block 47, Figland Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Donald W. Varner; 9/7/ rkd

12 B. The 5:33 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal on August 20, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance concerning Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (EDATE) for Terhaar- Terhaar Cronley Investment Partnership, as Lessor to Aristar, Inc.; C. The 5:45 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal on August 20, 2000, the first of two Public Hearing's to consider adopting an Ordinance amending the official Zoning Map to include the "T" Street Overlay Zoning (Z-00-29) which was heard by the Planning Board on August 16, 2000; D. The 5:46 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal on August 20, 2000, and re-advertised on August 27, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code to add Section , titled, "Administrative Interpretations," and Section E.,.E., titled, "Accessory Uses"; and E. The 5:48 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal on August 20, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan relative to Small Scale Amendment (SSA) (5615 Bauer Road). APPROVAL CONCERNING FIGLAND PARK SUBDIVISION Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and carried unanimously, with Chairman Whitehead advising there were no speakers for the 5:31 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, taking the following action regarding the petition to vacate a portion of the alleyway in Block 47, Figland Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Donald W. Varner: A. Approving the petition to vacate the 20-foot wide unopened, non-maintained alleyway, lying between Lots 1 through 4 on the north and Lots 5 and 16 on the south, in Block 47, Figland Park Subdivision, a subdivision of a portion of Sections 11, 21 and 22, Township 1 South, Range 30 West; B. Accepting the Hold Harmless Agreement; and C. Adopting the Resolution to Vacate. RESCHEDULING THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING QUINAVISTA SUBDIVISION 9/7/ rkd

13 Chairman Whitehead said that the 5:32 p.m. pm. Public Hearing for consideration of the petition to vacate several road rights-of-way rights-of way in Quinavista Subdivision had been rescheduled to September 21, 2000, at 5:34 p.m., pm, due to the petitioner, Mr. James Mahon, owner of Rod and Reel Marina & Storage, not advertising the date and time of the original Public Hearing. ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION TO ARISTAR, INC. Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and carried unanimously, with Chairman Whitehead advising there were no speakers for the 5:33 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, adopting an Ordinance ( ) of Escambia County, Florida encouraging Economic Development in the County; establishing an exemption from certain Escambia County ad valorem taxation for Terhaar-Cronley Terhaar Cronley Investment Partnership as Lessor, to Aristar, Inc., a new business (located at 3405 McLemore Drive, Ellyson Industrial Park), pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes; providing for short title; providing for the granting of and legislative intent for an exemption as a new business pursuant to Section (5), Florida Statutes; providing for certain County Ad Valorem tax information relating to the granting of such exemption; providing an expiration date of ten years for such exemption; providing a findings of fact that Aristar, Inc., lnc., meets the definition in Section (15), Florida Statutes, of a new business; providing a severability clause; providing for inclusion in the Code; providing for an effective date. 9/7/ rkd

14 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Continued II.. DISCUSSION 1. Approval Concerning the Length of the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier Commissioner Bass said he would request that the Board consider Item II-1-1 of the County Administrator's Report, relative to the August 31, 2000, letter to Chairman Whitehead, from Mr. William H. "Bill" Griffith, Secretary/Treasurer, Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA), requesting that the Board identify funding in the amount of $2.1 million to allow the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier, presently under construction, to be built to the permitted length of 1,470 feet. Commissioner Bass said, recognizing that the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier was permitted to a distance of 1,470 feet, that engineering design and construction plans were complete for a 1,450 foot pier; with the contractor already out there and construction under way, the SRIA had funding in the amount of $3.5 million to pay for 1,021 feet, the County would need $5.6 million total for the full benefit of the fishing pier which would make the pier competitive with virtually any pier in the State; and he would request the Board revise the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) Capital Plan and identify the $2.1 million dollars needed to fully fund construction of the 1,470 feet Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier for an additional 449 feet, and to authorize staff to take the appropriate action to commit funds by September 15, 2000, so that the SRIA could bind the contractor to keep the construction for the entire pier project and, lastly, he would request that the Board authorize staff to direct funds to the SRIA for payment of the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier cost, and he so moved. Motion seconded by Commissioner Junior for discussion. 9/7/ rkd

15 Upon inquiry from Commissioner Junior, Commissioner Bass said the SRIA had secured permits to construct the pier to the maximum distance of 1,470 feet; however, it had only contracted for 1,021 feet. Upon additional inquiry from Commissioner Junior, Commissioner Bass said the Board, due to Hurricane Opal's October 4, 1995, destruction of the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier, had given a verbal commitment to the SRIA for $1.5 million dollars to support one-half the cost required to replace the fishing pier, to be matched by legislative funds (the (the Board, at its October 28, 1997, Meeting, approved requesting the Northwest Florida Legislative Delegation provide funding in the amount of $1.5 million to support one-half the cost required to replace the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier destroyed by Hurricane Opal [on October 4, 1995], as a request for local legislation). He said later, the Board used considerable funds to develop Park East, so in essence, the request was simply that the Board abide by its original commitment (the Board, at its July 28, 1998, Meeting, approved appropriating $1.5 million from LOST revenue for the completion of the Pensacola Beach Park East, and was advised that the $1.5 million appropriation was possible because of a $3 million grant received from the State of Florida to rebuild the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier, therefore allowing the utilization of a portion of the $3 million previously allocated for the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier). Mr. William H. "Bill" Griffith, SRIA, said the private contractors had not been able to rebuild the pier because they could not purchase insurance on the pier. He said in the event the pier was destroyed, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would pay up to 80% of the replacement cost, with the remaining 20% to be paid by local agencies. 9/7/ rkd

16 Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Commissioner Bass said the $2.1 million dollar commitment to be made by September 15, 2000, would be paid during the months of November, 2000; December, 2000; January, 2001; and, February, Interim County Administrator Forrest said it was his understanding that approximately $500,000 would be directed to the SRIA for payment of the Pier costs during the months of November, 2000, through February, Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Mr. Griffith said the SRIA received $3.5 million from the State for the rebuilding of the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier. Commissioner Robertson said he supported the project; however, he would question which LOST funds would be reassigned for this project. Interim County Administrator Forrest said staff would report back to the Board at the September 12, 2000, Committee of the Whole (C/W) Meeting regarding revisions to the LOST Capital Plan, to identify the $2.1 million needed to fully fund the Pier construction. There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and the motion carried unanimously, taking the following action concerning construction of the Pensacola Beach Fishing Pier, recognizing that the Pier is permitted to be constructed to a distance of 1,470 feet; the engineering design and construction plans are complete for a 1,450 foot pier; the Pier construction is currently underway; undennay; and the Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA) had secured funding in the amount of $3.5 million which would pay for 1,021 feet: A. Approving to authorize staff to revise the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) Capital Plan, to identify $2.1 million needed to fully fund construction of the 1,470 foot Pier, an additional 449 feet, with a report back to the Board at the September 12, 2000, Committee of the Whole (C/W) Meeting; 9/7/ rkd

17 B. Approving to authorize staff to take the appropriate action to commit funds by September 15, 2000, in order for the SRIA to bind the contract to keep the construction price for the entire pier project; and C. Approving to authorize staff to direct funds to the SRIA for payment of the Pier cost. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT - Nancy Stuparich, Director 1. Approval Concerning "T" Street Overlay Zoning Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried unanimously, with Chairman Whitehead advising there were no speakers for the 5:45 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, taking the following action at the first of two Public Hearings for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to include the T Street Overlay Zoning, heard by the Planning Board on August 16, 2000: A. Conducting the first two (2) two Public Hearings and reviewing the recommendation of the Planning Board regarding consideration of adopting an Ordinance of Escambia County, Florida, amending Part III of the Escambia County Code of Ordinances (1999), the Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida, as amended; and the Official Zoning Map, as adopted by reference in Section , , to include Case Z ( T Street Overlay Zoning), which was heard by the Planning Board on August 16, 2000; and B. Scheduling the second of two Public Hearings on the T Street Overlay Zoning for 5:46 p.m. pm. on October 5, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance of Escambia County, Florida, amending Part III of the Escambia County Code of Ordinances (1999), the Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida, as amended; and the Official Zoning Map, as adopted by reference in Section , , to include Case Z ( T Street Overlay Zoning), which was heard by the Planning Board on August 16, 2000, as follows: 9/7/ rkd

18 Case Number: Z Z-OO-29 ( T Street Overlay Zoning) Location: Northern Boundary, Fairfield Drive; Southern Boundary, Blount Street; Eastern Boundary, S Street; Western Boundary, V Street From: C-2 General Commercial and Light Manufacturing District To: C-2 General Commercial and Light Manufacturing District with C-4 Brownsville-Mobile Highway Commercial Overlay District (OL) Requested by: Escambia County Community Redevelopment Agency Recommendation: Approval 2. Approval Concerning LDC Amendment Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried unanimously, with Chairman Whitehead advising there were no speakers for the 5:46 p.m. pm. Public Hearing, adopting an Ordinance ( ) of Escambia County, Florida, amending Part III of the Escambia County Code of Ordinances (1999) the Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida, as amended; adding Section , titled Administrative Interpretations, providing for provisions for administrative interpretation of Future Land Use Categories on the Future Land Use Map in certain circumstances; amending Section E.,.E., Titled Accessory Uses, to allow residential accessory buildings on parcels of two (2) to five (5) acres up to 75% of the size of the primary structure and on parcels greater than five (5) acres up to 100% of the size of the primary structure; providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the Code, and providing for an effective date. 3. Approval of Vested Rights Determination Pursuant to the Request of Destination, Inc. Chairman Whitehead said six (6) individuals had signed up to speak at the 5:47 p.m. pm Public Hearing relative to staff's recommendation that the Board take the following action: A. Approve, deny or approve with conditions the recommendation of the Planning Board for Vested Rights Determination Case VRD-99-35, which was heard on August 10, 2000: 9/7/ rkd

19 Case Number: VRD-99-35, as amended (to delete Windemere) Applicant: Destination, Inc. Project: A 3-Lot Mixed Use Minor Subdivision Affected Property: Section 34, Township 3 South, Range 32 West, , Address: Perdido Key Drive, Escambia County, Florida Recommendation: That the Board determine that: Destination, Inc., has acquired the vested right to develop 213 units on parcels 76 and 105 of the plat known as Destination Station, a 3-lot mixed use minor subdivision, a resubdivision of Lots 76 and 105, Gulf Beach Subdivision, Section 34, Township 3 South, Range 32 West, Escambia County, Florida; and B. Authorize the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Vested Rights for Land Use. During lengthy comments, Ms. Nancy Stuparich, Director, Growth Management Department, said Case Number VRD had come before the Vested Rights Committee (VRC) on four (4) separate occasions (December 7, 1999, January 11, 2000, February 2, 2000, and February 7, 2000). She said a VRC report dated February 9, 2000, contained findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation to deny the vested rights determination request, as the request sought vesting for a project known as Windemere Condominiums. Ms. Stuparich said at the August 10, 2000, Planning Board Meeting, the petitioner, Destination, Inc., nc., changed its vested rights request and asked for a vested rights determination for 213 dwelling units on Parcels 105 and 76 (at the outset of the August 10, 2000, Planning Board Hearing, Mr. Emmanuel, on behalf of the applicant, Destination, Inc., lnc., withdrew the applicant's request for a determination as to whether densities could be transferred from the north parcel [lots 76 and 105] across the street to the south parcel [lots 39,40 and 41] since that issue was pending in the Circuit Court). She said the Windemere project was the subject of an approved preliminary plat known as Destination Station. Ms. Stuparich said the Planning Board chose not to refer the request back to the VRC and instead, considered only the portions of the VRC report that related to parcels 105 and 76. 9/7/ rkd

20 She said the most difficult issue was whether or not reliance on conversations with and letters from County staff was reasonable, as related to the Windemere project, and the Planning Board concluded that Destination, Inc., lnc., relied in good faith on letters written by County staff to prior owners, which caused it to purchase the property and incur extensive financial obligations. Ms. Stuparich said the Planning Board's decision was based upon whether or not this vested rights determination "ran with the land," or was specific to the project. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Junior, County Attorney Tucker said there was a question as to whether the Planning Board vested the land or vested the project. He said the Planning Board settled to vest the density units with the land as opposed to the project. County Attorney Tucker said the Board could either approve the Planning Board's recommendation, or make its own conclusion. Upon inquiry form Commissioner Bass, County Attorney Tucker said the Board was operating in a quasi-judicial format. He said the Board did not have the same level of formality because the Case had experienced a significant amount of fact finding. County Attorney Tucker said he would suggest that since the Board had not had the opportunity to review or consider all the issues, the Board should consider itself bound by the findings of fact. 9/7/ rkd

21 Mr. Robert Emmanuel, Attorney representing the applicant, Destination, Inc., said the applicants had in fact relied upon representations made by members of County staff. He said the Planning Board's decision had been provided to the Board and, as County Attorney Tucker had advised, the Board would make the final determination. 6:30 P.M. PM. - COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY. During lengthy comments, Mr. Emmanuel said his client had in good faith relied on letters written by Mr. Stephen H. Pitkin, former Chief, Planning and Zoning, to the prior owners of the subject property, which caused them to purchase said property and incur extensive financial obligations, such that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy those rights. He said the Order of the Planning Board was that the property, not the project, was vested. Mr. Emmanuel said he would request that the Board adopt the Planning Board's recommendation. 6:33 P.M. PM. - COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON RETURNED TO THE MEETING. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass, County Attorney Tucker said vesting could apply to land, or to a project. He said, typically, there was a certain time frame in which the project had to be commenced, which would suggest that vesting was project specific and not tied to the land; however, that was not to say that there might not be other situations under which vesting would run with the land. During discussion, Mr. Emmanuel said he concurred that both types of vesting were allowed; however, in this case the property was vested, not the project. He said his client had spent a large sum of money based on information provided by County staff, both verbally and in writing, after which the County reversed its decision. Mr. Emmanuel said 9/7/ rkd

22 his client had not relied solely upon information provided by Mr. Pitkin because representations were made from Mr. Pitkin and others in the County, as well. Commissioner Bass said he would question why the County would grant a developer a life-long right to 213 dwelling units, and discussion followed. 6:49 P.M. PM. - COMMISSIONER BASS LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY. Mr. Emmanuel said the record was clear. He said Destination, Inc., had spent millions of dollars based upon representations made by County staff that the vested rights went with the property. Mr. Emmanuel said, based upon testimony, the Planning Board unanimously declared the property had acquired the vested right to 213 units of density, and lengthy discussion followed regarding vesting, Ordinance language (Ordinance Number 96-3), the amount of time during which the developer must begin improvements or lose the vested right, and when vested rights began; i.e., the day of approval by the Board, or the day a project received County approval. 6:51 P.M. PM. - COMMISSIONER BASS RETURNED TO THE MEETING. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, County Attorney Tucker said the Board could not be estopped from denying a staff decision or staff action or action of staff that was illegal. Commissioner Banjanin said he would question whether the County had ever vested units to the land, and discussion followed. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, Mr. Emmanuel said the Planning Board found exactly what the Land Development Code (LDC) specified should be found in order to support a determination that someone had gained vested rights. He said someone not only had to have something represented to them, they also had to rely on that to their 9/7/ rkd

23 detriment, and incur such extensive obligations or expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired. Mr. Emmanuel said it was notjust that any representation made to a property owner bound the County, and it was if there was a representation made that was relied upon to the detriment of that land owner, such that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired, and that was the basis upon which vested rights were determined. He said Section of the LDC outlined the criteria for vested rights, and he commented further. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Junior, Mr. Emmanuel said because Destination, Inc., had pursued the vesting issue since January, 2000, it had not proceeded with a design for the 213 units because it was unsure if it would be permitted to construct a total of 213 units, and discussion followed. Commissioner Bass said he would question whether or not Mr. Emmanuel would disagree that it was the intent of the Planning Board, in its final vote, that the vesting would be under the County's Ordinance, Paragraph II, ll, Subparagraph 11, in which it stated that once vested rights were granted the developer had eighteen (18) months in which to commence improvements. Mr. Emmanuel said the eighteen month issue was not discussed by the Planning Board; however, the Planning Board clearly concluded that the property was vested for the units. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass, Ms. Janet Lander, Deputy County Attorney, said the intent of Mr. Mike Broussard, Chairman, Planning Board, was that the vesting be valid for an eighteen month period. She said she could fairly represent to Mr. Emmanuel that the intent with regard to the vesting of the property was that it would only apply for 9/7/ rkd

24 eighteen months, and the reason "eighteen (18) months" was not included in the verbiage of the Order was because the Planning Board believed that vesting was only good for eighteen months. Chairman Whitehead said Mr. Broussard referenced the plat process, construction drawings, and the size and scope of projects in the summary comments; therefore, it would be fair to infer that the Planning Board was looking at projects, not land. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Mr. Emmanuel said there had not been a prior vested rights determination for the subject property. He said his client relied upon information provided by the County that the property could be vested; however, no vested rights determination had been made prior to his client's purchase of the property. Mr. Emmanuel said both the prior owner and his client had representations made by County staff that the property was vested for the units. He said the vested rights determination process had not yet been adopted by the County in 1998; therefore, determinations were not made by a Vested Rights Committee. Upon further inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Mr. Emmanuel said the prior owner had received representations in writing from the County and had submitted a preliminary plat showing the 213 units, which had been circulated and approved by the members of the County's Development Review Committee (DRC). Mr. Emmanuel said he would read from Mr. Pitkin's September 15, 1998, letter, found in the exhibits presented to the Board, under tab number six, page 205, "...vesting of this project is tied to the land..." " Chairman Whitehead said Mr. Pitkin's comments went on to say, "While vesting of this project is tied to the land, thereby allowing minor adjustments to the currently submitted 9/7/ rkd

25 site plan, even if there is a change in ownership the actual land use must comply with the previous zoning as well, if the scope of the project's Site Plan has changed to include new land uses that are now allowed on this land, as zoned PRPK, rather than R2PK, the project will have to start over under the new zoning district guidelines." " He said Mr. Pitkin's comments would indicate that he was referring to a project not the land, and lengthy discussion followed regarding zoning, concurrency and vesting. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Junior, Ms. Stuparich said the County's vesting Ordinance did not address vesting land. Mr. Gregory Smith, Attorney representing certain Perdido Key residents, said Destination, Inc., lnc., did not intend to build the project in question. He said Destination Inc. wanted the Board to create, without any legislative authority, what amounted to a separate property right. Mr. Smith said it was his opinion that the Planning Board was wrong. He said his clients were willing to allow Destination, Inc., lnc., to be vested for 213 units provided that vesting was limited to the originally submitted project. Mr. Smith said the idea behind the vesting proceeding was that people should be able to rely on the government. He said he would request that the Board not allow Destination, Inc., lnc., to treat 213 units as a separate property right to be sold or transferred, because there was no authority for that, and lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Smith said there was no precedent, not a single case in Florida of which he was aware asked a Board to do what Mr. Emmanuel was asking this Board to do, which was to tie the vesting to the land. He said he did not want Destination, Inc., lnc., to have 213 units as a separate property right that could be conveyed to whomever they pleased, or to do with it whatever they pleased. Mr. Smith said by reading the transcript of the testimony of 9/7/ rkd

26 the Planning Board Hearing, as well as Mr. Pitkin's testimony before the Board of Adjustments, Mr. Pitkin had stated over and over he was not a lawyer, and that he was not an expert. He said the phrase Mr. Pitkin used was not that the right "runs with the land," but he said the right was "tied to the land." Mr. Smith said it was his opinion that Mr. Pitkin meant that vesting was computed by taking the number of acres in a particular land use category and multiplying it by the particular density attached to that category. He said to state that the vesting was tied to that particular acreage was different from stating that it "ran with the land." Mr. Smith said Mr. Pitkin had stated more than once that he did not have the expertise to make certain determinations because he was not a lawyer; therefore, Mr. Pitkin was not using the term "tied to the land," as a professional would use the term, with a professional using the term as a "term of art." Mr. Smith said the petitioners would like to take the determination that the land was vested and then do as they wished with those vested rights, which might be to attempt to transfer the vested rights to their project across the street, or it might be to attempt to give the Vested rights to the proposed convention center, which property was adjacent to the subject parcel. He said if the Board approved the vesting for 213 units, without restrictions, Destination, Inc., nc., would have the ability to transfer the units to the Convention Center even though that had not been contemplated or intended. Mr. Smith said the goal of a vested right was one of fundamental fairness. He said it was fundamentally unfair for Destination, Inc., to be allowed 213 units that were not tied to a particular project that could conceivably go on forever, and that they could do with the units whatever they wanted to with them, noting that there was an absence of a legislative scheme in the County making it a separate property right. 9/7/ rkd

27 Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass, Mr. Smith said it was his opinion that the Board should approve the 213 units of density, tied to the particular project or development that Destination, Inc., lnc., put forward for Lots 76 and 105, to be constructed within eighteen (18) months. He said that would enable the petitioners to build the project they last proposed, and lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Smith said Destination, Inc., lnc., received the 213 units when it presented a project, and it should build the project that was presented. He said it was his opinion that the petitioners did not plan to build the project upon which the 213 units were based. Mr. Emmanuel said he agreed with Mr. Smith that the Board had the authority to approve the Planning Board's recommendation that the property be vested for 213 units and to determine that the vesting was for the land. He said his client had relied upon representations made by the entire DRC inasmuch as the DRC reviewed the item with reference to that density of 213 units, it was vested for concurrency for 213 units. Mr. Emmanuel said the Board should accept the Planning Board's recommendation that his client relied in good faith on the several representations made by County staff and, based upon those facts should approve the recommendation. He said the Planning Board unanimously found his client incurred extensive financial obligations, such that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy those rights. Mr. Emmanuel said he would recommend that Lots 76 and 105, Gulf Beach Subdivision, Section 34, Township 3 South, Range 32 West, Escambia County, Florida, be vested for 213 units of density, with such units to run with the land and available for use for any and all purposes described by the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC). 9/7/ rkd

28 Motion made by Commissioner Robertson that the Board approve that Parcels 76 and 105 Gulf Beach Subdivision, Section 34, Township 3 South, Range 32 West, Escambia County, Florida be vested for 213 units of density, with such units to run with the land and available for use for any and all purposes described by the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) and within thirty-six (36) months a project be presented. Chairman Whitehead called for a second to the motion; there being none, he advised it died for lack of a second. Upon inquiry from Chairman Whitehead, Mr. Emmanuel said during the Planning Board's Meeting, an appraiser, Mr. Presley, testified that the lower the density, the lower the property value. He said his clients also testified that if they had not believed that they were receiving the 213 units they would not have purchased the property. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass, Mr. Emmanuel said his clients definitely plan to build on the property; however, no plans had been presented because of the delay regarding the density issue and that it was unknown how many units could be built. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, Mr. Emmanuel said his clients purchased the property with the 213 units, knowing that the zoning would restrict certain things but would allow other things, but his client wanted the flexibility to reconfigure those units on the property, and discussion followed. Commissioner Robertson said he would like to make a motion that would allow an additional eighteen (18) month extension. County Attorney Tucker said Section , of the LDC stated that a determination of vested rights would expire and be null and void unless construction was commenced pursuant to a Development Order within eighteen (18) months after the 9/7/ rkd