The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 01/23/2001 RCLERK TO BOARD 4TH FLOOR FP: 3 IND: I CV: 0 COLLIER COUNTY lARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITrED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE 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 BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. INVOCATION - Reverend Donna Bartleson, Golden Gate United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 January 23, 2001 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS A. APPROVAL OF CONSENTAGENDA. B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA. C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS A. PROCLAMATIONS 1) Proclaiming January 21-27, 2001 as National Jaycee Recognition Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Ms. Angela Robinson, Jaycees President 2001 and Ms. Lisa Douglas, Jaycees Chairman of the Board 2001. 2) This item deleted. 3) Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Automated Defibrillator Program. To be accepted by Chief Diane Flagg. 4) External Proclamation recognizing Lisa Taylor, Beth Walsh and John "JD" D'Amico for their special effort to respond to Collier Harvest's request for assistance. To be accepted by Lisa Taylor, Beth Walsh and John "JD" D'Amico. SERVICE AWARDS Five Year Attendees: 1. Nancy Siemion, Planning Services 2. Marian Barnett, County Attorney 3. Michael Vignari, Building Review 4. Christopher Mobley, Purchasing 5. Howard Brogdon, Public Utilities Water Lab Department 6. Geraldine Murnane, Utility Billing 7. Anthony Asaro, Solid Waste Collections/Code Enforcement Department Ten Year Attendees: 2 January 23, 2001 8. Jeff Hammell, Facilities Management 9. Ty Stuller, Water Distribution 10. Edward Musser IV, Wastewater Collections 11. Shelly Williams, Wastewater Fifteen Year Attendees: 12. James Hatcher, Natural Resources 13. Frank Terilla, Wastewater Laboratory C. PRESENTATIONS 1) Recommendation to recognize Alexandra Sulecki, Environmental Specialist II, Code Enforcement Department, as Employee of the Month for January 2001. 2) Presentation of the Phoenix Award to recognize EMS Paramedics and EMS Paramedic/Firefighters. Department APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT Ao ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Request by Larry and Linda Love for Public Petition regarding tree and plant removal from developed property. B. Request by Property owners of Naples Park for Public Petition regarding development in Naples Park. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve by Resolution the Activity Center ~J Interchange Master Plan to provide landscape, architectural design and transportation access criteria for the 3 January 23, 2001 development of a zoning overlay and amendments to the Land Development Code. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Approve funding of four new positions within the Transportation Services Division and approve Budget Amendments to transfer funds for the new positions. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Award a Contract for RFP #00-3!76, Production of Beach~Compatible Sand to E. R. Jahna Industries Inc. E. SUPPORT SERVICES F. EMERGENCY SERVICES G. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Resolution ordering and calling for the Election of Members to the Board of Supervisors of the Collier County Pelican Bay Services District by qualified electors, to be held by Special Election on May 8, 2001, as set forth in Section Six of Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-82. (Back-up materials to be provided separately.) H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Request for direction from the Board of County Commissioners concerning a complaint filed with the Board of Collier County Commissioners alleging that the Madeira PUD Ordinance No. 2000-80 is inconsistent with the Collier 4 January 23, 2001 County's Growth Management Plan. (Elizabeth Nelson, Plaintiff vs. Collier County, Florida, Defendant) Request for direction from the Board of County Commissioners concerning a complaint filed with the Board of Collier County Commissioners alleging that the Madeira PUD Ordinance No. 2000-80 is inconsistent with the Collier County's Growth Management Plan. (Henry Murphy, Plaintiff vs. Collier County, Florida, Defendant) 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. Discussion and possible staff direcl~ion regarding the beautification overlay at the proposed 1-75 Interchange on Golden Gate Parkway. (Commissioner Henning) 11. OTHER ITEMS A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 13~ 2001 MEETING. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency Board review the proposal received for the Gateway "Mini Triangle" Redevelopment Project; direct staff to begin negotiating a Development Agreement; and accept the Naples Gateway Apex Triangle Property Owners' Association request to return in 180 days (6 months) with an alternative development plan for the "Mini Triangle" for the Board to consider. C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS 5 January 23, 2001 12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS- BCC A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS B. ZONING AMENDMENTS 1) THIS PETITION HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 27~ 2001 MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Petition PUD 86-22 (2), William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development Inc., representing Peter and Mark Longo, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Pine Ridge Center PUD having the effect of revising the PUD Master Plan to show a reverse frontage, re-label part of Area "B" between Pine Ridge Road and the reverse frontage road as Area "C", and revising the PUD document to correct the project acreage from 8.79 acres to 8.73 acres, change the address of the landowners, and add additional permitted and accessory uses similar to the C-3 Zoning District, for property located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) approximately 660 feet west of Whippoorwill Lane in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request) 2) THIS PETITION HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 27~ 2001 MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Petition PUD 88-11 (2), William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing Anthony F. Jancigar, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Pine Ridge Center West PUD having the effect of revising the PUD Master Plan to show a cross-access road and re-label part of Area "B" between Pine Ridge Road and the reverse frontage road as Area "C", and revising the PUD document to show the neighboring landowners' current address, re-label existing exhibits and add exhibits "D", "E", and "F", add Section 3.4L pertaining to architectural standards, add parking and loading standards, and add additional permitted and accessory uses similar to the C-3 Zoning District, for property located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) approximately 660 ft. west of Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request) 3) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 9~ 2001 MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 13~ 2001 MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Petition PUD-00-16, Robert Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, representing Ralph Aberica, requesting a rezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD allowing for residential, commercial retail and office land uses for property located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard 6 January 23, 200 i (C.R. 951), in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's Request) C. OTHER 1) A Scrivener's Error Amendment to the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD amending Section 3.4 of the PUD Document entitled "Permitted Uses and Structures" to delete the wording "or similar type recreational vehicle" and providing a definition for "Class A Motor Coach" for a property known as Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD. 13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 9~ 2001 BCC MEETING. (This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.) CU-2000-11, Jeff Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Big Island Excavating, requesting conditional use of "1" of the "A-MHO" Zoning District for earthmining for property located 1/2 mile South of Immokalee Road and South of the existing Longan Lake excavation in the Corkscrew Community in Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 102 acres. 2) THIS ITEM TO BE CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 13~ 2001 MEETING. (This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition V-2000-26, Joseph Sabatino requesting a variance of 7.5 feet from the required side yard of 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the east side yard of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the side lot lines and within the courtyard walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the required rear yard of 10 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the rear lot lines and within the courtyard walls for property located on 95th Avenue North, further described as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Naples Park Unit 3, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 3) (This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition A 2000-02, Anthony P. Pires, Jr., requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Commission's approval of a boat dock extension BD-2000-23, approved on October 19, 2000 for property located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive, further described as Lots 5 and 6, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 4) (This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition A 2000-03, Anthony P. Pires, Jr., requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Commission's approval of boat dock extension BD-2000-20, approved on 7 January 23, 2001 November 2, 2000 for property located at 372 Oak Avenue, further described as Lot 9, Block 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. B. OTHER 14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS 15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.772, "Mike Crouch Commercial Excavation" located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 28 East; bounded on the North by Oil Well Road Right-of- Way, on the South Bay 31st Avenue N.E. Right-of-Way, on the West by occupied lot, and on the East by occupied lot. Approval of a Budget Amendment to recognize unanticipated Cable Franchise Fee Revenue and Fund Specific Franchise Administration Projects. Authorize the County Attorney to amend quorum requirements for the Development Services Advisory Committee. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia Lakes, Phase One", and approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. Final acceptance of Sewer Utility Franchise for Lely Resort Reclaimed Infrastructure Mains, Phases 1, 2, and 3. Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Villas of Capri. A Resolution amending the Scrivener's Error in Resolution 2000-455, the Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees. B: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 8 January 23, 2001 1) Approve Work Order #WMI-FT-01-03 with Wilson Miller Inc., for Professional Surveying Services for the Pathways 2001 Project, Project No. 69O81. 2) Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition of Parcel 136B in the Lawsuit Entitled Collier County v. Kenneth E. Derma, et al., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). 3) Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition of Parcel 136C in the Lawsuit Entitled Collier County v. Kenneth E. Derma, et al., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). 4) Approve Change Order No. 4 to the Construction Contract #00-3039, Golden Gate Boulevard widening from CR 951 to Wilson Boulevard; Collier County Project No. 63041; Bid No. 00-3039, ClE No. 62. 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve De Angelo Brothers, Inc., for Clam. Bay Cattail removal, one of the approved firms from RFP #00-3125 Annual Contract for the Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal and Reject Bid #00-3050 for Clam Bay Cattail removal to Aquatic Plants of Florida, Inc., and approve the necessary Budget Am,endments. 6) Approve a Developer Contribution Agreement with WCl Communities, Inc. ("Developer") for the contribution of land to Collier County for the Livingston Road Right-of-Way; accept payment as satisfaction of the developer's obligation to fund the cost for the expansion of the Goodlette- Frank Road overpass structure and approve the execution of easements. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Approve an agreement for Water and Wastewater Service for the Mediterra Planned Unit Development. 2) Approval of a Contract with the South Florida Water Management District to continue participating in Surface Water Quality monitoring of Big Cypress Basin, Collier County. 3) Reject Bid #00-3042, Purchase One Portable 500 Gallon Self Contained Vacuum Unit. 4) Approve Selection of Firm for Construction Management-At-Risk Services to expand the South County Water Reclamation Facility, RFP 00-3171, Project 73949. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Obtain Board of County Commissioner acceptance of Community and Library Technology Access Partnership Grant. 2) Approve Budget Amendment recognizing $2000 Revenue from a donation for a memorial bench. 9 January 23, 2001 3) Waive the Formal Work Order Dollar Limit and Increase Work Order for Surety Construction Company (W.O.#SC-00-07) for Phase II (A) of Sugden Regional Park. 4) Approve Change Order #1 with Jensen Underground Utilities Inc., for the Utility work at Sugden Regional Park. 5) Obtain Board of County Commissioner approval for furniture purchases for new Headquarters Library. E. SUPPORT SERVICES 1) Approve the attached three (3) Resolutions authorizing the Board of County Commissioners' Chairman to execute the appropriate documentation required to expedite the County's Land Rights Acquisition Program for the Calendar Year 2001 Chairman's Tenure Only. 2) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve contract with DMG Maximus to perform Personnel Classification Study. 3) 4) Approve Marketing License Agreement with General Growth Management, Inc.; (Coastland Center) to conduct Collier County Government Days Event. Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Execution of Purchase Agreements and Statutory Deeds for the G.A.C. Land Sales Trust Conveyed to Collier County by Avatar Properties Inc. (Agreement Dated November 15, 1983), by the Chairman of the Board for the 2001 Calendar Year. 5) Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute deeds and agreements for deed to Right of Interment for the Purchase of Burial Lots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, for the 2001 Calendar Year. 6) Approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Limited Use License Agreements for the 2001 Calendar Year. F. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1) Board approval of State of Florida EMS Matching Grant Applications. 2) Board approval of a National Association of Counties 2001 Achievement Award Application. G. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Request Board approval of partial reimbursement to the Bayshore MSTU for administrative fees for the Bayshore MSTU Beautification Project. H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IO January 23, 2001 J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To approve a Resolution establishing an Ad Hoc Committee to be known as the Collier County Elections Resource Committee. L. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation that the Board approve an Agreement for Disclosure Counsel and Legal Services on an "As Needed" Basis with the Law Firm of Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. Petition PE-2000-04, Robert Lockhart, P.E., of Lockhart Engineering, Inc., representing ERA Realty Group, requesting parking exemption approval for Faust Parkway Center for Off-Site Parking located on 26th Place SW, Lot 29, Block 248, Golden Gate Unit 7, in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 11 January 23, 2001 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING January 23, 2001 MOVE: 12-C-1 to 17B: A Scrivener's Error Amendment to the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD amending Section 3.4 of the PUD document entitled "Permitted Uses and Structures" to delete the wording "or similar type recreational vehicle" and providing a definition for "Class A Motor Coach" for a property known as Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD. (Staff request.) MOVE: 16-B-2 TO 16-L-2: Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition of Parcel 136B in the Lawsuit Entitled Collier County v. Kenneth E. Derma, et al., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). (Staff request. Placed under Transportation in error.) MOVE: 16-B-3 TO 16-L-3: Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition of Parcel 136C in the Lawsuit Entitled Collier County v. Kenneth E. Derma. et al., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). (Staff request. Placed under Transportation in error.) WHb~EA$, PROCLA&~A T~ON ~ ~umbe Chamb~e of Comm~c~ (~AYCEE$) in Hopl~a ond humanity; and, the ~Toycees hove pmovided ¢hoeitoble con~mibutions £om t~e overall impmovement to the cHizen$ ond wel£ome of Collier County.' nnd, with holiday food b~.¢ke~, ~olido7 I~se~s, clot~in9 ~nd o~e~" n~cesmr~, $upplie~; ~nd, ot~2onizotion nnd hove pPovided mony fine exomples of leod~rship £oe o~hers ~o follow; in Noples hove fo~ oil o9e$ unsd~ish woeld in HOW of BOA~b O? COUHTY COLL~ COUH~, Ph.D., JAN 2 3 2001 WI4ER£A$, P~OCLAI~A TZON the Americon H¢ort Associotiom bus determined that notionoily, the number of sudden deaths due to cordioc emer9encies continue to increuse,' and, the Americon Heort Associotion bus stored that the key to preventin9 this increosin9 number of deoths i$ to expond the ovoilobility of ropid de£ibrillotion through the use of on Automotic Externol befibrillafor (/lED).' and, the Boord of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida odopted Ordinonce No. ?9-43, ~o estoblish o Communi~/ Automatic Externol bef/brillator Program thor enobles members of the 9enerol public to provide ropid de£ibrillotion to people sufferin9 sudden cardiac death,' ond, Whereas the over 180 AED units, the use of NOW of is tl~ County FLODZbA A TTE$ T: ,TAI~E$ b. CAR~-~, Ph.b., CI4AI~t~AN No. ,,_'~r/- ~'5 .. JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. .... J ...... PROCLA31ATION WHEREAS, Collier Harvest, a nonprofit organization requested assistance to restock the County's food banks, and V~I-IEREAS, County employees were asked to participate in the food drive by bringing two canned goods each day and for this effort, employees were permitted to wear jeans to work, and and WHEREAS, these donations were used to replenish the food bank after the Holiday Season, %"I-IEREAS, County employees generously responded to the call for assistance and donated a total of 1550 pounds of food for this event, and WHEREAS, special recognition is given to Lisa Taylor, Beth Walsh and John D'Amico ("JD") for their selfless efforts to make the food drive a success, and WHEREAS, this has been another special endeavor by County employees to serve the community. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Count)' Commissioners, that Lisa Taylor. Beth Walsh and John D'Amico be recognized for their special effort to respond to Collier Harvest's request for assistance. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23ra Day of January, 2001. BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., chairman ATTEST: DV~'IGHT E. BROCK, CLERK JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE ALEXANDRA SULECKI, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II, CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2001. OBJECTIVE: The "Employee of the Month" Program is designed to recognize exceptional performance plus uniquely identifiable contributions which produce significant results for the County. CONSIDERATIONS: Alex started with the Code Enforcement Department in July 1998 as a part-time employee, working approximately 30 hours as well as going to school to complete her degree. Although she was given little training, Alex jumped right in with two feet to help out when the full-time investigator was out on extended sick leave. In November 1998, Alex was hired as a full-time employee and has done an excellent job for the Code Enforcement Department. She is always willing to assist her fellow co-workers with difficult cases dealing with environmental violations. In addition to her regular duties, Alex has developed a slide presentation designed to educate property managers and homeowners associations about the various environmental regulations that they need to be aware of. Despite the complexity of her position as Environmental Specialist II, Alex handles her job with professionalism and is always willing to extend herself to co-workers. She goes above and beyond the call of duty. Alex is an asset to the Code Enforcement Department as well as Collier County Government and without hesitation has been chosen as January's Employee of the Month. FISCAL IMPACT: "Employee of the Month" selectees receive a $50.00 cash award. Funds for this award are available in the Department Budget Cost Center. RECOMMENDATION: That Alexandra Sulecki, Environmental Specialist II, Code Enforcement Department, be recognized as the "Employee of the Month" for January .2001. Mary-Jo ~1~.o k, ~[dm~mstrat~ve Secretary, County Man~.ger s Office Thomas W. Olliff, q~ty Manager COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE January 10,2001 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 (941) 774-8383 FAX (941) 774-4010 Larry and Linda Love 9199 The Lane Naples, FL34109 Re: Request for Public Petition Regarding Tree and Plant Removal from Developed property. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Love: Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of January 23, 2001 regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. Please be informed that because your specific case is the subject of a Code Enforcement Board action, that the County Commission can take no action. As a result we are assuming that your petition will refer to broader policy issues and not your specific circumstances. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Boarifs Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Thomas W. Olliff County Manager TVVO:jeb cc: County Attorney John Dunnuck, Interim CD&ES Administrator JAN 2 3 2001 Pg.,, '~ -January 4,2001 4:05 PM From: LOTTO EDGE MAGAZINE Fax Number: 16032151963 To: Countx; Managers Office Meeting on Jmmarx' 23. 2001 Collier County Commissioners YIeeting Naples. Florida FroIll: LarD.'& Linda Love 9199 The Lane Naples, Fl. 34109 Phone #: 941 566-9661 Fax#: 603 215-1963 We would like a time on the agenda of the Januao' 23. 2001 meeting to speak before the Commission. We were encouraged by the Code Ent2)rcement Board to talk to the Commission about changing a law that is undoable and is selective enforcement. This law involves tree and plant removal from developed propert>.'. Thin& you for your consideration. Sincerely, L. Love JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ~ COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE January 10, 2001 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 (941) 774-8383 FAX (941) 774-4010 Ms. Vera Fitz-Gerald, President Property Owners of Naples Park P.O. Box 110021 Naples, FL 34108 Re: Request for Public Petition by Property owners of Naples Park Regarding Development in Naples Park. Dear Ms. Fitz-Gerald: Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of January 23, 2001 regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Boarifs discretion. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building ~F') of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Thomas W. Olliff County Manager TWO:jeb cc: County Attorney Bob Mulhere, Director Planning Services AGENDA No. "3 ~) ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 I:)g---~, bodinej Cc: Subject: olliff t Tue~'day, January 09, 2001 5:15 PM 'verafg@naples.net' bodine._j; dunnuck__j RE: Naples Park moratorium Vera, By copy of this memo to Judi Bodine here in this office, I will ask her to ensure that this item is on the agenda for the BCC meeting of January 23rd. As you know the Board will only decide if there is sufficient interest on their parts to direct staff to place the item on a future agenda for specific action. Should you have any questions regarding this please do not hesitate to call. Tom Olliff. ..... Original Message ..... From: Vera Fitz-Gerald [mailto:verafg@naples.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:29 PM To: 011iff t Subject: N~ples Park moratorium Dear Mr Olliff, As per our conversation this morning I would like to request time during the Public Petitions segment of the next BCC agenda on Tuesday, 23 January. The Property Owners of Naples Park would like to ask the Board to place oratoruim on development in Naples Park until we can draw up a plan future building (development and re-development), and have an ~verlay in place. I understand this has been done in other neighborhoods, and according to the County Attorney's office, it is "do-able". We need to avert future variance requests until our re-development plan is completed, and is adopted by the Board. Builders will then know what they can and cannot do, and these long drawn out variance requests can be avoided. Thankyou, Vera Fitz-Gerald, President Property Owners of Naples Park PO Box 110021 Naples, FL 34108 (941) 597-5648 / JAN i3 2001- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE BY RESOLUTION, THE ACTIVITY CENTER #9 INTERCHANGE MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECHURAL DESIGN AND TRANSPORTATION ACCESS CRITERIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ZONING OVERLAY AND AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OBJECTIVE: Adoption of this Resolution will further the efforts to enhance the 1-75 Interchange at Collier Boulevard and State Road 84 as a gateway to Naples. This resolution to approve the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan will allow the development of zoning overlay and appropriate Land Development Code amendments to include landscape, architectural design and transportation access criteria. BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has directed that an Interchange Master Plan (IMP) be developed in coordination with the property owners within Activity Center #9 that includes land use, transportation and access management guidelines, and landscape and architectural design concepts. During the 1997 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR}, the BCC adopted an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan to develop an IMP for Activity Center #9. The EAR based amendments were found in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and adopted by the BCC in May 2000 through remedial amendments to the Growth Management Plan ICPR-3). The intent of the IMP is to create an enhanced gateway to Naples for 633 acres contained within Activity Center #9. The finn of Wilson Miller prepared the IMP based on input received by transportation and p!an~i:.,.g staff and from two meetings with the property owners of Activity Center #9. On .lu!v I1, 2000 a visioning meeting was conducted for the property owners and their · cp':csc:n:atives. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a vision statement that was consistcn? with the Growth Management Plan and agreed upon by those property owners . ~' :.!, :i: 2::prcsentatives who participated. The IMP' s vision statement sets forth the goals cq~ the in~,t,lcmentation process, land use, the transportation system, and design elements. At the January 23, 2001 BCC meeting, the firm of Wilson Miller will be prepared to giYe a detailed presentation of the attached IMP. CON S! I)ERATIONS: Section 1.B.2. of the Growth Management Plan requires the development of an IMP for Activity Center #9 · The intent of the IMP as provided for in the Future Land Use Element is to create an enhanced "gateway" to Naples. · The purpose of the IMP is to develop landscape, signage and architectural design concepts, as well as, transportation/land use strategies and a conceptual transportation access management plan for lands within Activity Center #9. s,c_~_a ~~ 2 200 · A vision statement to guide in the development of the Interchange Master Plan was developed through mutual agreement by participating property owners and their representatives and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 1, 2000. · A property owners meeting was held on October 11, 2000 wherein the property owners present reviewed and agreed upon the draft Interchange Master Plan. · Section I.B2. of the Future Land Use Element stipulates that the Interchange Master Plan shall be adopted by resolution by the Board of County Commissioners. · If the resolution is approved staff purposes to apply for applicable landscape and enhancement grants through the Florida Department of Transportation. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. If the resolution is approved and staff proceeds with implementation of the Interchange Master Plan a zoning overlay and land development code amendments will be developed for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The entry and exit features, landscaping, directional signage, and lighting elements that occur within the public rights of way would be implemented through the County's Capital Improvement Plan. As previously scheduled roadway improvements are initiated, staff will identify available funding sources to include general revenues and roadway revenues as well as other applicable funding sources such as the Florida Highway Beautification Grant Program and the Florida Department of Transportation Enhancement Program. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of this resolution will implement Section I.B.2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC held their final public hearing on January 18, 2001. A copy of the Staff Report to the Collier County Planning Commission is attached (Attachment A). The recommendations of the CCPC will be presented at the January 23, 2001 BCC meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Not Applicable HISTORICAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Net App;icable PLANNING SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the Activity Center #9 Interchange Activity Center and adopt the proposed resolution. PREPARED BY: AMY K. TAYLOR, AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION -2- DATE January 8, 2001 JAN 2 3 2001 Ps. REVIEWED BY: STAN LITSiNGER, AICP COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER DATE REVIEWED BY: BOB MULHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: JOHN DUNNUCK INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNqTY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE AGENDA ITEM 7-F MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January 5, 2001 ACTIVITY CENTER #9 INTERCHANGE MASTER PLAN (IMP) REQUESTED ACTION: To review the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan (IMP) for consistency with the Collier Count), Growth Management Plan and forward comments to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC). LOCATION 633 acres located around or adjacent to the 1-75 interchange at Collier Boulevard (CR951) and Davis Boulevard (SR 84). See attached IMP for location maps. BACKGROUND During the 1997 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan to develop an IMP for Activity Center #9. The EAR based amendments were found in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and adopted by the BCC in May 2000 through remedial amendments to the Growth Management Plan (CPR-3). The intent of the IMP is to create an enhanced gateway to Naples for 633 acres contained within Activity Center #9. The firm of Wilson Miller prepared the IMP based on input received by transportation and planning staff and from two meetings with the property owners of Activity Center #9. On July 11, 2000 a visioning meeting was conducted for the property owners and their representatives. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a vision statement that was consistent with the Growth Management Plan and agreed upon by those property owners and their representatives who participated. The IMP' s vision statement sets forth the goals of the implementation process, land use, the transportation system, and design elements. Components of the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan include land use, transportation and access, landscaping and buffering, signage, and architectural design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Plarming Commission (CCPC) recommend the attached resolution for Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan to the Board of County CommJ ~or · approval and find the plan in conformity with the County's Growth Management ~lan. JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY: PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION DATE January 5, 2001 REVIEWED BY: STA1V LITSINGER, AICP COMPREHENSWE PLANNING MANAGER DATE ROB E RT-;J MULHERE, A--~'C'P----'~- PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR {~TH ~/D'FdR i ~'~diCN~RATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENAtIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE DATE C~ LLIt: R COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: GARY E~P,.AGE , CHAIRMAN 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERCHANGE MASTER PLAN FOR LANDS WITHIN ACTIVITY CENTER ;1{¢9 AS SET FORTH IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et.seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS the Future Land Use Element, Section I.B.2 requires the development of an Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center ~ as contained in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS Activity Center *[9 contains lands generally located at State Road 84, Interstate 75 and Collier Boulevard as shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS Collier County has prepared the Interchange Master Plan in accordance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as contained in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS the Interchange Master Plan establishes landscape, signage, and architectural design concepts for lands within Activity Center ~; and WHEREAS the Interchange Master Plan also provides transportation/land use strategies and conceptual transportation syster~ improvements, including an updated Access Management Plan for lands within ;~ctivity Center ~lt9; and WHEREAS, the Interchange Master Plan will be implemented through a zoning overlay and other amendments to the Collier County Land Development Code for private lands within Activity Center ~9; and WHEREAS, the proposed entry and exit gateway features in the public rights-of-way, including landscaping, directional signage, and lighting elements shall be prioritized in Collier County's Capital Improvement Plan of the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan. NOW THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that; SECTION ONE: APPROVAL OF INTERCHANGE MASTER PLAN. The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the Interchange Master Plan for Activity Center ~ attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion; seconded and majority vote this day of ,2001. JAN Pg,. 2 3 200! ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Marjorie M.] Student Assistant County Attorney Chairman, James D. Caz-ter, Ph.D. JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ¢ Activity Center ~ ~ ~-~ Interchange F4~ter PlanFinal ..'~ ~,.~ .~ -:~"'- . t I I I. I I I _ pared for: November 2000 Prepared by: ~" ~ ~ WilspnMille~ Collier County Government Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan 2 3 4 5 AppendLx A AppendN B Introduction Vision Statement Design Development Land Use & Transportation Implementation Strategies FSUTMS Model Plots Signalized Intersection Analyses Arterial Analvses Pr,,ic~a Leadership Board of County C~mm~i.,ksioncrs Tullocli? J. Conskmtinc, Chairman James D. C~cr, ~D., Vice C~irman Ba~)ara B. Bern David Brand: Collier C*)untx' Staff Review Team R~,n Nmc, AICR Current l:'kmning: [Lax Bellmss..MCP, Current Plannin~ I rt'nc 5zm( ,dinski, AIA, Comprehcn~i~ c Plannin,,i' kd Kant, RE.., Trm,,portation Scr~ ~ccs Gaxtn J,~nes, P.E., AICP, N.tplc'~ MPO Dax id 91coke, AICR C,,mprebertsive Planniru~ \m? '[a) h~r, AICP~ Comprehcnsixe Plannine 5, tan l.~tsinger, AICP. Comprehcnsix e Pkumine Pr~,pcrtx ()x~ncr,, ,Itld RcprtNcntatc, c,, Jtm Roath, 'l'o[l~atc Pt'D, Super ~. Motcl Ralph and ~mnic Shax% X\ hilt Lake ~x~ht Nadadcau, Rcpre~cntatkc Don Pick~'orth, Rcptt'~cnL~th c Pat Papinca~ To~atc Rol~l Dt~nc, Reprt~cntatn'c Brut~ Ande~on, ~prt~nm~ c ~ ~ox, Mobil Gas Station Sieve Miller, :~t~ Matt N~ia~n,~, ~ hire ~ PUD Mar=arct Emblid~, Gold~ Crate Commc~c Park Rob~ Sm~. Altair A~y PUD ~da Nla~zalko~ski, Industrial Zoned Parcel B~'an Milk R~tmmtixc Can Black Crac~r Barrel ~nt ~'t'stcrn~, Slmx~ ,~) Stephen Sp~al,~, Rcprtmcnmtn c No. '~ JAN 2 3 2001 I--In oduction 2 Vision Statement Design Development 4 Land Use & Transportation · S Implementation Strategies ~~ppendlxA FSUTMS Model Plots .Appendix'B Signalized Intersection Analyses ' -'"~ ~:. 'Arterial Analyses ~' I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! · ! · · D Section I--Introduction BACKGROUND In the past decade, Collier County has placed greater emphasis on improving its aesthetic appearance. In 1996, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted architectural guidelines that require all commercial development to build to higher standards that represent the quality of the community. During the 1997 Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments, the BCC adopted an amendment that will further the efforts to improve the appearance of Collier County. The County expects to achieve this by developing an Interchange Master Plan (IMP) that will create a "gateway" into the greater Naples area at Activity Center #9, which is located at the intersection of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard. The GMP amendment specifically says: "The IMP is intended to create an enhanced '~7ateway"to Naples. The IMP process shall be initiated by the property owners and/or their representatives by meeting with the County planning staff within 60 days of the adoption of this Growth Management Plan amendment and a finding of compliance from the Department of Community Affairs. The purpose of the meeting will be to estabfish a mutually acceptable vision statement for Activity Center #9. The Interchange Master Plan shaft be adopted by Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners. All rezones thereafter shall meet the intent of the vision statement. Subsequent to the development of the vision statement, new projects within Activity Center #9 are encouraged to have a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development. The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shall include the full array of commercial uses; residential and non-residential uses; institutional uses; November2000 5;ect~o,n I Page Business Park; hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code; industrial uses in the northeast, southwest and southeast quadrants. The mix and intensity of land uses shall meet the intent of the vision statement and be defined during the rezoning process. The entire Interchange Activity Center is eligible for up to 100% of the entire acreage to be developed for and of the uses referenced above, except the maximum amount of commercial acreage shall not exceed 55% of the total acreage (632.5 ac.) of Interchange Activity Center #9. The factors to consider during review of a fezone petition shall be compliance with the vision statement and those included in the Mixed Use Activity Center." STUDY PARAMETERS Subsequent to adopting the Activity Center #9 GMP amendment, the BCC established the study parameters for the IMP. The components required in the IM' include the following: · Land Use amount, type, and location of land uses · Transportation and Access--traffic generation volume and characteristics of uses; shared access; frontage roads; restricted, or prohibited access · Landscaping/Buffers---requirements for unified landscape theme to enhance the "gateway" image · Signage--development of unified signage plan for the interchange · Architecture---specific architectural standards for buildings o Map(s)---access features/restrictions/ requirements: possible locations of shared access, frontage or reverse frontage roads, bypass roads; location of required buffer areas; other components listed above as may be appropriate AGENDA I'1' ~M No. ~"~'~J. k JAN z Wilso.' nMiller Section I Introduction The BCC also established that the IMP afford the greatest possibilities to achieve provisions shall apply to properties thatthe defined objectives. The constraints are are zoned but undeveloped. Provisions those existing conditions that may hinder shall be implemented in the Land the ability to achieve the defined Development Code (LDC) as a zoning objectives. overlay. The general design opportunities for the ,,~TUDY PURPOSE Activity Center #9 are as follows: * The exit #15 interchange offers The purpose of the IMP is to develop landscaping opportunities landscape, signage, and architectural * Existing right-of-way can design concepts that will create an accommodate design elements and enhanced gateway into Collier County. Inpedestrian activity addition, th,:., IMP is also intended to* Lakes and natural preserves create develop transportation/land use strategiespleasant vistas for motorists and conceptual transportation system * The area has adequate undeveloped improvements, including an updated property that will comply with the IMP Access Management Plan for lands within Activity Center #9. Figure 1-1 presents the* The existing hotels and restaurants IMP study area. create an active environment The general overall constraints for the Opportunities and Constraints Activity Center #9 are as follows: * Existing and approved developments As presented in Figure 1-2 on the may impede a cohesive design following page, design opportunities andconcept in certain locations constraints were identified throughout Activity Center #9. The opportunities · Multilane roadways and busy represent the existing conditions that willintersections complicate pedestrian movement , Acpwty Center ¢/9 In erchange Master Plan (iMP) NovemOer 2000 Section 1 Page 2 D R A!t31ENDA ITEM No. C",,..,~_ ~, JAN z o zuu~ WilsonMiller ! ! ! ! Section l--!ntroduction FutureTransportation Improvements Additional opportunities and constraints will be realized with the construction of future transportation improvements within Activity Center #9. The SR-84 Corridor Study recently completed for the FDOT recommended improving SR-84 to a multilane configuration along the existing alignment instead of realigning the corridor eastward to intersect with CR-951 one mile south of the current intersection. During the course of the study, it was determined that regardless of the alignment, the existing SR-84/CR-951 intersection would have to be grade separated due to the significant influence (and vicinity) of the 1-75 interchange coupled with the activity cente development. Widening along the existing alignment was found to be more cost- effective and have fewer environmental impacts. A Preliminary Development and Environmental (PD&E) study is underway to determine the appropriate grade separation concept for the intersection. As a result of what likely is to be a staging of improvements (first a multilaning of SR-84 followed by a grade separation improvement), special access management considerations will be needed. The Access Management Plan recommended in Section 4--Land Use & Transportation will need to be updated in accordance with future roadway improvements, specifically the grade separation improvements. AGENDA ITEM No. ~_~,'% ~, JAN ~E1-.-t ~ 2.001 November 2000 Section I C~age 4 i - 75 R.O W. A PA.RK OPPORTUNITIES . EX;~TtNG HOTELS ~ REST~S CRF..A~ Figure 1-2 AGENDA ITEM No. ('-',xv,,_ \ JAN ,:.,. A ACTIVITY TRACT PuD I :ENTER ¢¢9 ND CONSTRAINTS No~A~,ITEM C) lq ~ JAN 2 :~ 2,301 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I t I t I I t I I I I I t I I I I I I 2---Vision Statement 3 , Oesign Development 4 , Land Use & lransportation Implementation Strategies ~...Appendix A FSUTMS Model Plots .. Appendix B . Signalized .. Arterial Analyses. Intersection Analyses AGi~ND.A iTE'i,,'i No._CL ',..%1 JAN 2 3 2001 o oop e roe gcaYaa . . . ' Primary access snah oe proviaea ~)y · · access roaas generally conrrofied by the ~mplement~'bon process, land use, the . . traffic signals at arterial intersections BCC by resolution Subsequent to the Section 2--Vision Statement DEVELOPING THE VISION employment centers, retail and service commercial, hotel/motel, community .............. facilities, and residential development. A un Ju~y 11, zuuu a ws~onmg meeting maximum f -- ercent of th ' t I was conducted for the individuals who acrea e ma be devoted to retail own property within the boundaries of cornmet i I I n- uses Activity Center #9. During that meeting, the participating property owners and/or their representatives came to a Transportation System/Access consensus on a Vision Statement This ...... V~s~on Statement sets forth the goals of . . transportabort system, and design ......... ' . e ements. The BCC endorsed the Vision uirecr ac.cess from aeve/opmenr s/res ro Statement at its August 1, 2000 meeting.the.a. rt. eri, a! roa.d network s, hall be resrncrea ro m/nor seconaary connections. Vision Statement ...... , Eacn quaaranr of the activity cemer Activity Center 119 will be a 'Gateway" intoshall provide for internal interconnections Collier County. It will be a destination forbetween adjacent land uses. This will residents, and the traveler's choice place tofacilitate convenient and safe internal stop along 1-75 and Collier Boulevard. Bothvehicular and pedestrian movements residents and travelers will be able towithout affecting the external roadway .... network. In addition, Activity Center tt9 will appreciate the essenhal quahty of Collier County in this 633-acre Activity Center.support future transit stops. Implementation The Design Elements ..... Y Y Pry All rezones within Activity Center 119Collier Count has man exem la shall be cons/stent with this V/s/on characteristics it is known for its Statement..An IMP. shall be d. eve. lo. ped tobeaches, golf gurses, and the g . further define the intent of this VisionEver lades Residents en'o the Statement, and shall be adopted by theo ortunit to live work and la in · PP Y , , P Y . ' . . beautiful rural areas and vibrant urban adoption of the IMP, an Activity Center #9 ' settings. Activity Center 119 is located on zoning overlay district shall be adopted inthe urban ede of Collier Count g :Y; the Land Development Code ' therefore, emphasis will be placed on complementary design themes that reflect Land Use the influences such as the Everglades, rural areas, and Old Florida. Properties Activity Center 119 shall be developedwithin Activity Center #9 shall be with a mix of uses that will serve residentsdeveloped or redeveloped in accordance and travelers. The mix of land uses shallwith one or more of the design themes be designed to complement the intensitydefined in the IMP. The design themes of the intersection while providing theshall be incorporated into the landscape, appropriate transitions to the nearbyarchitecture, signage, gateway features, residential communities. Land uses shalland roadway lighting design be located in a manner that will enhance ' the overall appearance and function of theFigure 2-1 iljustrates how all of these activity center. themes of the vision statement may be ' incorporated into Activity Center #9's Land uses may include a mixture of future desi_qn office/business centers, light industria~ '"AGENDA I'TF_I~I ' -- , , ( WilsdnMiller Chvity L. ente,' #9 tnterc,~ange Mas~er , !an ( MR ~N ' r~ ~ - ' ,4,~DA ITEM JAN 2 ~ 2,$'~I i Introduction 2 Vision Statement 3 Design Development 4 Land Use & Transportation Implementation Strategies Appendix AmFSUTMS Model Plots Appendix B--. Signalized Intersection Analyses ., .,-.:: Arte~ia!'Ana!yses: ~ -- WilsdnMiiler i "' AGENbA ITEM No. (-'-~^ ~ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D D D Section 3 Design Development DESIGN DEVELOPMENT The design of Activity Center #9 is defined using character themes that shall be represented through these elements: · Architecture and signage · Landscape buffers · Boundary gateways · Arterial roadway elements Architecture and Signage As stated in the Vision Statement, three complementary character themes shall be used in the architecture and signage elements throughout Activity Center #9. The three character themes include the following: · Everglades · Rural · Old Florida The Everglades Character In the Everglades, architectural structures typically feature function first-- aesthetics are secondary. Designs in the Everglades reflect a pioneering spirit conveyed through neutral colors with minimum detailing of building facades. Simple roof lines, deep overhangs, porches (where feasible), and clerestory windows are some of the major architectural elements that shall define the Everglades Character theme. Figure 3-1 iljustrates elements represented in the Everglades Character. Architectural structures shall exhibit colors that support the Everglades theme. As shown in Figure 3-2, muted tones found in the Everglades accented by light values of the same color are desirable. Figure 3-2: Everglades Color Figure 3- I: Everglades Character November 2000 Section 3 Page Pg IDA ITEl" Wil~nMiller I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 3 Design Development Old Flodda Character ,~ ,. ~ ,~.. ~"~' Old Florida architecture is ~F~,~. ~-~¢. : ~?~ ~ '~ .. unpretentious and inviting ~ 'i ~ ~ '~"~~~'.~ It is beautifully adapted to ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ its climate and quietly , ~ ~ ~~~~~~:~ '~' enhanced Old Flor,de is a ~ ~'~~~~~ ?- . . '~~~~ ~ __~ -~.~,, ~- synthesis of many ~~~~~ - ~ vernacular traditions ~~~ :/~, ranging from the Victorian ~~ ~ to those of Cracker and ~ ~- ~ ~// antebellum South. Peaked ~ ~ ~/~ tin roofs, deep roof R ";:" /' overhangs, generous ' ' porches, and ample windows are some of the traditional vernacular The RuralCharacter features of the Old Florida theme. Figure ............. 3-5 iljustrates elements represented in the ~rcmmcture m rura~ uomer uoumy Old Florida Character comprises minimum adornments, ' symmetrical facades, and a combination of roof types with a fair degree of a~iculation. Wo~ detailing, cupolas, and dormers are some of the major architectural elements that shall I~ ~ ! define the Rural Character theme. . . 3-3 e, e.ts represented in the Figure 3-5: Old Florida Character .L_ : Rural Character. . I . I Architecture, 'IL~' ,'~ i'~structures shall ':~ ~ " exhibit [~¢'~'~ II, :I' colors that ; b ¢~' i . support the r~,;%~_~ Rural Florida · . '~ I th~me. As .' ~ !show"in ~. Figure 3-4, soft, natural earth (ones with contrasting deep hue accents are desirable. Figure 3-4: Rural Colors Architectural structures shall exhibit colors to support the Old Florida theme. As shown in Figure 3-6, light or white trim colors coupled with soft, pastel tones are desirable. Acttwty Center #9 lnterc,,: ~ ge Master Plan lIMP) No vernr)er 2000 Section 3. Page 2 Wilso.* nMiiler · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 3 Design Development Landscape Buffers Two landscape buffer requirements shall apply to Activity Center #9: * Buffers adjacent to major arterial roadways * Buffers not adjacent to arterial roadways Adjacent Buffers Landscape buffers adjacent to arterial roadways shall include formal plantings to create a feeling of familiarity and continuity for the visitor in Activity Center #9. Primary landscape elements shall be chosen to reduce the scale of the adjacent roadway and commercial structures and to provide pedestrian comfort. Secondary landscape elements shall include formal, orderly planting beds with highly defined edges. Subtropical trees and plants in layered arrangements will provide visitors with a well-planned garden experience. Nonadjacent Buffers Landscape buffers that are not adjacent to arterial roadways shall be consistent with the established character themes by using relaxed rhythms in planting areas. This will create a soft, natural effect that transitions from the formal pedestrian and vehicular paths. Native palms, grasses, and stands of hardwood trees with a natural progression of undergrowth shall comprise the major landscape elements within buffers. The landscaping plant palette selected for Activity Center #9 includes, but is not limited to, the following: Trees ,, Southern Magnolia · Live Oak * Red Maple · Slash Pine · Dahoon Holly Activ,'ty Center #9 Interchange Master Plan (IMP) November2000 Section 3 Page 3 · Bald Cypress · White Geiger · South Florida Slash Pine Pa/ms · Cabbage Palm · Paurotis Palm · Washington Palm Accents · Cardboard Zamia Shrubs · Leather Fern · Marlberry ,, Myrsine · Walters Viburnum · Sweet Viburnum · Indian Hawthorn · Florida Privet · Saw Palmetto · Fakahatchee * Shillings Holly A~_ENDA ITEM &l~ · '~.~. i .... JAN 2 3 2001 Pg ~ WilsonMiller I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 3 · Necklace Pod · Thryallis · Dwarf Fakahatchee · Sandankwa Viburnum Aquatic P/ants · Leather Fern · Yellow Canna Vines · Bougainvillea · Conf-:~derate Jasmine Annuals · Egyptian Star Flower Ground Covers · Pink Muhly Grass · Swordfern · Sand Cordgrass , Design Development Boundary Gateway Features Boundary gateway features shall define the entry/exit points of Activity Center #9. They shall be located within the right-of- way at the north and south boundaries on Collier Boulevard and at the west boundary on Davis Boulevard. A major gateway feature at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 1-75 shall introduce Activity Center #9 to motorists on 1-75 by providing the following: · Directional signs/monumentation that are architectural in nature · Intensified plantings that introduce color, massing, and layering · Areas for display of local sculpture/ art elements that are intended for public display and enjoyment Each gateway feature shall be designed to complement the character themes, which will help define and implement Activity Center #9's Vision Statement. Figure 3-7 presents a co;~ceptual design for a boundary gateway. Figure 3-7: Boundary Gateway/ncept ACtivity Center #9 interchange Master Plan (IMP) November 2000 Section 3, ~age 4 t ITEM Wilso.' nMiller · ! ! ! ! I I t I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I · I I I I I I I I Section 3 Design Development Arterial Roadway Landscaping As iljustrated in Figure 3-8 on the following page, arterial roadways shall include the following: · Sidewalks along all arterials to promote pedestrian activity and to interconnect adjacent commercial buildings * Street trees for shade, appropriate scale, and to separate pedestrians from motorists o Intersections that have pigmented crosswalks and colorful plantings to aid in motorist and pedestrian recognition · Median plantings for contrast with formal street trees through cjustering and layering · Median plantings should have view corridors to commercial buildings; appropriate view triangles shall be maintained at intersections Lighting and Directional Signage Special lighting fixtures shall be used along Activity Center #9's arterial roadways. The selected light fixture style shall complement all of the selected character themes. All directional signage within Activity Center #9 shall be unified and designed in a manner that is complementary to the selected character themes. AGENDA ITEM No. r-~ ~ JAN 2 ~ 2001 WilsPnMiller November2000 Section 3 F~age 5 Figure 3-8,' Conceptuol Roadway Treatment - - AGENDA No. ,"~,~.ITEM P~ c~ ~ I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I t I I I I I I~ln~roduction 2 Vision Statement 3 Design Development 4--Land Use & Transportation Implementation Strategies ~:..Appendix A FSUTMS Model Plots endix ' ' ' 'B--._ S!gnallzed Intersection Analyses ':- ' Arterial Analyses I I I P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! · Section 4--Land Use & Transportation LAND USE The BCC adopted a study parameter to develop a land use plan that identifies the type and amount of land uses. As demonstrated in Figure 4-1, the IMP accomplishes this by developing an IMP Land Use Map that recognizes the existing zoning. It is guided by the study parameters and objectives. The IMP Land Use Map i, not intended to be used as a zoning map, but rather as a general indicator of desirable future land use relationships. The Activity Center #9 GMP amendment defined the following: "The uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shaft include the full array of commercial uses; residential and non-residential uses; institutional uses; Business Park with Activity Center #9; hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code; industrial uses in the northeast, southwest and southeast quadrants. The entire Interchange Activity Center is eligible for up to 100% of the entire acreage to be developed for and of the uses referenced, except the maximum amount of commercial acreage shall not exceed 55% of the total acreage (632.5 ac.)." The location and configuration of the following four proposed land use designations with Activity Center #9 are delineated on the IMP Land Use Map: * CommercialS0 acres · Industrial--139 acres * Mixed-use Commercial--223 acres · Mixed-use Industrial--218 acres The following describes each land use designation including purpose, permitted uses, and intensity/density. Commercial This designation is intended to accommodate the full array of commercial uses as allowed in each commercial! NovernDer 2000 Section 4 Page I zoning district in the LDC, institutional uses, office, and hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the LDC. Industrial This designation is reserved primarily for industrial type uses. Intensities of use shall be consistent with the GMP Industrial District. Mixed-use Commercial This designation is intended to accommodate a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses within the activity center. Land areas appropriate for this designation include retail, office, service, and residential. Residential density is allowed consistent with the GMP Density Rating System. Hotel/motel uses are allowed at a density consistent with the LDC. Mixed-use Industrial This designation is intended to identify the land areas appropriate for light industrial, retail, office, service, and residential. Intensities of industrial uses shall be consistent with the GMP Urban- Industrial District. The full array of commercial uses are allowed consistent with the commercial zoning districts in the LDC. Hotel/motel uses are allowed at a density consistent with the LDC. Residential density is allowed consistent with the GMP--Density Rating System. TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION Overview The transportation evaluation process included an evaluation of the travel demand model simulation and other nor, modeling transportation assessment results. The Drgcess identified and AGENDA ITEM No. ~"~'~ i i WilsonMiller JAN 2 3 2001 P~D Figure 4-1 LEGEND ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY RSF-3 EX3S73NG ZONING MIXED USE ~ERCIAL COMMERCL4L INDUSTRL4L MIXED USE INDUSTRIAL ENTER SE MAP #9 I ' ,,~GENDA ITEM JA~52001 Section 4---Land Use & Transportation quantified problems/problem areas found Assumptions in the evaluation. The transportation evaluation was used to assess a variety of improvements that may be recommended for consideration as part of the IMR Certain previously identified future improvements to the transportation network were assumed, including ramp improvements to the 1-75 interchange and the construction of a grade separation at the SR-84 and CR-951 intersection. Appropriate performance neasures and evaluation criteria leg., L~S, delay, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) were used to evaluate the future conditions. The transportation evaluation process also identified and evaluated potential transportation/land use strategies and infrastructure improvements that address system problems/problem areas. It considered strategies such as non-capital operational improvements, transportation demand management (TDM), and other land use/site-related techniques that may be applicable to the activity center concept. A variety of potential transportation and land use strategies and infrastructure improvements were tested. The results were evaluated against the established criteria. Pedormance measures and evaluation criteria results for potential strategies and improvements were compared against those of the base condition. Transportation infrastructure improvements that were considered included (but were not be limited to) access management improvements, intersection modifications, additional or modified freeway ramps, additional through-lanes, grade-separated intersection improvements, new road segments, etc. Close cooperation with ~state and local implementing transportation agencies ensured coordination in developing and analyzing potential strategies and improvements. For the purposes of the future conditions analysis (FCA), a single land use data set for a buildout scenario was used to generate system traffic in and around Activity Center #9. The land use data set de~/,-loped by the County/ Metropolit~ 'lanning Organization (MPO) for ~ in the "density reduction" buildout a,, : sments was used. Although the study h :. ~zon year was undetermined, the analys~s year data set was assumed to represent the area's buildout. The traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the study area were reviewed and evaluated for consistency with the proposed development potential of lands included within Activity Center #9. A consensus on the appropriate land use variables leg., number of dwelling units, number of employees, etc.) to be included in the study data set was achieved before any transportation alternatives assessment began. With regard to future land use improvements, several projects within the area (but not within the activity center boundary) that may impact the transportation system within the activity center were identified and considered in the analysis, either directly as part of the modeling effort or indirectly through observations. A number of initial assumptions were made based on approved plans and programs: the capacity improvements recognized in Collier County's Transportation Element of the GMP; the MPO's 2020 Long-Range Transportation Plan, including the 2020 Needs Assessment; and the recently completed SR-84 Corridor Study, which made specific recommendations about future improvements at the intersection of SR-84 and CR-951. WilspnMiller ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! · ! Section 4--Land Use & Transportation Base (Current) Operating Conditions The major transportation system components within Activity Center #9 include 1-75, CR-951, and SR-84. Currently, the area is not served by public transportation, except for the occasional taxi cab and demand-response vehicles that may serve employers in the area. Tables 4-1a and 4-1b present the 1998 operational conditions of the major roadways and signalized intersections. The northern quadrants, which are / substantially vacant of immediately ( adjacent land uses, are separated by CR- 951, a four-lane divided highway. This area is served by existing and future east/ west "access" roads located immediately outside the "limited access" (I_A) boundaries of 1-75 (immediately north of the ramps). Additionally, a planned access point approximately 900 feet north of the existing access roads will provide signalized access control for future major developments east and west of CR-951. To allow all developments within the ~,95~! {~.?rth. ofl-75,) . . 4 D 46.300 33,075 B (0.71) CR-951 (south of 1-75) 4 D 46,300 33,075 B (0.71) CR-951 (south of $R-~4) 4 D 44,300 23,739 C (0.54) SR-84 (we~t of CR-951) 2 D 10,800 15,790 F (1.46) Table 4- l a Ex/st/ng Geometric Condit/ons Problems/ Problem Areas The interchange activity center will be populated by multiuse developments in all four quadrants. The problems/problem areas associated with transportation impacts, and most acutely, those issues dealing with access on the north side of the interstate corridor, are profoundly different from those issues on the south side. The major transportation links that serve Activity Center #9 include 1-75 (via Looking southeast across Activity Center ¢/9.exit #15), Collier Boulevard (CR-951), and Davis Boulevard (SR-84). The existing roadway lane geometry in Activity Center #9 is depicted in Figure 4-2 on the following page. CR-9~1 O 1-75 N. Ramps CR-951 O I-7S S. Ramps Table 4- lb northwest quadrant to access the future northern signalized access point, an interconnection is planned on the west side of CR-951. A similar, more circuitous connection is defined in planning documents approved for developments on the east side of CR-951. Current (base condition) problems are concentrated at the existing unsignalized access point. These problems are primarily associated with high volumes of truck traffic using the access road to reach the Collier County Water Treatment Plant and the Collier County Landfill. Whir Lake, a major industrial development, h; ,~,GE NDA ITEM No. ¢'% & t ,, YlfilsPnMiller Pg I ! ! Section 4--Land Use & Transportation are being developed with projects east l, ~ and west of CR-951 at approximately ~ ,1~ t~, 20-30 percent buildout. Gas station, /' ~l restaurant, and hotel/motel facilities j/ ~ \ occupy the southwest and southeast '/ \~, ~ quadrants of the interchange. The ~--~-_ //Iv ,.~ ~,problem area south of the 1-75 corridor is \ ,he,.,er ect,o. o, ~ ~- ~"~ ~ located approximately 1,400 feet ~ '-..% ~ south of the 1-75 ramps. The LA ~, ,, ,r'~,~ ~ ~',~ intersection. Therefore, all lLllt "----Cx.. coe.s,ooommerc, , ~,,k. ~ I" ~ ~ development must ~~-'~ ~ ~ pass through the ~ ~"~,,¢'" '%" ~ SR-84/CR- ¢ t 951 intersection. Heavy southbound and Figure 4-2: Roadway Lane Geometry begun to attract land uses that will increase the intersection's traffic. A secondary problem is the access road's lack of adequate throat distance at the intersection with CR-951. Problems associated with the northern quadrants are summarized in Table 4-2. northbound volumes between the 1-75 ramps and SR-84 coupled with high turning volumes to/from SR-84 contribute to severe congestion and long delays, especially during the morning and evening peak hours. SR~84 west of CR-951 is currently two lanes with left turn lanes. CR-951 is a four-lane divided highway. East of CR-951, "Old SR- 84" is a two-lane roadway serving land development. It terminates east of the activity center boundary. With the exception of the delay at CR-951, no traffic problems were identified for "Old SR-84" east of CR-951. It should be noted that a recently approved 1-75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway scheduled for construction Access Road #1 & ~ Table 4-2 Actlwty Center #9 mtercnange Masse,' Plar~ IM~ Novemoer 200C Section ,~ Page May be too close to 1-75 ramps to be signalized Inadequate throat distance Heavy truck movements to/from Access Road ~I Planned interconnection to future r~orthern access fon east side of CR-951 ) is not direct and dependent upon othe.s NO currently available interconnection to future northern access (on east side of CR-951 ) jAN~ Pg. WilsOnMiller Section 4--Land Use & Transportation in 2004 may reduce the traffic bound for 1- 75 at this intersection. However, congestion will continue due to access to the land development activities competing with the projected increases in through- volumes that CR-951 will carry. Table 4-3 summarizes the problems associated with the southern quadrants. development. Widening along the existing alignment was found to be more cost- effective and have fevYer environmental impacts. A Preliminary Development and Environmental (PD&E) study is underway to determine the appropriate grade separation concept for the intersection. As a result of what likely is to be a staging of improvements (first a multilaning of SR-84 ~ $R..~4/CR~51 int~ectle~l Too close to 1-75 ramps Inadequate distances from intersection to driveways on SR-84 (west of CR-951) Inadequate R/W for additional turn lanes (eastbound approach) Excessive delays due to heavy east to north, south to west and north to west turning movements Heavy peak hour traffic volumes Over capacity in its current 2-lane configuration (LOS "F") Table 4-3 Potential Infrastructure Improvements A number of key system improvements have been identified previously and are either approved or being evaluated. As stated earlier, the future (2004) interchange at Golden Gate Parkway should provide an alternative for 1-75- bound traffic, thereby reducing some of the traffic that traverses the SR-84/CR- 951 intersection to access the interstate. The SR-84 Corridor Study recently completed for the FDOT recommended improving SR-84 to a multilane configuration along the existing alignment instead of realigning the corridor eastward to intersect with CR-951 one mile south of the current intersection. During the course of the study, it was determined that regardless of the alignment, the existing SR-84/CR-951 intersection would have to be grade separated due to the significant influence (and vicinity) of the 1-75 into rchange coupled with the activity center followed by a grade separation improvement), special access managemen considerations will be needed. Although currently not planned to be extended west, future Access Road ¢¢2, north of 1-75, was tested and evaluated as a connection between CR-951 and Santa Barbara Blvd. Table 4-4 summarizes the major roadway improvements that the Collier County MPO identified as necessary by 2024 within the activity center boundary. Table 4-5 identifies additional relatively low-cost infrastructure enhancements and operational improvements as potential of transportation system management (TSM) strategies. Potential Land Use Strategies Most of the lands within Activity Center #9 are zoned for a nonagricultural land use. The remaining A-Agriculture parcels likely will be rezoned in the future. ,~:j~'bA i'~ EM No. ~ JAN 3 2001 pg. WilsdnMiller ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Section 4--Land Use & Transportation CR-~51 (north of ~-?s) ~ CR-951 (south of 1-75) CR-951 (south of SR-84) SR-~4 ~ CR~951 $R-84 (west of CR-951) Widen from 4 to 6-lanes Widen from 4 to 8-lanes Widen from 4 to 6-lanes Grade Separation & signal modifications Widen from 2 to 4~lanes Improved traffic flow; reduced delay; improved LOS Improved traffic flow; reduced delay; improved LOS Improved traffic flow; reduced delay; improved LOS Reduced congestion dudng peak periods; improved traffic flow; reduced delay; ~mproved LOS Improved traffic flow; reduced delay; improved LOS Table 4-4 Traffic Slgnalization Improvements Multimodal Traveler Information Systems Incident Management & Emergency Response Enhanced Traffic Maintenance During Construction Commute Trip Management Enhanced computer controlled traffic signal system; additional coordination Additional turn lanes Variable Message Boards; in-vehicle information systems; advanced warning systems Quick response traffic control; motonst aid services; accident investigation areas; agency awareness; traffic signal preemption Non-Peak hour~,, of Construction: minimization ,:.; ~ane closures; advanced traveler informalion Park-n-Ride Facilities; transit stabons Improved traffic flow; reduced delay; improved LOS Improved traffic flow; reduced delay; improved LOS Reduces delay; allow travel plan adjustments Reduced congestion due to incidents; improves response time to accidents; improves system recovery time Reduces delay; allow travel plan adjustments: improves work-zone safety Reduced SOY usage; reduced congestion dunng peak periods Table 4-5 Collier County will have an opportunity to ensure that the development that follows the adoption of the IMP is pbr~,qed and coordinated to be consistent with the Plan and subsequent LDC amendments. A variety of land use strategies that may be considered are discussed below. Due to t!:'.e areas currently undeveloped land, significant opportunities exist to manage the appropriate development of much of the area north of the 1-75 corridor. Although generally identified for commercial or industrial uses such as retail, office (corporate and general), and warehousing and distribution centers, lands within the activity center are suitable for a mix of uses, including multifamily residential and institutional and support services, such as adult congregate living facilities, medical facilities, churches, and child care facilities Mixed-use developments can significantly reduce the traffic impacts of land development within the activity center by providing varying peak periods of travel and by providing opportunities to minimize travel through maximizing "chained" or multipurpose trips. Residents in these developments are often able to shop for groceries, pick- up/drop-off dry cleaning, conduct personal banking, and pick up the kidsmall without having to use the adjacent highway -'---A-(3ENDA ITEM No. C ;~ _~ WilscnMiller ~r) k JAN 2 3 2001 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Section 4---Land Use & Transportation The value of varied peak hour travel demand of a mixed-use development should not be overlooked. Approximately 60-90 percent of the activity center's "congestion" is generally concentrated dudng the 2-3 peak hours during the moming/evening. In all but the most severely over-congested facilities, traffic dudng the remaining times of the day (the non-peak hours) is manageable. Historically (and currently), facilities are built to handle peak demands. Adopted LOS standards are based on the measure of congestion during the peak hour of the day. In addition to the infrastructure improvements that are needed as congestion increases, "gentler' approaches that involve travel behavior or TDM can effectively reduce peak hour demand and congestion. The TDM strategies in Table 4-6 should be considered where appropriate. Future Conditions The Future Conditions Analysis (FCA) examined the activity center in two parts: the northern half and southern half. This / was done because 1) the northern / quadrants are both substantially undeveloped and/or will be the subject of further land use decision-making processes, and 2) the FDOT is analyzing the southern quadrant's network as part of the SR-84/CR-951 PD&E. For the northwest quadrant, land owners provided potential buildout scenarios for analysis. Existing approved zoning was used for lands in the northeast quadrant. Activity Center North This portion of the analysis determined the future traffic impacts north of 1-75 on CR-951 with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed/approved development in the immediate vicinity. It also analyzed one signalized access versus two signalized access drives for the proposed development. Future year 2024 traffic volumes were derived using the MPO's Collier County 2024 travel demand model. Model modifications were made to the highway Mixed-Use Planne~ Commercial Retail/Office and Provides opportunities for internal capture and 'tnp De~elopmentl, Resident,af cha~ning' MIxe~ U~e Commercial & Holel Service I~1o~ment~ Warehouse/Distribution Prowdes for different peak hour/peak d~rectiorl travel demands High Deftcity Multi-family R~idential Development Market rate rental housing: Affordable housing Workforce housing Concentrations of housing unrra that are available to the neighboring workforce close proximity to reta:~,'off~ce ser\,+ces w~',n the Activity Center Public Facilities, Civic, Cultural and I~onal Uses Passive and active parks; greenways; Churches. Ctvic organizations Reduced traffic impact; services provided to neighboring residents; Increased open space Commute Trip I~.nagemem 'Flex-time'; staggered start/slop times; alternative work schedules Reduces peak hour demand; spreads out demand over greater length of time Increase Vehicle Occupancy Transit. ndeshanng and van-poohng Reduces peak hour demand reduces parking intentryes requiremen'(s Jncreeee Non-Motorized Travel Improved bicycle & pedestnar, facih[~es Reduces vehicular demand between uses: reduces COngestion Freight Delivery Coordination Act,vity Cente' Freight Mana.oemen' ...System 'Dehver:, On )' Hours Delivery *~ccess Routes Coordinate & coqsohdate dehveries to m,nimize Ihe ridtuDor Of ?relgh'~ vehigres needed parhcuIarW dunng peak periods Table 4-6 Act,'w'ly Center #9 interchange Maste, Plan ( IMP~ Novarobe, 2000 $ecr,or~ 4 Page Communication Substitutions leleshopping ,~,GE NJ~A ITEM No. ~:~_% .[ ~i ) ~" JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. L~--"~ Telecommuting teleconferencln§ Reduces peak and non-peak travel demand WilsonMiller Section 4---Land Use & Transportation network and socioeconomic data (ZDATA) to better reflect the proposed development and the network's physical constraints. Figure 4-3 shows the FSUTMS highway network changes made to the model. Proposed traffic from development in the northeast and northwest quadrants was derived using the Institute of Traffic Engineer's (ITE's) current Trip Generation Manual (6~h ed.) for the five developments on CR-951 north of 1-75: The changes included removing the proposed SR-84 east/west extension (eliminated by the MPO as a result of the SR-84 Corridor Study), removing the centroid connection to/from zone 310 to Golden Gate Parkway, and relocating the centroid connection to more accurately represent the travel paths to/from zone 289. Land use ZDATA revisions included refining forecast development levels for the zones surrounding the interchange. The employment level in zone 310 decreased from 1458 to 1030 while total dwelling units increased from 708 to 1319. Zone 311 was revised to include a 250- room hotel. Table 4-7 on the next page summarizes generation data. * White Lake * City Gate * Golden Gate Health Park (aka Commerce Park) * The Homan Parcel . Magnolia Pond Development potential was based on approved or planned project expectations. Traffic was assigned to the roadway network using the MPO model's traffic distribution for these zones. Model volume and distribution plots are included in the Appendix A. Background traffic was derived by applying a 9 percent k factor and 60 percent d factor to the MPO model's background peak season weekday traffic (PSWT). ACTIVITY CENTER #9 - REVISED 2024 FSUTMS MODEL NETWORK OVERLAY Figure 4-3 Activity Senlet #9 interchange Master F~lan (IMP) November 2000 Section 4. Pa~ 9 JAN 2:3 2001 WilspnMiller · ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Section 4--Land Use & Transportation ACTIVITY CENTER ~ PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Office 711) 916,000 sl 188 918 111 111 0 Retail 820 116,000 sf 332 361 69 69 124 U~ht Indu~rlal 118 1,860,000 sf 300 2201 250 250 0 R~t~umnt 831 34.000 sf 170 85 26 26 0 Ga~ Station 845 3,000 sf 145 145 29 29 101 Totals 1135 3710 485 485 225 o 134 o o 101 235 77 139 50 145 15 426 807 158 1951 60 15 2991 Ofitce 710 30,000 sf 19 94 2 9 0 o 17 85 Retail 820 220,000 sf 508 549 31 47 157 170 320 332 MFDU 220 588 du 226 111 45 22 0 0 181 89 To~ 753 754 78 78 157 170 518 506 MFDU 220 231 du 96 48 7 7 0 0 89 41 Totals 96 48 7 7 0 0 89 41 RetaD 820 250,000 du 552 598 115 115 164 178 273 305 MFDU 220 500du 194 95 29 29 0 0 165 66 Totals 746 693 1~4 144 164 178 438 371 Indu~rial Park 130 65 ac 121 454 0 0 0 Totals 121 454 0 0 0 121 121 454 45~ Table 4-7 Acrewry Ceqte! #9 Interchange Master Plan (IMP) WilscnMiller November2000 Sechon 4 Page 10 ! ! ! -- {118}~77]I38) Section 4--Land Use & Transportation One Access Drive ~ 121 ~ 245(165)<3.41> 32-'--~ LEGEND Homar ~L~ 24 {152} 11002] [141) ~ (7} [47] -- 21 NOrth Acce$~ Drive South Access Drive Activity Center ~ 2024 PEAK SEASON PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC City Gate Full Build Scenario COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Two Access Ddves 76(149) <~4> 10 ~ ~ 24 {61} i401) (561 -..---- {3} -- 21 (177)p1641(56) either one or two signalized at-grade intersections. Due ;;; the proximity of 1-75 to the south, ~ny t,' ? of grade separation does not seem feas,::)le. Any loading to the north at GolC:~n G :~ Parkway seems improbable due to physical constraints (canals and neighborhoods). The only solution appears to !:,e a reduction in proposed de,,.elop, ~mt. Of the five develc3ments shown in Figure 4-4's traffic ~ Aumes, City Gate is the largest traffic ~6 ~ erator and is the single project most ~ ,,ely to not build out to its maximum potentu',l. For testing purposes, City Gat6 traffic was reduced to obtain acceptable o, eration of CR-951 north of 1-75. Figur6 .4-6 shows these reduced traffic volu~ ~.es for City Gate for the one and two si~ ~1 scenarios. As shown in ~T'" 4-6, City Gate traffic would have to be ~:, :uced by 80 percent for one signatiz~:J ~;ess point to operate acceptably. F~r .,. ~~gnalized access --Wil nMiller 3 200! Figure 4-4 shows the expected 2024 PM peak hour peak season traffic for both one signal and two signalized access scenarios for full buildout of the proposed developments. Capacity calculations were performed for the traffic volumes shown in Figure 4- 4 using 1997 Highway Capacity Software (HCS 3.1). These calculations were performed for at-grade intersections with both one and two signalized access points along CR-951 for the proposed development. Signalized intersection and detailed arterial analyses were performed for the two scenarios and are included in Appendix B. Additionally maximum queue lengths were calculated using the red time equation for movements along CR-951. As shown in Figure 4-5, full buildout of the proposed developments will result in unacceptable LOS in the year 2024 with Act,'vlty Center #9 interchange Master Ptan (IMP; NovemDer 200C Section ,~. Page ,' 1 · ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Section 4--Land Use & Transportation One Access Drive South Access Drive F / 11.4 mph i 850 ft 219.3 secl F / 4.0 mph 1050 ft Two Access Ddves B/35.6mph 600 fi FIS.0 mph 1050 Activity Center #9 2024 PEAK SEASON PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE City Gate Full Build Scenario COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA Figure 4-5 72.4 sec I F / 11.1 mph 900 ft /IF / 118.8 sec ! F t 12.7 mph 900 ft One Access Drive [ioo2; LEGEND L 24 (152)[2~DO} (28} Norlh Access Dn've Two Access Drives [ [21 O) --~ ActivKy Center 2024 PEAK SEASON PM PEAK HOUR TRiAFFiCAGENDA iTEM Reduced City Gate Development | Figure 4-6 2001 NovernOer 200C Sect,on 4 Page !2 pg. L 24 {61} [201] (28' Wil~nMiller Section 4--Land Use & Transportation points to operate acceptably, City Gate would have to reduce its traffic by 50 percent. As shown in Figure 4-7, all intersections and arterial links are expected to operate at LOS D or better with the reduced CityGate traffic, with the exception of the southbound arterial link between the signalized access drives. This is due primarily to the short distance (900 ft.) between the two. Maximum queues were checked using the red time equation and were found to be acceptable. However, if LOS D is required for this link, City Gate traffic would need to be further reduced to approximately 65 percent of its maximum buildout condition. During the preparation of this report, additional research on the signalization of the Access Rd. #1 intersection at CR-951 was being conducted by Tindale-Oliver, Inc. Results of that research were not available at the time of this printing. Alternative East- West Collector Roadway Analysis As part of the assessment of future roadway conditions, the study examined the impacts of an interconnecting roadway (Access Road #2) extending between Santa Barbara Blvd. and CR-951. The extension was tested as a four-lane collector in 2024. The assignment of traffic by the MPO model produced volumes of 7,100 (PSDT) on the new collector with little or no change to volumes on CR-951 and the other surrounding roadways. This indicates a rebalancing of traffic where increases in certain trips as a result of a network change are offset by reductions of certain other trips (i.e., gains offset losses). In addition, the relatively low volume of traffi ' (7,100 PSDT) assigned to the new extension indicates that a small portion of the trips to and through the area find the extension of much value. An examination of the model's trip-making One Access Drive C!29.8mph ~ 700 ft ~ I [3 / 55.0 sec I D 118.6 mph 750 ft Figure 4-7 Novernbe'2000 Sect on ,~ Page !3 Two Access Drwes B I 39.3 mph 500 ft F 111.4 mph 800 ft LEGEND Act~wty Center ~9 2024 PEAK SEASON PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Reduced City Gate Development Scenart AGEI~"-A FrE M COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA No. ¢",-/'~ ! JA 2 D / 44.6 17.4 rnph 650 fi (~'~D / ,54.6 sec! 18.5 mph 700 ft WilspnMiller Section 4--Land Use & Transportation characteristics indicates that approximately 80 percent of the new road's traffic is generated in the immediate vicinity of the access road by TAZ 310 (the zone bisected by the new roadway) and the zone immediately to the east of CR-951 (TAZ 311). This indicates that the road is of primary benefit to those developments immediate adjacent to it, with little or no benefit derived by the surrounding roadway network. Traffic volumes assigned to the r~ajor roads within the study simulated by the 2024 '~vith" and '~Nithout" models are presented in Table 4-8. additional changes were assumed for th~~ land use forecast that the FDOT is using. However, access management strategies have been developed for the quadrants and have been included in the Access Management Plan contained herein. Future conditions related to the Access Management Plan assume two scenarios: * Interim at-grade improvements to SR-84 and the SR-84/CR-951 intersection * Buildout with a grade separation at the SR-84/CR-951 intersection il~-~ ...... ~ ............ Santa Barbara Blvd. to CR-951 NA CR-951 N of Access Rd #2 54.600 CR.~I S of Access Rd. #2 65600 CR-951 S. of 1-75 92,800 ~CFI-8~'~ , - : S of SR-84 75,700 8R-84 ~- ' W. of CR-951 35.300 Santa Barbara Blvd. N. of Access Rd. #2 51,600 ~:~'~'~; ~: ~ S of Access Rd. #2 51,400 Santa Barbara Blvd. S of Radio Rd (CR-856) 431300 k7S W. of CR-951 48,000 7,100 ~i500 63,900 92,400 76,000 33,600 54,600 51,500 42,60C 45,200 Table 4-8 Activity Center South The transportation network in the southern portion of the activity center is the subject of a PD&E analysis that URS Greiner is conducting under the FDOT's direction. The PD&E is intended to finalize the design concept(s) for the proposed at- grade and grade-separated improvements needed at the junction of SR-84, CR-951, and 1-75 to accommodate 20-year traffic. Because the future improvements will be dictated by the results of the FDOT's study, the activity center future conditions work did not include any additional travel demand analysis of the southern quadrants of Activity Center #9. No IMP Recommendations The IMP recommendations are divided into two areas: ', Land Use Strategies ,, Infrastructure Improvements Land Use Strategies The following land use strategies should be considered for future land development requests within the activity center. 1. Require mixed-use developments for all future rezone requests. The value of mixed-use developments, especially when a residential component is included. should be maximized. Trip No. ~3~.~ ~, 14filsPnMiller JAN 2 3 2001 Section 4--Land Use & Transportation "chaining" and internal capture can4. significantly reduce the "new external trips" of a mixed-use project, 2. Promote low trip-generating 5. commercial and industrial uses within existing and future commercial/ industrial developments. Consider maximum square footage or trip -neration thresholds for high trip- , nerating land uses, Provide land ~: :~velopment incen:'ves for low trip- ~enerating uses, 3. Require internal site interconnections between adjacent land uses to 8. facilitate convenient and safe internal vehicular movements without affecting 9. the external roadway network. 4. Consider site planning strategies that allow and encourage safe and convenient pedestrian movements between adjacent uses. 5. Require all future developments to commit to the support of future public transportation operations. New developments should be encouraged to anticipate future transit stop locations when designing the site access and circulation to land uses. Infrastructure Improvements 1-75 separates infrastructure improvements geographically and functionally: North of I-7L Six-lane CR-951 (consideration should be given to an eight-lane section south of the new access road). New signalized intersection of City Gate and Golden Gate Commerce Park project access roads approximately 900 feet north of the intersection of CR-951 with While Lake Boulevard and Access Road #2. Interconnect Access Road #2 to new project access road through the Golden Gate Commerce Park development. NO vemt~r 2000 Sechon 4. Pa[7e ? 5 Relocate White Lake Boulevard to the east and interconnect it to new City Gate access road. Maintain and signalize the existing median opening at intersection of CR- 951 with White Lake Boulevard and Access Road #2. 6. Relocate and bring the 1-75 westbound off-ramp under signal control. 7. Add northbound right turn deceleration lane at CR-951 and White Lake Boulevard. Interconnect all signals. Locate a park-and-ride lot within the activity center (may also be south of 1- 75), 10.Maintain access management - restrictions as shown on the Access Management Plan. South of 1-75 1. Six-lane CR-951 (further consideration should be given to an eight-lane section south of 1-75 through the SR- 84 intersection). 2. Six-lane SR-84 from relocated Radio Road intersection to CR-951. 3. Interim at-grade improvements as part of the multilane reconstruction of SR- 84 (will require right-of-way acquisition): * Extend the southbound right turn lane of CR-951 approaching SR-84 * Design the SR-84 leg of the intersection to accommodate a free- flow southbound right turn movement * Construct a dedicated eastbound right turn lane on SR-84 approach to CR-951 * Construct a second eastbound left turn lane on SR-84 approach to CR- 951 o Construct a second northbound left turn lar:.2 on CR-951 approach to SR- AGENDASITEM JAN 2 3 2001 WilsonMiller Section 4--Land Use & Transportation · Remove access connection to Burger King parcel and relocate access connection to Bedzel Circle in tt-,e Commerce Center · Analyze and modify existing gas station driveways (northwest and southwest of SR-84/CR-951 intersection) during multilaning 4. Interconnect all signals. 5. Future grade-separated improvements (to be determined by FDOT study). 6. Maintain access management restrictions as shown on the Access Management Plan. Access Management Plan Access management is a critical component to-the safe and efficient operational interface between land uses and the adjacent street system. Strategies that help preserve the integrity of the arterial and collector roadways while accommodating the safe and convenient vehicle movement into and out of abutting land uses is the goal and hallmark of a well-managed system. On August 18, 1992 the Collier County BCC adopted Resolution No. 92-442 that established a policy for access management for the county's arterial and collector roadways. Recognizing the importance of access management issues regarding the uses within activity centers, Collier County adopted Policy 4.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the GMR This required the development and adoption of Access Management Plans for each activity center shown on the county's Future Land Use Map. These Access Management Plans, ultimately adopted as part of the LDC (Appendix "E"), include the location of existing and future access connections (eg., driveways, entrance and access roads, etc.), median openings, and traffic signals. Additionally, the plans included the identification of existing conditions that may be subject to retrofit measures (eg., Achvlt~ Center #9 Interchange Mast¢, Plat, (IMP/ NovemDer 200C Section 4 Page 16 closing a median or removing a driveway connection). Because of the expansion of the boundary of Activity Center #9 and because of the level of current and projected traffic, it is appropriate for Collier County to reexamine the current Access Management Plan for Activity Center #9 and modify it as needed. Current Access Management Plan The currently adopted Access Management Plan originally was developed to be as consistent as possible with the access management guidelines and standards in the County's access management policy (Res. 92-442). The currently adopted Activity Center #9 Access Management Plan map as shown in Figure 4-8 reflects the current conditions and identifies proposed additions. The majority of the lands in this activity center will be part of planned developments that were subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny regarding access management issues. This helped establish a reasonable access management environment. Many of the projects are still undeveloped, which creates opportunities for adjusting the standards and guidelines to improve access management features without placing unnecessary burden on the landowners. Lastly, the current plan, while addressing access for adjacent lands, does not adequately address the need for future arterial and collector roadway improvements. In its current form, the plan does not include/anticipate the future need for turn lanes, additional through-lanes, grade-separated travel lanes, new interstate ramps, ramp modifications, etc. It also lacks measures to encourage and manage internal connections between projects to help minimize access connections to the arterial/collector system. WilsonMiller PiN) PUD PUD ~igure 4-8 Nov 13, 2000 - 17:2~,:57 RMF -' RI~F-12(10) RSF~4 PUD KCHACHER~X: ~Plo~Z5125~03~ocg-b.dwg A PUD Z PUD A No. JAN PUD PUD PUD ACTIVITY CENTERS C.R. ~1 - INTERSTATE 75 ACTIVITY CENTER · 9 Cc~111er County, Fieride ZONING ACREAGE DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED C-4 2.10 2.10 0.00 I 20.85 .74 20,11 PUD 510.13 22 34 487.79 RMF-6 4.57 0.oo 4.57 RMF- 12 9.53 0.00 9.53 RS,¢'- 4 2.28 0.00 2.28 A 71.62 0.00 71 62 TOTAL 621.08 25.18 595.90 NOTE~ FINAL ACREAGE CALCULA'r]ONS WILL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ADOPTION, LEGEND RSF-3 :,v_ lite{, ZL)NiNC, POD PUD F PUD PUD (1' /' PUD ACTIVITY Figure 4-9 PROPOSED ACCEl PUD ,~ A A 3ENTER #9 aANAGEMENT PLAN LEGEND mmmmmmml mmmm mmmm mmmm ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARY EXISTING ACCESS ROAD FUTURE ACCESS ROAD EXISTING ACCESS ROAD TO BE REMOVED AGEND,~ ITEM No. C"~I\ _\ j JAN 2 3 2001 mm MAIN GOLDEN GATE CANAL PUD GOLDEN GATE HEALTH PARK ACCESS RD NO.2 ONLY A RSF-4 Figure 4-10 Nov 1~, 2000 - 17:42:07 KCHA(.tH AGENDA ITEM JAN 2. ~ ?.OOl ..,,. ~0 ... O.Ow§ SAFE HARBOR DR. PUD CITYGATE COMMERCiAl T~AC7 ACTIVITY ACCESS MANA( ;I i- A PU WATER TREATMENT l~ PLANT MAIN GOt [)[ N GATE CANAL PUD CI~YGATE LEGEND iIii IIII IIII [XIS~NG ACCESS ROAD FUTURE ACCESS ROAD £XI$~NG ACCESS ROAD l0 BE REMOVED i! L Hiii i itii mm Ili Iii ii I m m it.ii-ii~-Ii i mtIIItlII r-. =, = = = = = = = ---- = = -- PUD .u ., NTER PLAN (NORTH) #9 JAN 2. J 2UU1 ! illtli!1tll Iilillllil~!]l~ J Sl PARCEL · ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D D · Section 4---Land Use & Transportation Proposed Access Management Plan As demonstrated in Figure 4-9, tt'e proposed Access Management Plar~ has been developed to be more specific than the current one. Once adopted as amendments to the LDC, the changes will serve as strict guidance to the state and county permitting agencies in the review and consideration of access management improvements. The proposed Access Management Plan maps have been developed in cooperation with state and county access management officials and in consultation with adjoining property owners. For ease of feature identification and use, the Access Management Plan maps have been divided into one or more panels for the areas north (Figure 4-10) and south (Figure 4-11) of 1-75. Access connections shown are to be regarded as specific in number and location; minor adjustments in the locations may be appropriately determined at the time of permitting. Specific features (eg., directional median openings) shall not be changed to ~,~other feature type, nor shall additional features be added (including driveway connections) without an appropriate amendment to the Access Management Plan map adopted in the LDC. No._ ¢~,~,r~ _~. 2001 pg~ ~ Actlwty Center ~Y9 Interchange Master Plar; (iMP) Wil~nMi!ler November2000 Section 4, Page ACTIVITY ACCESS MANAG Nov 13, 2000 - 17:41:47 KCHACHERIX:X~Plo~D125'\.05revisions~5125051a.cJwg I , "-'~--~ PUD ~ I ~ ~.~r ~ I, I~1COMMERCIAL i l I'~:'1CENTER L" J''ro~',.ousE · TRACT TRACT t-- ~ F I TR1A.,C 1- ~~_r, ~~] Ir '_'JL~'J~J."! %_6_L~L__~._____ ~1 F $,R.- .CENTER -'.NT PLAN (SOUTH) / TRACT [ pu I ~FOR TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL PLAZA PUD, ADDITIONAL ACCESS MAY BE GRANTED ON S.R. 84 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5.8 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT. PUD NAPLES GOLF ESTATES LEGEND ~.E ACCESS - AG~NiDA ITEM No. Pg, ~ , #9 O' 250' 500' 10OO' 1500' ! ! D D ! APPENDIX B SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES ARTERIAL ANALYSES - AGEN D~,-..i~?.F_ M No. ~;--,,~,.,~ ~ JAN~ i/~2~001 HCS-Siqnals 3.lb File:N951250.hcs Paqe An~ )'st' Date: E,/~~ St. WILSONMILLER 12/13/99 NORTH ACCESS RD Eastbound No. Lanes LGConfi g \O1 ume L~c, ~fi dth RTOR Vol L T R 2 1 2 L T R 329 3 313 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 HCS: Signals Release 3. lb Ci ty/St: Proj #: Peri od: N/S St' COLLIER CO FL 2 SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 50 % PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound L T R 2 I 2 L T R 526 16 434 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Northbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 363 2589 113 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Southbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 94 1632 288 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 ~1 IS,~:r at i on 0.25 Please Combination 1 Left A ]'hru Right Peds Left Thru ~ gilt A 2 3 A A A A A Peds t NE Right A A I SB Ri gilt A Creen 17.0 7.0 Yellow 4.0 4.0 All Rod 0.0 0.0 Cyclc' Iength: 180.0 secs Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Pecks EB Right A WB Right A 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Group __ Capc;i t y 5 A Intersection Performance Stm~nary. Adj Sat Rati os Lane Group F1 ow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS 6 7 8 A A A A A A A A 9. 0 109.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 Approach Delay LOS 474 56,I 100 442 t:t,:>und 389 35't4 1409 136 3170 1193 I nt ersect i 3502 0.99 0.100 125.8 F 1900 0.04 0.039 83.5 F 2842 0.56 0.167 70.5 E 3502 0.98 0.161 108.5 F 1900 0.09 0.100 73.8 E 2842 0.89 0.156 94.3 F 3502 0.98 0.111 90.4 F 5187 0.77 0.683 19.1 B 1615 0.04 0.872 1.5 A 3502 0.73 5187 0.54 1615 0.20 on Delay = 44.6 101.7 F 102.1 F 27.4 C 0.039 95.0 F 0.611 20.4 C 22.5 C 0.739 7.2 A (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D AGENDA ITEM No. ("~L~ ( JAN 2 3 2001 HCS-Siqnals File:N9512F.hcs Page Inter' Anal yst' Date: E/W St- ~LSON~fl LLER 12/13/99 NORTtt ACCESS RD Eastbound No. Lanes LGConfi g Vol ume Lane ~ dth RTOR Vol L T R 2 I 2 L T R 329 5 313 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 HCS: Signals Release 3. lb Ci ty/St: Proj #: Peri od: N/S St: COLLIER CO FL 2 SIGNAL CITY GATE PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 FULL BUILD SI GNALI ZED I NTERSECTI ON SUI~vlARY ~stbound L T R 2 I 2 L T R 933 28 777 12.0 12.0 12. O 60 Northbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 363 2790 195 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Southbound IL T R [ 2 3 1 I L T R 1163 1660 288 112.0 12.012.0 I 60 Durati on O. 25 Area Type: AI 1 .Signal ~} Phase Combi nation 1 2 3 EB Left A ~} Thru A Right A ~ Peds ~ WB Left A A Thru A A ~} Right A A Peds ~} ~-' Right A A Right A D ~. _en 13. O 31.0 6. O Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 180.0 secs ot her areas Operat i 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Pecks EB Right ~ Right 5 6 7 A A A A A A 8 A A A A A A 6.0 4.0 94.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 ~} Appr/ Lane DLane Group Grp Capcity :~astb°und272 I ntersecti on Performance Sunmary. Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach FIow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS 3502 1.27 0.078 231.0 F 74 395 :~t~'tb°und953 T 443 ~}R 821 Northbound :IL 292 T 2968 1409 ~}~outhbound 136 2738 1023 R Intersecti 1900 0.07 0.039 83.7 F 163.9 F 2842 0.67 0.139 78.1 E 3502 1.03 0.272 102.7 F 1900 0.07 0.233 53.8 D 2842 0.92 0.289 77.4 E 91.1 F 3502 1.31 0.083 223.8 F 5187 0.99 0.572 41.3 D 1615 0.10 0.872 1.6 A 59.8 E 3502 1.26 5187 0.64 1615 0.23 on Delay = 72.4 0.039 231.6 F 0.528 30.5 C 44.7 D 0.633 14.3 B (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = E AGENDA F[' [:. M No. JAN 2 3 2001 HCS-Signals 3.lb File:S951120.hcs HCS: Inter: Anal yst: WI LSONMI LLER Date: 12/13/99 E/W St: SOUTH ACCESS RD __ SI GNALI ZED East bound l~esc bound LT R L T R No. Lanes 2 I 2 LGConfi g L T R Vol ,ame 546 9 783 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol 60 Dura~ O. 25 Area Type: AI 1 Signal Phas~i nation I 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds WB Left A Pa~e Signals Release 3. lb Ci ty/St: Proj #: Peri od: N/S St: COLLIER CO FL I SIGNAL CITY GATE @ PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 20 % DEV INTERSECTION SUM~RY Northbound L T R 2 I 2 L T R 723 54 404 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 2 3 1 L T R 907 2037 179 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Southbound t T R 2 3 1 L T R 101 1343 481 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 A Thru A Right A Peds ~ NB ~ ght A A D SB ~ ght A Green 33.0 8.0 Yellow 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 180.0 secs A A other areas Operat i OhS 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds EB Right A WB Right A 9.0 15.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 5 A A 6 7 8 A A A A A A A A 32.0 57.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 ~Appr/ Lane D Lane Group Grp Capcity :Eastbound L 661 Intersection Performance Su~nary. Adj Sat Rati os Lane Group' Approach F1 ow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS 3502 0.87 0.189 82.9 F 106 1026 1. 895 D] 232 ~R 647 Northbound D L 1012 T 2709 DR 1301 D Southbound L 311 D~T 1671 ~R 870 1900 0.08 0.056 81.0 F 66.0 E 2842 0.74 0.361 53.1 D 3502 0.85 0.256 71.6 E 1900 0.25 0,122 72.0 E 2842 0.56 0.228 62.6 E 68.8 E 3502 0.94 0.289 65.0 E 5187 0.79 0.522 35.2 D 1615 O. 10 O. 806 3.7 A 42.8 D 3502 0.34 5187 0.85 1615 0.51 Intersection Delay = 55.0- 0.089 77.4 E 0.322 59.0 E 52.7 D 0.539 26.6 C (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D JAN 2 3 200! HC__S_-Si_.anals 3.lb File:S9511F.hcs HCS: Inter' Anal yst' Wl LSON~ LLER Date: 12/13/99 E/W St' SOUTH ACCESS RD Fast bound LT R No. Page Lanes ~ LGCon£i § Vo! ume 2 1 2 L T R 546 9 783 12.0 12. O 12. O 60 Signal s Rel ease 3. I b Ci ty/St: Proj #: Peri od: N/S St: COLLIER CO FL 1 SIGNAL CITY GATE FULL BUILD PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 SI GNALI ZED I NTERSECTI ON SUMMARY Westbound L T R Lane Width RTOR Vol ~arat~n 0.25 Area Type: Sign~ 2 I 2 L T R 2351 54 1319 12. O 12.0 12. O 60 Nor t hbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 907 2037 508 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Southbound L T R 2 3 1 t T R 287 1343 481 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Phase Combination I 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds ~ Left A A Thru A A Right A A __ Peds ' ~ght A A Right A G[een 19.0 70.0 5.0 Yel Iow 4.0 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 180.0 secs other areas Operat i OhS 4 NB Left Thru Right Pecks SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right tkg Right 5 A A 6 7 8 A A A A A A A A A A 8.0 19.0 33.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 I Appr/ Lane I Lane Group Grp Capci ty East bound L 370 IT 53 P 632 Intersecti on Performance Sun~nary_ Adj Sat Rati os Lane Group FIow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS West bound 834 IR 1437 Northbound ,t 603 T 1614 ~R 1391 I Southbound L 156 IT 951 iR 520 3502 1.55 0.106 342.8 1900 O. 17 0.028 87.0 2842 1.20 0.222 176.4 3502 1.37 O. 517 212.8 1900 0.07 0.439 29.2 2842 0.92 0.506 51.3 3502 1.58 0.172 345.0 5187 1.33 0.311 214.2 1615 0.34 0.861 2.6 3502 1.94 0.044 529.8 5187 1.49 0.183 298.2 1615 0.85 0.322 69.8 Intersection Delay = 219.3 (sec/veh) Int F F 246.9 F F F C 154.6 F D F F 221.2 F A I I I I I F F 283.8 F E ersection LOS = F JAN 2 3 2001 pg ~'-~) HCS-Siqnals 3, lb File~S951235.hcs tICS: Inter: Anal vst: WI LSONMI LLER Datei 12/13/99 E/W St: SOUTH ACCESS RD :__ East bound L T R No. Lanes 2 1 2 LGConfi g L T R Volume 217 4 473 Lane ~dth 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol 60 Dura--~-~on O. 25 Area Type: AI 1 Si §hal Pbas---~--~-~-ombi nat i on I 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds ~,B Left A Paqe 1 Signal s Rei ease 3. lb City/St' Proj #: Period: N/S St' COLLIER CO FL 2 SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 35% PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 2 I 2 L T R 600 11 245 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 SI GNALI ZED I NTERSECTI ON SUM~RY West bound I Northbound L T R I L T R I I 2 3 I L T R IS44 2396 152 112. o 12.0 12. o 60 Southbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 64 1986 193 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 A Thru A Right A Peds NB Right A A SB Right A Green 11: 0 13.0 A A 6.0 other areas Operations 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peris EBRight ~Right 5 A A A A 6.0 6 7 8 A A A A A A A A 18.0 110. 0 :Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 190.0 secs Intersecti on Performance Su~nary ~ Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Rati os Lane Group Lane Group _ ._ Flow Rate Grp Capcity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS ~ L~b°und221 3502 1.03 0.063 158.0 F 1900 0.06 0.037 88.7 F 2842 0.74 0.205 75.8 E 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 Approach Delay LOS I T 70 R 583 West bound 240 I R 509 Northbound 535 3631 1420 3502 1.18 0.153 180.1 F 1900 0.05 0.126 73.1 E 2842 0.38 0.179 69.2 E 3502 1.07 0.153 116.9 5187 0.69 0.700 16.7 1615 0.07 0.879 1.5 Southbound t L 129 3502 0.52 IT 3030 5187 0.69 iR 1088 1615 0.13 Intersection Delay = 54.1 I 104.1 F 152.8 F 34.2 C 0.037 91.7 F 0.584 27.9 C 28.7 C O. 674 11.1 B (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D I I I I I A OM No. ,,~,~ JAN 2 3 2001 F>g ~ HCS-Siqnals 3.lb File:S951250.hcs er: Anal yst: WI LSONMI LLER Date: 12/13/99 E/W St: SOUTH ACCESS RD East bound L T R No. Lanes 2 1 2 LCConfi g L T R Vol ume 217 4 470 brae Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol 60 Duration O. 25 Area Type: A11 Signal Phas~i nati on 1 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds WB Left A A Thru A A Right A A Peds ~ Right Right 6teen Yel ! ow AI 1 Red Cycle Length: Appr / Lane Paqe 1 HCS: Signals Release 3. lb Ci ty/St: Proj #: Peri od: N/S St: COLLIER CO FL 2 SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 5~ PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 2 I 2 L T R 808 15 313 12.0 12.0 IZ.O 60 SI GNALI ZED I NTERSECTI ON SUM~t~RY ~stbound ] Northbound L W R [ L T R I I z 3 1 I L T R 1544 2412 190 112.0 12.0 12.0 60 Southbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 78 2102 193 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Lane Grp other :,teas Operat i OhS 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds ' EB Right ' ~ Right 5 6 7 8 A A A A A A A A A A A A 11.0 23.0 60 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 O0 0.0 178.0 secs Intersection Performance Stum~ary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group _ Group___ FIow Rate Capci ty (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS A 18.0 88.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 Approach Delay LOS East bound L 236 623 767 363 I ~ 703 Northhound I L 571 I TR 3235 1406 3502 0.97 0.067 131.7 F 1900 0.05 0 a39 82.6 F 2842 0.69 0 '19 67.3 E 3502 1.11 0.219 136.3 F 1900 0.04 0.191 .58.8 E 2842 0.38 0.247 5.,6.0 E 3502 1.00 0.163 87.2 F 5187 0.78 0.624 24.8 C 1615 0.10 0.871 1.6 A Southbound I L 138 3502 0.59 IT 2594 5187 0.85 i R 962 1615 0.15 Intersection Delay = 54.6 89.5 F 116.4 F 34.9 C O. 039 87.5 F O. 500 40.3 D 40.5 D O. 596 16.0 B (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D I I I I I AGENDA ITEta JAN 2 3 2001 HCS-Signals 3.lb File:S951250.hcs ~nter: 3a~al 3, st- WI LSON~fi LLER Date: 12/13/99 E/IX' St' SOUTH ACCESS RD Eastbound LT R No. Pa e i Lanes I.GConfi g \'ol ume Lane Width RTOR Vol 2 I 2 L T R 217 4 470 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 HCS: Signals Release 3. lb Ci ty/St: Proj #: Peri od: N/S St: COLLIER CO FL 2 SIGNAL CITY GATE FULL BUILD PM PEAK 2024 CR 951 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUI~DoRY Westbound L T R 2 I 2 L T R 1418 26 542 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Northbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 54, 2467 313 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Southbound L T R 2 3 1 L T R 124 2491 193 12.0 12.0 12.0 60 Du: at i on O. 25 Area Type: AI 1 Signal Phase Combi nation 1 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds V,B Left A A Thru A A Right A A Peds NB Right A SB Right A A 6.0 47.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 180.0 secs other areas Operat i OhS 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right ~ Right 5 6 7 8 A A A A A A A A A A A A 6.0 10.0 79.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Intersecti on Performance St~ary. Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group FIow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS 74 489 1128 6!2 409 27 U9 1409 2305 825 Intersecti 3502 1.68 0.039 420.8 F 1900 0.05 0.039 83.6 F 2842 0.88 0.172 89.9 F 203.5 F 3502 1.32 0.322 212.9 F 1900 0.04 0.322 42.0 D 2842 0.47 0.378 42.7 D 168.0 F 3502 1.40 0.117 261.5 F 5187 0.96 0.522 42.5 D 1615 0.19 0.872 1.8 A 75.9 E 3502 0.96 0.039 130.8 F 5187 1.14 0.444 115.0 F 111.3 F 1615 0.17 0.511 23.6 C on Delay = 118.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F AGENDA ITEM No. q'-'~c,, I 2001 ,c~-~e Pi vni cki onMi!!er Inc. Phone: 727- 615- 1319 E- Mai 1 ' HCS: Arterial s Rel ease 3. lb Arterial Name: Fi 1 e Case: Prepared By: Di recti on: Dat e: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS CR 951 2024 2 SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 100% WI LSONMI HER Nort h- bound 12/14/99 Anal ysi s Peri od Length Descri pti on of Arterial 0.25 hr Free ~ Seg. Cross Street Name ~1~ 0 CR 951 Art. FIow Running Length Class Speed Time Section (mi) (~ph) (sec) SOUTH ACCESS RD NORTH ACCESS RD 0.28 2 45 28.3 1 0.20 2 45 21.8 2 D Seg lntersecti on Delay Esti mates Cycle Green v/c Lane Length Ratio Ratio Cap. C g/C X c 180.0 0.522 0.959 2709 PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. if Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay Delay LOS Input AT tot (sec) (veh) (sec) (sec) 3 1.000 3.0 0 50,8 0.0 D 180.0 0.572 0.990 2968 3 O. 187 3.0 0 43. 1 0.0 D ~ Seg. Sect. Time Arterial Level of Service Inter. Sum of Sum of Running Control. Other Time by Length by Arterial Delay Delay Secti onSection Speed (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (mi) (mph) Arterial LOS by Sect i on 1 I10 11 12 13 I 28.3 50.8 0.0 79. I 0. 28 12. 7 2 21.8 43. I O. O 64.9 O. 20 11. I F F Grand Stun of Time (x) = 144.0 sec Grand Sum of Length (y) = O. 48 miles Arterial Speed = 3600 x (y)/(x) = 12. 0 mph Arterial Level of Service. LOS = F 3: 4: 5: I7: 8: 9: 10: ~11: ~I?. is: I I I I I I Intersection Files in the Analysis E: 'xact i vi ty9\S9512F. hcs E: \acti vi ty9\N9512F. hcs I S,"--~e Pi vni cki }nMiller Inc. HCS: Arterials Rel ease 3. lb Phone: 727-615- 1319 E- Mai 1 ' Arterial Name: Fi 1 e Case: Prepared By: Direct i on: Date: OPER& ? I ONAL ANALYSIS CR 951 2024 2 SIGNAL WILSONMILLER South-bound 12/14/99 Anal ysi s Peri od Length CITY GATE @ 100% Description of Arterial 0.25 hr FF ee ~ Seg. Cross Street Name ~ 0 CR 951 Art. FIow Running Length CI ass Speed Ti me Secti on (nil) (mph) (sec) 1o 11 12 13 NORTH ACCESS RD SOUTH ACCESS RD 1.06 1 50 76.3 1 o. 20 2 45 21.8 2 See, Intersecti on Delay Esti mates Cycle Green v/c Lane Length Rat i o Rat i o Cap. C g/C X c 180.0 O. 528 O. 638 2738 PVG ArT. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. if T',,e Fac- Ext. Queue Delay Delay LOS Input A. tot (sec) (veh) (sec) (sec) 3 1.000 3.0 0 31.0 0.0 C 2 180.0 0.444 1.138 2305 3 0.727 3.0 0 122.5 0.0 F 14 15 Seg. Sect. 11 13 14 Grand Sum of Time (x) -- 251.5 sec Grand Sum o£ Length (y) = 1.26 mi I es Arterial Speed = 3600 x (y)/(x) = 18.0 mph Arterial Level of Service, LOS = E Intersection Files in the Analysis 1: E: \act i vi ty9\N9512F. hcs 2: E: \acti vi ty~3\S9512F. hcs 3: 4: 5: Runn~ ng Ti me ($ec) Arterial Level of Service I nt er. Control. Delay (sec) Sum of Sun, of Other Ti me by Length by Arterial Delay Secti on Section Speed (sec) (sec) (mi) (~ph) Ar~t eri al LOS by Sect i on 76.3 21.8 31.0 122.5 O. 0 107.3 1.06 35.6 O. 0 144.3 O. 20 5.0 B F ! ! 7: · 11: 12: · 13: ~} 14: 15: AGENDA ITEM No. CAA , JAN 2 3 2001 ~ S*-~e Pi vni cki ~nMiller Inc. Phone: E-Mail: 727-615-1319 ~ Arterial Name,: HCS: Arterials Release 3. lb OPERATIONAL M~ALYSI S Fi ! e Case: Prepared By: Di recti on: Date: 2024 I SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 100% 1MLSONMILLER North-bound 12/14/99 Anal ysi s Peri od Length Description of Arteri~ O. 25 hr Free ~ Seg. Cross Street Name ~0 CR 951 Art. FIow Running Length CI ass Speed Ti me ( ~i ) (~ph) (sec) Sect i on SOUTH ACCESS RD o. 28 2 45 28.3 I } ...... Intersecti on Delay Esti mates ~Seg Cycle Green v/c Lane PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. Length Ratio Ratio Cap. if Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay Delay LOS ~ C g/C X c Input AT tor (sec) (veh) (sec) (sec) ~1 180.0 0.311 1.328 1614 3 1.000 3.0 0 224.9 0.0 F ~7 8 JAN 2 3 ~001 I } 15 ~ Se§. Sect. Time Arterial Level of Service Running (sec) Inter. Control. Delay (sec) Sum of Sum of Other Time by Length by Arterial Delay Sect i on Sect i on Speed (sec) (sec) (mi) (mph) Arteri ~ LOS by Section 28.3 224.9 D 3 4 ~ 7 I3 O. 0 253.2 O. 28 4. O F Stms of Time (x) Sum of Length (y) al Level of Service, LOS 7 253.2 sec 0.28 miles 4. o F Intersection Fi 1 es in the Analysis. E: X, acti xd ty9\S951 IF, hcs ~c~-~e Pi vni cki )nMi 11 er Inc. Phone: 727-615-1319 E-Mail: tiCS: Arterial s Rel ease 3. lb Arterial Name: Fi I e Case: Prepared By: Direct i on: Date: OPERATIONAL b24ALYSI S 2024 I SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 100% WILSONMILLER South-bound 12/14/99 Anal ysi s Peri od Length Description of Arterial 0.25 hr Free ~ Seg. Cross Street Name ~) 0 CR 951 Art. F1 ow Running Length CI ass Speed Ti me Sect i on (mi) (mph) (sec) 1 SOUTH ACCESS RD 1.26 I 50 90.7 I 11 ~)12 14 ! ~Seg I ntersecti on Delay Esti mates Cycle Green v/c Lane Length Ratio Ratio Cap. C g/C X c 180.0 O. 183 1.487 951 PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. if Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay Delay LOS Input AT tot (sec) (veh) (sec) (sec) 3 1.000 3.0 0 307.2 0.0 F ~7 N JAN 2 3 14 15 |- .. } Seg. Sect. Time Arterial Level of Service Running (sec) I 1 90.7 Inter. Sum o£ Sum of Control. Other Time by Length by Arterial Delay Delay Secti on Section Speed (sec) (sec) (sec) (nil) (mph) 307.2 0.0 398.0 1.26 11.4 Arteri ~ LOS by Section D 2 8 }9 } lO 13 } 14 Grand Sum of Time (x) (,rand Sum of Length (y) Arteri al Speed -- 3600 x (y)/(x) Arterial Level of Service, LOS 5: 6: 7: 101 ~11: 12: I -1: 398.0 sec 1.26 mi I es 11.4 ~ph F Intersection Files in the Analysis E: \acti vi ty9\S951 IF. hcs NO. JA 2001 f-~ve Pi vni cki ;on~ller Inc. Phone: 727-615-1319 E-Mail: ItCS: Arterial s Rei ease 3. lb Arterial Name: File Case: Prepared By: Direction: Date: OPERATIONAL /~ALYSI S CR 951 2024 2 SIGNALS CITY GATE @ 50% WILSONMILLER North-bound 12/14/99 Anal ysi s Peri od Length Oescri pti on of Arterial 0.25 hr Free ~} Seg. Cross Street Name ~ 0 CR 951 Art. FIow Running Length CI ass Speed Ti me Sect i on (mi) (mph) (sec) 1 D2 6 7 10 11 12 14 SOUTH ACCESS RD NORTH ACCESS RD 0.28 2 45 28.3 1 0.20 2 45 21.8 2 ~} Seg Intersecti on Delay Esti mates. Cycle Green v/c Lane Length Ratio ~tio Cap. C g/C X c 178.0 0.624 0.785 3235 PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. i f Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay Delay LOS Input AT tot (sec) (veh) (sec) (sec) 3 1.000 3.0 0 26.2 0.0 C 180.0 0.683 0.769 3544 3 0.525 3.0 0 19.7 0.0 B No ....(,wV~_t JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ~1 14 15 } Seg. Sect. Time Arterial Level of Service Inter. Running Control. Delay (sec) (sec) Sum of Sum of Other Time by Length by Arterial Delay Sect i on Sect i on Speed (sec) (sec) (mi) (~ph) Arterial LOS by Sect i on I I 28.3 26.2 2 21.8 19. 7 O. 0 54.5 O. 2.8 18.5 O. 0 41. 5 O. 20 17.4 D D Grand Sum of Time (x) Crand Sum of Length (y) Art~rial~.qpe~4~O x-(y)/(x) Arterial Level of Service, LOS 2: 3: 7: 11: 13: 14: 15: D D D = 96.0 sec = O. 48 mi I es = 18.0 mph = D Intersection Files in the Analysis E: \acti vi ty9\S951250. hcs E: \acti vi ts~\N951250. hcs No. x~(.,, JAN 2 3 2001 '-2 ;¢ ~-"~e Pi vni cki onMiller Inc. Phone: E-Mai I ' Seg. :0 1 2 8 9 HCS: Arterials Release 3. lb 727-615-1319 Arterial Name: Fi 1 e Case: Prepared By: Di recti on: Date: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS CR 951 2024 2 SIGNALS CITY GATE @ 50% South-bound 12/14/99 Descripti on of Arterial Anal ysi s Peri od Length O. 25 hr Cross Street Name Free A~. FIow Runni ng Length C1 ass Speed Time (mi) (mph) (sec) Section ~ 10 11 D 12 13 D 14 CR 951 NORTH ACCESS RD SOUTH ACCESS RD 1.06 1 50 76.3 0.20 2 45 21.8 1 2 ! ~Seg Cycle Green Length Ratio ~ C g/C ~ I 180.0 0.611 __Intersection Delay Estimates. v/c Lane PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Ratio Cap. if Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay X ¢ Input AT tor (sec) (veh) (sec) 0.542 3170 3 1.013t3 3.0 0 20.7 Other I nt er. Delay LOS (sec) 0.0 c 178.0 0.500 4 5 0.853 2594 3 0.800*3.0 0 41.4 0.0 D JAN 2~ 2001 14 15 ~ Seg. Sect. Time Arterial Level of Service I nt ?r. Running Control. Delay (sec) (sec) Sum of Sum of Arterial Other Time by Length by Arterial LOS by Delay Secti on Sect i on Speed Sect i on (sec) (sec) (mi) (~ph) 1 I 76.3 20.7 2 21.8 41.4 D2 t 10 11 Ii2 14 o. 0 97.0 1.06 39.3 o. 0 63.2 o. 20 11.4 B F IC. rand Sum of Ti me_ (x) ~,r and Sum of Length (y) Arterial Speed = 3600 x (y)/(x) Art c. ri al Level of Service, LOS 2: 3: 5: ! I I I t t I I I I I 160. 2 sec 1.26 ~i I es 28.3 mph C Intersection Files in the Analysis E: \act i vi ty9\N951250. hcs ,r: - acti vi ty9'xS951250. hcs I .~'-~ve Pi vni cki onMiller Inc. HCS: Arterials Release Phone: 727-615- 1319 E- Mai I · OPEIL&TI ONAL ANALYSIS Arterial Name: Fi I e Case: Prepared By: Di recti on: Date: 2024 2 SIGNALS WILSONMILLER South-bound 12/14/99 CITY GATE @ 35 Description of Arterial Anal ysi s Peri od Length O. 25 hr 3. lb ~ Seg. Cross Street Name Length (n~) CI ass Free Flow Running Speed Time (mph) (sec) Sect i on ~ 0 ~ 7 ~ lO 13 ~ 15 CR 951 SOU~ ACCESS O. 20 2 45 31.8 ~ Seg I ntersecti on Delay Esti mates Cycle Green v/c Lane Length Rat i o Rat i o Cap. C g/C X c PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. i f Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay Input AT tot (sec) (veh) (sec) Other Inter. Delay LOS (sec) 190.0 0.584 0.690 3030 4 O. 100'3.0 0 16.9 O. 0 B . AG:-E.Z4~_,A iTEM JAN 2 3 2a~0! 15 Seg. Sect. Arterial Level of Service Inter. Sum of Sum of Running Control. Other Ti~e by Length by Arterial Ti ~e Delay Delay Secti on Secti on Speed (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (mi) (mph) Arterial LOS by Section ~ !0 11 1 21.8 16.9 O. 0 38.7 O. 20 18.6 D Grand Sum of Time (x) = 38.7 sec Grand Sum of Length (y) = 0.20 miles Arterial Speed = 3600 x (y)/(x) = 18. 6 -- ~ph Arterial Level of Service, LOS = D Intersection Files in the Analysis E: \act i vi t5~3\S951235. hcs 7' 14: · t5: No. ~L~A { ~"" ,e Pi vni cki ,onMi 11 er Inc, Phone: 727- 615- 1319 E-Mail' krteri al Name: Fi I e Case: Prepare(i By: Direct i Date: 1tCS: Arterials Release 3. lb Anal ysi s OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 2024 I SIGNAL CITY GATE AT 20% WILSONMILLER North-botmd 12/14/99 Description of Arterial Period Length 0.25 hr Free ~ Seg. Cross D 0 CR 951 Street Name Length (~) Art. F1 ow Running CI ass Speed Ti me Sect i on (~ph) (sec) a ~ ~o 11 13 14 SOU~I ACCESS RD 0.28 2 45 28.3 I ! ~ Seg Cycle Green v/c Lane Length Ratio ~tio Cap. ~l~ C g/C X c D 1 180.0 0.522 0.791 2709 Intersecti on Delay Esti mates PVG Art. I Unit Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. if Type Fac- Ext. Queue Delay I)elay LOS Input AT for (sec) (veh) (sec) (sec) 4 O. 100'3.0 0 25.8 O. 0 C 2 JAN 2 3 2~01 14 15 ~ Seg. Sect. Time Arterial Level o£ Service Inter. Sum of Sum o£ A.rteri ai Running Control. Other Time by Length by Arterial LOS by Delay Delay Section Secti on Speed Section (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (mi) (mph) 1 I 28.3 25.8 0.0 54.1 0.28 18.6 D 2 ~ lO 11 ~ 12 13 D Grand Sum of Time (x) Grand Sum of Length (y) Arterial Speed = 3600 x (y)/(x) Arterial Level of Service, LOS 54.1 sec 0.28 miles 18.6 mph Intersection Files in the AnYysis 1' E: \acti~tyg\S951120. hcs 2: J 3: 4' 5: -6: 7] 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: No. C-~% _½ ./AN 2 3 ~001 Pg.. ....... ~ ~'~ e Pi vni cki taMillet Inc. Phone: E-Mail · HCS: Arterials Release 3. lb 727-615-1319 Arterial Name: Fi I e Case: Prepared By: Di recti on: Date: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 2024 I SIGNAL CITY GATE @ 20% WILSONIdlLLER South-bound 12/14/99 Descripti on of Arterial ~} Anal ysi s Peri od Length O. 25 hi' Free ~ Seg. Cross Street Name Length Cl ass Flow Running Speed Time (mph) (sec) Section 10 CR 961 SOUTH ACCESS RB 13 1.26 I 50 90.7 I} Seg __ Intersecti on Delay F~stimates Cycle Green v/c Lane PVG Art. I Unit Length Ratio Ratio Cap. if Type Fac- Ext. C g/C X c Input AT tor (sec) Init. Cntrl. Other Inter. Queue Delay Delay LOS (veh) (sec) (sec) 180.0 0.322 0.846 1671 3 1.000 3.0 0 61.5 0.0 E 2 4 5 6 7 Dlg JAN 2 3 14 Seg. Sect. Tie me i- 3 8 I_n 11 13 1-t Arterial Level of Service Inter. Sum of Sum of Running Control. Other Ti me by Length by Arterial Delay Delay Section Section Speed (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (~i) (mph) Arterial LOS by Sect i on 61.5 0.0 152.2 1.26 29.8 GFarld Sum of Time (x) = 152.2 sec Grand Sum of Length (y) = 1.26 miles A~'terial Speed = 3600 x (y)/(x) = 29.8 ~ph .-\~ t e~ i al Level of Service, LOS C Intersection Files in the Analysis E: ",.act i vi t~3\S951120. hcs · ! ! ! D DD D D D · I, introduction : 2 Vision Statement 3 Design Development : 4 Land Use & Transportation : 5 ,, Implementation Strategies : , ~~pp;en!ixA FSUTMS Model Plots : ' ~"'"-:'-i~ ~,.~;'perit~i;'B'~_..$ig"~iized Intersection Analyses I t I I · I I I t I t I I · ! ! ! ! ! D Section 5 Implementation Strategies IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Implementation of the IMP requires a well planned strategy. The BCC must take certain steps to initiate the improvement process--to bring these design concepts off the paper and into Activity Center #9. The following strategies provide the structure under which the IMP's design concepts can be implemented. Zoning Overlay As required by the BCC's adopted IMP study parameters, establishing a zoning overlay district will be one of the implementation strategies. The purpose of the overlay district, which will encompass all properties within the boundaries of Activity Center #9, will be to encourage and direct development within the activity center. The overlay district will ensure that the design of landscape, architecture, and signage will be regulated and approved in accordance with the provision of the specific LDC section. * Division 2.4 Landscaping and Buffering o Division 2.5 Signage · Division 2,6 Supplemental District Regulations · Division 2.8 Architectural and Site Design Standards and Guidelines for Commercial Buildings and Projects Capital Improvement Plan The entry/exit gateway features, landscaping, directional signage, and lighting elements will occur within the public rights-of-way. The implementation mechanism for these projects will be the county's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Each element will have to be prioritized in the CIP with an identified funding source. In addition to local funding sources, such as general revenues and roadway revenues, Collier County should explore other applicable opportunities such as the Florida Highway Beautification Grant Program and Transportation Enhancement Activities. Land Development Code Amendments When establishin~ the study parameters, the BCC decided that the IMP shall apply to all undevelop,~d property within Activity Center #9. The activity center contains approved PUDs that are required to be developed in accordance with cited sections of the LDC (i.e., landscaping and buffering, signage). Therefore, these sections will need to be amended to provide a directional link to the Activity Center #9 zoning overlay district. LDC sections that will need to be amended include the following: No. (./~L.~ - ~, JAN 2 3 ACtivity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan <IMP) WilsonMiller November2000 Section 5 Page I Introduction Vision Statement Oesign Development Land Use & Transportation Implementation Strategies "~,Appendix B _.,.signalized I~terse~tion Analyses .. ~- '~' ~ JAN 2 3 2001 I I I I I I t I t t I I I I I I I · I I I APPENDIX A FSUTMS MODEL PLOTS No. r-~,-,, No. \.-~ ~, JAN 2 3 2001 ! ! D D D D oz i ., ,J t --X z iil I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I JAN (D · ! ! D D D · i , Introduction 2 Vision Statement 3 Design Development 4 , Land Use & Transportation Implementation Strategies Appendix A FSUTMS Model Plots Appendix B--Signalized Intersection Analyses "Arterial Analy~es EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE FUNDING OF FOUR NEW POSITIONS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THE NEW POSITIONS. OBJECTIVE: Obtain Board approval of four new positions within the Transportation Division and approve budget amendments to transfer funds for the new positions. CONSIDERATION: The Transportation Services Division was formed at the end of .1999 as part of the reorganization of the old Public Works and Engineering Division. This action was taken, in large part, because of the emergency need to advance the County's delivery of transportation improvements to meet existing and projected congestion. The Transportation Services Division Administrator has already shifted and reclassified authorized positions within the Division to the extent possible to meet needs before bringing forward this request for additional positions. Specifically, the hiring of the Administrator's Administrative Assistant, the Community Liaison, a Project Manager and the current recruitment of a Professional Landscape Architect have been accomplished by the internal restructuring of approved/budgeted positions within the Division. The ability to meet the County's transportation needs now requires the approval of additional staff positions. The reorganization transferred the responsibility for Transportation Planning to the new Transportation Services Division, but only provided the staffing funded by federal grant funds for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). While an important section in the Transportation Planning Department providing for long-range needs assessments and plans, the MPO staff do not address the numerous other issues required for effective transportation planning by the County. A position for Development Review is being transferred from the Community Development Services Division to the Transportation Services Division in Transportation Planning. Three additional positions, funded from various sources, as identified, are needed to address Corridor/Sub-Area Planning, and secretarial support as follows: PLANNER/ENGINEER IN CORRIDOR/SUB AREA PLANNING - This position will bridge the gap between long-range planning (MPO) and project implementation by the Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department by performing or managing the studies necessary to fully evaluate options, build consensus and refine scope of services for construction projects. As the County goes beyond widening of its arterials in existing corridors to address extensions on new alignments and the development and protection of future rights-of-way for collector roads, the need for more site specific planning and expanded community involvement requires staffing to respond to the workload. This position would be fund~ ~of the AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 2 3 2001 / Transportation Administration Fund 101. The estimated salary with benefits, furniture and a computer is $70,200. SENIOR SECRETARY - The Transportation Planning Director nor the Department has any clerical support. The MPO staff formally sought to borrow secretarial support from another Division. Two (2) secretarial positions are needed given the current workload, support of Director and addition of these requested positions. Consistent with every other organizational arrangement, the Senior Secretary would be assigned directly to support the Transportation Planning Director. This position would be funded out of Transportation Administration Fund 101. The estimated salary with benefits, furniture and a computer is $58,200. SECRETARY I - This position would provide needed secretarial support to the staff of the Transportation Planning Department as well as secretarial support for the agendas, and meeting minutes of the MPO, the Technical Advisory and Citizens Advisory Committees of the MPO and the Pathways/Bicycle Advisory Committee. The estimated salary with benefits, furniture and a computer is $53,443. The attached organization chart shows how the three new positions and the Planner/Engineer for development reviews in the Transportation Planning Department will be organized compared to the existing structure which only addressed the MPO staffing. The fourth new position is needed for the Engineering and Construction Management Department in Transportation Services to provide the staffing required for in-house and oversitght of consultant Construction Engineering and Inspections (CEI) as follows: ENGINEERING INSPECTOR - This position will work under the direction of our inhouse CEI supervisor and will be utilized to provide oversite of our ongoing consultant CEI program as well as inspection of inhouse construction projects. This position would be funded out of the Transportation Engineering Fund 313. The estimated salary with benefits, furniture and a computer is $58,700. FISCAL IMPACT: Total funding requested is $240,543. Funding in the amount of $128~400 will come from the Road & Bridge Fund (101), $58,700 will come from the Gas Tax Fund (313) and $53,443 will come from the MPO Grant Fund (126). Budget amendments will need to be processed to move adequate funding into each of these funds from the respective reserve accounts to properly fund these positions. The funding for the Secretary I will come from grant funds and not reserves. JAN 2 3 2001 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The addition of the requested staff will enhance the County's capability of applying the policies of the Growth Management Plan and maintaining/updating the plan as currently required. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the hiring of four additional staff members for the Transportation Division and approve the necessary budget amendments to fund these new positions. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: NF/sc/es4.6newpos Sharon Newman, Accounting Supervisor Daw¢ Wolfe, T[a~sponation Pla~ing/Director ~an E, Feder, Tr~spo~ation Administrator AGENDA ITEM No. C4)--, i JAN ~-~i 2001 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Vacant MPO Coordinator Fund 126-138332 Vacant Principal Planner Fund 126-138333 Beth Yang Planner II Bicycle/Pedes 126-138332 Vacant Planner II GIS Coordinator 126-138332 David Hope Public Transportation Manager 126-138332 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION Planning Director 101-163609 v~ AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWARD A CONTRACT FOR RFP #00-3176, PRODUCTION COMPATIBLE SAND TO E.R. JAHNA INDUSTRIES, INC. OF BEACH OBJECTIVE: To award a contract for RFP #00-3176 to obtain the services necessary for the production of 50,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand, with 35,000 cubic yards proposed for the Park Shore beach and 15,000 cubic yards proposed for Hideaway Beach. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 14, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners rejected Bid No. 00-3156 and authorized re-advertisement of bids for the production of beach compatible sand [Agenda Item 16 (D) (1)]. As a result, a public notice for RFP #00-3176 was posted and distributed on November 16, 2000. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was conducted on November 27, 2000. Attendance at this conference established four (4) vendors as being eligible to submit proposals. Only one (1) proposal was received by the deadline of 3:00 p.m. on December 8, 2000, that being from E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc. A selection committee was appointed by the County Manager to review the proposals and recommend a selection in this regard. The selection committee met on December 14, 2000, and unanimously recommended that award of a contract to E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc. be forwarded to the Board for consideration. The Request for Proposals required the proposer to submit a bulk sample of the material which would be produced for this project along with a plot of its grain size distribution for comparison with the reference range contained in the technical specifications. The grain size distribution for the material submitted with the proposal does not fall within the specified reference range for sieve sizes 20, 40 and 60. The material proposed contains a slightly higher percentage of medium grain sand particles than a composite sample of the sand existing on the native beach. With the exception of the reference range, this material meets all of the other specifications. This minor variation is not considered to be detrimental, but rather would serve to provide more stability to the beach profile and enhance performance. A sample of this material was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for review and approval for use on this project pursuant to requirements contained in the attached correspondence dated October 17, 2000. Approval of this m~aterial has been granted by FDEP as evidenced by the notice to proceed dated January 5, 2001 attached hereto. Pursuant to item #9 contained in the sequence of events, E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc. provided a sample of material having a grain size curve (finer grain) which f~ills within the specified reference range. A truck load of this sample along with a truck load of the material submitted (medium grain) with the proposal were placed on the Park Shore beach access at Horizon' Way for inspection by the Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee and other interested parties. After inspection by the Committee, a motion to recommend approval of the material submitted with the proposal resulted in a s>lit vote JAN of 3 to 3. A second motion to recommend approval of using the material with the grain size curve falling within the specified reference range on Park Shore Beach and using the material submitted with proposal on Hideaway Beach also resulted in a split vote of 3 to 3. In this regard, it should be noted that the cost to provide the material with the specified grain size distribution is approximately $2.20/cubic yard more than that submitted with the proposal. In addition, the rate of production of said material is only 100 cubic yards/day which would only enable approximately 6,500 cubic yards to be produced and placed on the beach prior to the start of the Sea Turtle Nesting Season on May 1, 2001. Therefore, based upon the considerations noted above, the staff recommends that a contract be awarded to E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc. for the production of beach compatible sand in the following manner: 1. Production of material with a grain size distribution falling within the reference range contained in the specifications; Quantity = As much as can be produced by April 14, 2001 or + 6,500 cubic yards, whichever is greater. 2. Production of material with a grain size distribution matching that which was submitted with RFP #00-3176; Quantity = The balance of 50,000 cubic yards remaining after deducting the quantity specified in item #1 above. 3. Total Production Quantity = 50,000 cubic yards. FISCAL IMPACT: The total amount of the proposal submitted with RFP #00-3176 was $287,140.00. Funding for such was included in the TDC Grant Application for the Production, Transport and Placement of Beach Compatible Sand in the amount of $966,500.00 as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 9, 2001 [Agenda Item 8 (D) (4)]. In order to accommodate the additional cost associated with item # 1 in the staff recommendation, approval of a budget amendment will be necessary whereby funds in the amount of $18,150.00 will be transferred from the reserves of Fund 195 to the appropriate expenditure category in Project Number 10292. Therefore, the total amount of this award will be $287,140.00 + $18,150.00 or $305,290.00 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Manage- ment Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Award a contract for RFP #00-3176 to E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc. in the amount of $305,290.00. 2. Approve the necessary budget amendment. 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the contract. Prepared by: Harry Huber, Project Manager III Department of Parks and Recreation Reviewed by: ~/~.~/, ',C~, -' Ste4[ C~ne~ Director Purchasing ~a~ment Reviewed by:~ff~/~/~ F~ M~la Rmsey, Direcm Depa~ment of Parks?hnd Recreation Approved by: .~4, Z ¢ Leo Ochs Jr., A~m~istrator Public Se~ice~ Division Date: /' Date: Date:/-/?~0// Date ///7/~" } Jeb Bush Governor --" RECaV D Department of Environmental Protectior Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 PARKS & RECREATION David B. Scruhs Secretary October 17, 2000 Harold E. Huber, Project Manager Office of Capital Projects Management Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 Dear Mr. Huber: Re.: Parkshore Beach Restoration Project Wetland Resource Permit No. 112544739 and Coastal Construction Permit No. DBS9A0308 This letter is in response to your submittal of October 2, 2000, regarding the proposed sand specifications and guidelines for upland sand sources to be used at Parkshore Beach. I would also like to acknowledge our teleconference (held on October 13) at which time we discussed these specifications and the procedures by which the Department will review and approve any proposed fill material. Any sand that is placed on the beach must meet the criteria in Chapter 161, F.S., and Rule 62B-41.007, F.A.C., as well as the criteria in Section 373.414, F.S., and Rules 62-4 and 62-302, F.A.C. Based on our review of the sand specifications submitted on October 2, 2000, it appears that these specifications are consistent with these rules. We commend you for the time and effort that went into developing these guidelines and specifications, and we are optimistic that they will enable you to select high quality, beach compatible sand for this project. The Department will provide final approval of the sand after we review the geotechnical and geological information for the material, and confirm that it meets the rule criteria. When you receive bids for the upland sand sources for each fill placement event and submit the information to the Department, we will expeditiously review the information and issue a Notice to Proceed for acceptable material. This should allow you to withhold your acceptance of a bid until after you receive our approval of the material. Also, within the next 3 weeks, we will modify the permit conditions to reflect this revised approval process. ",Wore Protection, Less Process" Pnnted on recycled paper. JAN 2 .~ ?t~ol i Parkshore Beach Restoration Project October 17, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ' Martin K. Seeling, Administrator Environmental Permitting Section cc.' John Staiger Michael Poff Lynda Charles Michael Corrigan Robbin Trindell Age n__~la..I tern "°. JAN 3 PRODUCTION OF BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 1. Advertised for Bids (Bid No. 00-3156) 9/25/00 Bid Opening for Bid No. 00-3156 (a) One bid received: E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc. in the amount of $316,600.00 10/25/00 Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee Meeting (a) Motion approved 6-0 to recommend rejection of Bid No. 00-3156. 11/02/00 BCC Meeting (a) Approved Agenda Item 16 (D) (1); Reject Bid No. 00-3156 and authorize readvertisement 11/14/00 5. Posted and Distributed RFP #00-3176 11/16/00 Receipt of Proposals for RFP #00-3176 (a) One proposal received: E.1L Jahna Industries, Inc. in the amount of $287,140.00 12/08/00 Selection Committee Meeting (a) Recommended award of contract for proposal submitted by E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc. 12/14/00 Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee Meeting (a) Reviewed proposal for RFP #00-3176; motion approved to defer recommendation until meeting scheduled for January 4, 2001. (b) Requested that representatives from E.R. Jahna Industries attend meeting on 1/4/01. 12/19/00 Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee Meeting (a) Requested that E. R. Jahna Industries provide (1) a sample of the materi:~l submitted with RFP #00-3176 and (2) a sample of material with a grain size curve which falls within the specified reference range. Such would be placed on the beach at Horizon Way for inspection by the Committee as a basis for providing a recommendation for award of a contract. 1/04/01 10. Inspection of Sand Samples (a) Results presented in Executive Summary ADDENDUM #1 PRODUCTION OF BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND _.!D =~'U=D'" c COST PROPOSAL FOR PIT LOCATED AT ORT.,ONk S~'~]) 1~.., Ot~TO:t~, ~LOZLT_gA !tern 1 Description Uni___Jt Production of Beach Compa[ible Sand CY Estimated Unit Quantity Pric___~e T..otal 50,000 $ 5.39 $ 269;500,'00 2 Sand Testing Wc:kly .1.2___ $.280.00 $ 17,640.01 Tes~ 6.~3 TOTAL PRICE $ 287~140.00 'SEE ATTA~ NOTES REGARDING COST PROPOSAL FOR SUPPLYING SAND AND TESTING. COST PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATE PIT LOCATED AT. (NOT PROPOSED) Item Description 1 Production of Beach Compatible Sand ,Unit .CY Estimated Unit ,Quantity Price. T. otal 5O.OOO $ $ Sand Testino TOTAL PRICE Tests 63 $ $ ALTERNATE PIT _$_.. NOT PROPOSED RFP #00-3176 "Production of Beach Compatible Sand" E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc. - Ortona Sand Mine NOTES ON COST PROPOSAL Item #1 The unit price per cubic yard is based on a price of $3.99 per ton and a conversion factor of 1.35. Collier County will be invoiced based on tonnage (FDOT-certified scales) and the specified conversion factar. The sand supplied by E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc. meets all specifications for beach compatible sand RFP No. 00-3176 except for some variation in the gradation in the medium grain size range. A graph of grain size distribution relative to the reference ranges of beach sand is included in the Geologic Report Attachment B. Item #2 The unit price for sand testing includes sieve analysis with reports on specified grain-size distribution sheets (34.00 ea.), organic content (28.00 ea.), total CaCO~ content (50.00 ca.), and labor and travel time for sampling and delivery of sand samples to subcontractor' s certified laboratory (4 hours each sample ~ 42.00 per hour). Sampling will be performed by qualified laboratory technician under the direct supervision of licensed professional (P.G. or P.E.). One representative sample will be collected from the stockpile and tested for each 800 cubic yards of material produced as specified in Addendum No. 1 dated November 28, 2000. Payment Terms Payment: Net 30 days from the date of invoice. JAN 2 } 2001 P~J..~ 0 Department of Environmental Protection Jeb Bush Governor Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Scruhs Secretary JanuaD' 5, 2001 Mr. Harold E. Huber, Project Manager Office of Capital Projects Management Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 NOTICE TO PROCEED Wetland Resource Permit 11-2544739: issued October 30, 1995; expires April 6. 2006 Coastal Construction Permit DBS9A0308' issued October 9, 1995; expires April 6, 2006 Permittee: Collier County Project: Park Shore Beach Upland Sand Placement Dear Mr. Huber: The permittee has complied with the permit conditions required to issue the notice to proceed. All construction or other actMties are strictly limited to those described in the final order and approved plans. Please read the permit and permit conditions including both the General and Specific Conditions closely before starting construction. Please pay special attention to the General/Specific Conditions pertaining to written reports which must be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection under the signature and seal of a professional engineer at specified times. No progress reports are required until such time as construction activities have started. Your assistance in ensuring compliance with all conditions incorporated into the permit is appreciated. If I max' be of any further assistance, please contact me at the letterhead address (add Mail Station 300) or by telephone at (850) 487-4471, ext. 122. Sincerely, Michael C. Corrigan Environmental Specialist III Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems Jan Staiger, City of Naples Michael Poff, P.E., Coastal Engineering Consultants Ken Humiston, P.E, Humiston & Moore Engineers Lucy Blair, DEP, South Florida District Office Robbin Trindell, FWC, BPSM Michael No~scki, USACE, Jacksonville (File No. 199404092(IP-MN)) Jezmifer Cowart, DEP, OBCS Lethie Lanhmn. DEP, OBCS OBCS Permit Information Center "More Protection, Less Process" Pnn£ed on recycled paper. Florida Department of Environmental Protection NOTICE TO PROCEED 1 Project: Vanderbilt/Park Shore;Naples Beach Restoration Project Wetland Resource Permit 11-2544739: issued October 30, 1995; expires April 6, 2006 Coastal Construction Permit DBS9A0308: issued October 9, 1995; expires April 6, 2006 Permittee: Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 You are hereby granted final authorization to proceed with construction related activities on Park Shore Beach as authorized by the permit number referenced above. Authorized work must conform with the detailed project description, approved plans, and all conditions including preconstruction requirements included in the final order. A brief description of the authorized work follows. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The permittee is authorized to place up to 50,000 cubic yards of upland sand (from the Ortona Sand Mine, which is owned by E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc.) on Park Shore Beach within the previously approved beach restoration project areas in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Department. PROJECT LOCATION: Upland sand material will be placed within the permitted limits of the Park Shore Beach Fill. The limits extend from 300 feet north ofT-50 to 400 feet south ofT-54. Questions regarding the permit or this notice should be directed to the undersigned at: Date of Notice Michael C. Corrigan Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Telephone (850) 487-4471, ext. 122 MCC c¢: Jon Staiger, City of Naples Michael Poff, P.E., Coastal Engineering Consultants Ken Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers Lucy Blair, DEP, South Florida District Office Robbin Trindell, FWC, l~PSlvl Michael Nowicki, USACE, Jacksonville (File No. 199404092(IP-MN)) Jennifer Cowart. DEP, OBCS Lethie Lanham? DEP, OBCS OBCS Permit Information Center DNR FOrth 73.131 (Re,.,. 07193) Post Conspicuously on the Site J JAN232001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST FOR DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING A COMPLAINT FILED WITHTHE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ALLEGING THAT THE MADEIRA PUD ORDINANCE NO. 2000-80 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board direction concerning a complaint filed with the Board of County Commissioners alleging that the Madeira PUD Ordinance 2000-80 is inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: On or about November 28, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners passed Ordinance No. 2000-80, the Madeira PUD Ordinance. On or about December 27, 2000, Elizabeth Nelson filed a complaint with the Board alleging that the Madeira PUD Ordinance is inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. ^ copy of that complaint is attached to this Executive Summary. This complaint was allegedly filed in accordance with Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat., which allows an aggrieved or adversely affected party to maintain an action on certain kinds of development orders which materially alter the use or density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property and which are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Under the applicable statutory scheme, the County may respond in thirty (30) days. If the Board reaffirms its original decision, the complainant has thirty (30) days to file a lawsuit. The Office of the County ~,ttorney seeks direction as to whether the Board reaffirms its original passage of the Madeira PUD Ordinance. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Unknown. FISCAL IMPACT: If a lawsuit is filed, the fiscal impact to the County will be the indirect cost of staff and Office of the County Attorney time in defending any lawsuit. There also may be some "hard dollar" costs for depositions and the retention of expert witnesses. At this point, it is not possible to estimate those costs with great specificity. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners direct the Office of the County Attorney as to whether the Board reaffirms its original passage of the Madeira PUD Ordinance. Prepared by.'~ __'~_~,__ _,~_~.~_ ' ~.~F~.. ~ Marjori~-M. Studentl ~ A,s/~ist_ant County .Attorney, William I~l~unfford, ' ' / Assistant County Attorney Reviewed and .~. _ .~ /]~ Approved by:... z/',a~,,4.~.,4~ . David C. Weigel, ~ ~ County Attorney Dated: / - / / -O / Dated: I-/f-~/ Dated: BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ELIZABETH NELSON', COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, VERIFIED COMPLAINT Pursuant to statutory requirements and prior to filing suit against a local government seeking enforcement of Comprehensive Plan policies under 163.3215(4) Florida Statutes, Plaintiff ELIZABETH NELSON, files this Verified Complaint with and against Defendant, COLLIER COUNTY, seeking injunctive and othex relief against the Board of County Commissioners of COLLIER COUNTY quashing and reversing approval of the rezoning for the Madeira Planned Unit Development (PUD) on November 28, 2000; which is a "development order" that is not consistent with the COLLIER COUNTY Comprehensive Plan. PARTIES 1. PlaintiS ELIZABETH NELSON, (hereinafter referred to as "NELSON"), resides on property owned by NELSON in COLLIER COUNTY, Flea'ida, at 615 Lakeland Avenue. NELSON's residence and property is located directly south of a parcel of land allegedly owned by Meridian Land Co, on which the Defendant, COLLIER COUNTY, approved a request to rezone, (from Rural-Agricultural and RSF-3 to PUD), on November 28, 2000 (the "Madeira PUD"). 2. Defendant COLLIER COUNTY, through its Board of County Commissioners, is responsible for implementing the requirements of Florida's Growth Management Act of 1985 (Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part IL Florida Statutes), including the statutory requirements of adopting a local comprehensive plan and ence such a plan is adopted, ensuring that all development orders approved by the County are consistent with each and every element of its adopted comprehensive plan ("consistency") and that the infrastructure needed to serve the development is provided concurrent with the impacts of the development ("eoncarreney") under Florida Statutes 163. Also, development orders must also be consistent with COLLIER COUNTY Code, Florida Statutes and the Constitution of the United States and State of Florida Constitution. NATURE OF ACTION 3. Madeira PUD, as approved by COLLIER COUNTY, is located on envirtmmentally sensitive system of both uplands and wetlands known as "Palm River Slough". The rezoning, as approved, violates comprehensive plan policies concerning fioodpla'm management of the natural watershed within Palm River Slough, comprehensive plan policies requiring conservation of wildlife habitat for game, non-game and listed species (including Fkmida Black Bear, Big Cypress Fox Squirrels, Wood Stork, Swallow Taft Kite), preservatim of wetlands and other unique environmental features (such a.5 cypress forest, wetland forests, pine fiatwoods, etc.) by cjustering development on the parcel to preserve these areas, incorporation of upland native vegetation into the projoct landscaping and design. 4. NELSON challenges the validity of the County's approval of the rezoning request for Madeira Planned Development on November 28, 2000 which increases the density and intensity of development en the Rural Agricultural portion of the parcel by 127 dwelling units above current zoning, Approval of the request to rezone the property to PUD is a "development order" as defined in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. All development orders must be consistent with local comprehensive plan policies, objectives, and goals under Florida Statutes, Chapter 163. 5. The basis for ~ challeag~ by NELSON is that the County's approval of this development order is inconsistent ~',th the COLLIER COUNTY Comprehensive Plan. Prior to NELSON's filing a clain r~n ~' A4[~' circuit court under F.S. 163.3215(4), NELSON must file this verified letter with the local governmeND JAN 2 3 2001 Pg.,, ~ seeking: (a) another public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners or (b) reconsideraXion of the County's decision to approve the Madeira PUD. 6. If the County does not rescind its decision, NELSON will file a Verified Complaint in Circuit Court seeking a de novo trial on merits of whether the rezoning violates certain policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. NELSON will seek all appropriate judicial remedies including an order of the circuit court quashing, revoking, invalidating and vacating the County approval of Madeira PUD and attorney's fees, if necessary and available under Florida Statutes or the Rules of Civil Procedure. FACTS 7. NELSON is the owner of a residence on a parcel of land located in COLLIER COUNTY, Florida, which is located directly south of the Madeira PUD rezoning. 8. On November 28, 2000, the County rezoned Madeira PUD to allow an increase in density changing 45 acres of Rural-Agricultural land (zoned at I unit per 5 acres) to 3 units per 1 acre (from 9 units to an additional 127 units) as part of the approved a site plan for Madeira PUD. 9. The previous zoning line delineating the density differences in the area in question was a line dividing the pareel into two separate categories: the southern portion of the Madeira parcel was zoned at 3 units per acre (300 units on approximately I00 acres of property zoned RSF-3) and the northern portion of the Madeira parcel was zoned at 1 unit per 5 acres (9 units on approximately 45 acres zoned Rural- Agricultural). 10. The rezoning of Madeira PUD increases the zoning density on the parcel by approximately 127 to 135 traits. Only 309 units were permitted under existing, pre-MMeira zoning scheme (only 9 units in the Rural Agricultural zoned portion of the parcel and 300 in the RSF-3 district). The rezoning of Madeira PUD approves a total of 438 single-family and multiple-family dwelling units. 11. Only 288 lots are depicted on the site plan that was approved by the County (150 fewer lots than the 438 units). 12. Rather than cjustering the additional units in the area that was previously zoned RSF-3, the additional density was spread over the entire Madeira pareel, including that portion zoned Rural- Agriculture, which was previously zoned for 1 unit per 5 acres. 13. The County Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) was unable to forward a recommendation for this PUD due to wetland and environmental impacts. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT 14. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Local Comprehensive Planning Act), requires each local government in Florida to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan containing mandatory elements that address important issues such as future land use, traffic circulation, conservation, and the adequacy of facilities and 15. After a local government has adopted its comprehensive plan, Section 163.3194(1)(a) of the Local Comprehensive Planning Act, requires that all actions taken by the local government in regard to development orders be consistoat with each and every goal, objective and policy of each and every element contained in the adopted local comprehensive plan. Machado v. Musgrove 519 SO.2d 629 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987) aff'd en banc at 1988 Fla. App. Lexis 705; 13 Fla. Law W. 522 (1998) review denied Machado v. Musgrove,529 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1988). 16. Section 163.3194(3) defines "consistency"as follows: (a) A development or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspect of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and fimthe~ the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensifies in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. (b) A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, or other aspects of the development are compatible with or further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensifies in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local gov STANDING 17. NELSON objected in writing and at the public hearing concerning the Madeira PUD as proposed. COUNTY'S APPROVAL OF THE MADEIRA PUD REZONING APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 18. The Madeira PUD rezoning is inconsistent with the COLLIER COUNTY Comprehensive Plan, without limitation for the reasons set forth herein. Traffic Element. 19. The traffic study of major arterials and impacts on roadway level of service did not take into account the total traffic generated by the site, and only took into account the traffic generated by the additional increase in density of 127 dwelling units. But a total of 438 dwelling units were approved in this "development order" as Madeira PUD. 20. The statutory intent of the Growth Management Act was to ensure that the infxastructure needed to serve the development is provided concurrent with the impacts of the development ("concurrency"). Each and every development order must meet concun'ency requirements regardless of the potential density under existing zoning. 21. If concurrency is deficient, even a development order that is consistent with current z~ning densities must be denied unless provisions are made to increase the level of service in the 5 year Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan or provided by the developer as a condition of approval. 22. The true traffic impact of a development order is that which can be expected as a result of any additional development that does not yet exist at the time the development order is approved. In this case, 438 units that do not currently exist. 23. Even if existing density were to be maintained at 309 units the PUD would still be subject to concurrency requirements that it not reduce the level of service on roadways below what the County and state have agreed as an acceptable level. 24. To limit review of a "development order" approving an as yet un-built 438 unit Planned Unit Development to only those impacts generated by additional 127 units of density above and beyond current density is inconsistent with Traffic Element, Objective 5, Policy 5.1 and 5.2 and Policies 1.3 and 1.4. 25. If the traffic generated by the entire development is taken into account, roadway level of service capacities may be insufficient to meet concurrency requirements contained in the Comprehensive Plan, Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Future Land Use Element 26. Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.5 states the County should "encourage the use of existing land zoned for urban intensity uses before permitting development of other areas," such as the Rural- Agricultural land zoned for 1 unit per 5 acres. Other areas exist where additional units can be built outside the area zoned Rural-Agricultural and Palm River Slough. 27. Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.6 states that the County shall "permit the use of cjuster housing Planned Unit Development techniques, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas." No effort was made to design or cjuster this PUD at existing densities to preserve additional open space and environmentally sensitive areas such as Palm River Slough. Nor was any effort made to overlay or depict all 438 units on a site plan prior to requesting and receiving approval to construct an additional density of 127 add'ttional units. The applicant did not demonstrate that it can fit all 438 units on the site and conserve environmentally sensitive areas (including, for example, more than 40% of Palm River Slough), through cjustering or innovative approaches such as u'unsferable development rights. 28. The approved site plan contains 288 lots, and does not depict 309 units (current zoning) or 438 units (approved under the rezoning). It is doubtful whether the site can accommodate 438 units without destroying additional environmentally sensitive areas, and that many lots or units has never been accurately depicted on the approved site plan. 29. The proposed PUD is not appropriately s'rzed for the site suitability (too many units to preserve environmentally sensitive features located on the parcel) and does not adequately cjuster the development to conserve open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas. In fact, over 60 percent of the wetlands in this portion of Palm River Slough will be destroyed. 30. fithe PUD were approved at existing current densities (309 units), additional cjustering of fewer units could result in preservation of more of environmentally sensitive areas. But with fi approved additional density (438 units), more of habitat and envimrunentally sensitive areas will JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. .~ needlessly lost. Conservation Element 3 I. The Madeira PUD rezoning is inconsistent with Conservation Element, including without limitation: 32. Approval of this Planned Unit Development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element, Goal 6, Objective 6.2, Policies 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.5, 6.2.11, 6.2.12 protecting wetlands, such as those within Palm River Slough, and requiring no net loss of wetland's functiom Further, Policy 6.2.13 requires that "Proposed development on parcels containing naturally functioning freshwater wetlands shall cjuster development to maintain the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb the least amount of native wetland vegetation practicable and to preserve the predevelopment hydroperiod." Under the Madeira PUD, over 60 % of the on-site wetlands would be destroyed. 33. Concerns about wetland loss led the Collier County EAC's inability to forward a recommendation for this project. This development does not preserve natural wetlands and hydroperiods and this task is made more difficult by approval of an additional 127 units, further loading the parcel with additional development units that cannot be placed anywhere else except in the wetlands. Approval of this additional density, above and beyond the 309 units allowed under current zoning, exacerbates and makes it more difficult to cjuster development outside of the wetlands and the Palm River Slough. 34. Wetland sloughs are unique environmental features in this watershed's basin. Because of our geological past, Florida is nearly flat. Sloughs act as rivers transporting freshwater to the coastal estuaries, cleaning the water as it slowly moves southwest. Difficult to discern, sloughs are Collier County's rivers of grass, barely perceptible in their slow-motion movement, but important in their function. The watersheds and basins they serve are dependent upon natural sloughs to filter impurities and maintain surface water quality. In fact, wetland sloughs are commonly referred to as the "kidneys" of South Florida's ecosystem. These policies require developers to cjustered their units outside and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as wetland sloughs onto adjacent (and preferably disturbed) uplands. 35. When incorporating and adopting these policies in the comprehensive plan, the County biologists recognized the importance and contemplated protection of environmentally sensitive areas, including these importam rivers of grass. The purpose of the consistency requirement in Chapter 163 is to require that the County mandate consistency with these policies in their every day decision-making with regard to individual applications for development approval, albeit it can be a much a harder task to "walk the talk", but one the legislature required of local governments in order to further the common good. Without identification of such policies in a comprehensive plan, previous development patterns threatened to damage Florida's precious resources and unique sense of place, and the legislature hoped that as developments were held to the new policies contained in the local comprehensive plans, the "proof would be in the pudding." Approval of~is PUD warrants reversal and remand for a PUD that is consistent with comprehensive plan, which can be more easily accomplished through cjustering within the densities contained in the existing zoning (within 309 units instead of 438). 36. Development in wetland sloughs, such as Palm River Slough, continues to cut off the natural flow of freshwater in Collier County and continue to threaten the surface water quality of already degraded, non- compliant water bodies. Development displacing the Palm River Slough within Madeira PUD will only add to the cumulative and seenndary impacts of a net loss of this and other wetland functions in Collier County. Development wilttin Madeira PUD should only be approved for the number of units that can reasonably be cjustered outside the boundaries of the Palm River Slough and other environmentally-sensitive portions of the site (e.g., nests of endangered ~' threatened species, such as Big Cypress FoX Squirrel). 37. Conservatim Element, Objective 2.1, Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.3, which require a Watershed Management Plan, a study of cumulative impacts and changes to estuaries, preservation of existing hydroplxiods and connections with upstream and downstream waterbodies. The approval of Madeira PUD does not preserve e~,Jsting w~tlands ~ hydroperiods in Palm River Slough and will have cumulative and secondary impacts to estuaries located downstream from Palm River Slough. 38. The County's approval is not consistent with Conservation Element, Goal 6, Objective 6.1, Policies 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.7, 6.1.8, 6.1.9 protecting native habitats including the mandated adoption of standards and critaSa by 1998 to preserve {m-site a suitable amount ofeach type of native land cover (e.g., a requirement that a certain % of cypress forest, pine flatwood, scrub oak, et¢...be prescJ ':-,~ v-= site). These requirements have neither been adopted, no~ applied to this development as required b~ theAC, aF, ND~ ITJ~M ]AN 2 3 2001 39. Conservation Element, Objective 6.4, Policies 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.7 reqoires that "all types of new development shall be required to preserve an appropriate portion of the native vegetation on the site...this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved...". In this case, wetlands constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved and this policy should not be Interpreted to allow development in the wetland, to the contrary the cypress and wetlands of the Palm River Slough should be preserved and development should be cjustered outside these environmentally sensitive areas. 40. Conservation Element, Objective 6.5, Policies 6.5.1, 6.5.2 requires incorporation of native vegetation into landscaping designs, but preservation of native landscape has not been fully incorporated into the design or made a condition of approval of the development order for the Madeira PUD. Such landscape designs successfully incorporating the native landscape can be found in many developments, such as Amelia Island Plantation and other state and nationally re-known developments. These landscape designs preserve the existing native landscape around building footprints, much like the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright or Frederic Law O!mstea& Many of the developments that incorporate, rather than replace, nature have higher original and re-sale values, conserve water resources and would preserve, rather than replace, eastern Collier's unique sense of place and are required by admirable, far-sighted Comprehensive Plan policies, but have not been adequately translated into the County's development order. Consistency mandates of the Growth Management Act and local Comprehensive Plans mandate that the County and other local governments "walk its talk" with regard to each and every plan policy in order to adequately consider the multitude of issues involved in development approval, translate forethought into actions to manage growth and development more effectively throughout Florida. The legislature recognized that the prior status quo, and current methods of approval, were ~aught with political expediency, and consistency requirements were absolutely necessary to translate words and policies into actions that could be seen on the ground and not just on paper. 41. Conservation Element, Objective 6.7, Policies 6.7.1,6.7.2, 6.7.3 requires County to protect, conserve and appropriately use ecological communities shared with others. Efforts made to coordinate the development of these resources with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service were insufficient to obtain timely comments and concerns. 42. FWC comments which were submitted to Ire Water Management District and applicant, were never submitted in time to allow review by County staff biologists and incorporation of additional conditions to alleviate the concerns of these agencies concerning these shared wildlife resources prior to approval of the Madeira PUD. 43. Such recommendations which were neither reviewed prior to the hearing, nor implemented, including. additional nest investigations and surveys for endangered Big Cypress Fox Squirrels, a 50 foot wide upland buffer adjacent to any wetlands located on-site, and box culverts and fencing for Florida Black Bear which FWS alleged inhabit the area in the general vicinity of this development. 44. Conservation Element, Objective 7.3, Policies 7.3.3, 7.3.6, 7.3.7 protecting federal and state endangered, threatened or species of special concern ("listed") species which may exist on site, including Swallow Tail Kite, Wood Stork, Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, and Florida Black Bear. As stated above, the County did not incorporate conditions and the applicant did not provide the comments of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to the County biologist for review and Incorporation of conditions, and design features designed to aid in the protection of wildlife occurring on-site, such as the provision of 50 foot buffers, box culverts and wildlife fencing for Florida Black Beat. THE REZONING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (REGULATIONS) 45. The site plan depicts only 288 lots of the 438 requested and approved. The site plan submitted by developer was inaccurate and misleading. It is questionable whether the applicant developer can actually fit 438 units within the development as shown on the site plan without even further encroachment upon the wetlands of Palm River Slough and other environmentally sensitive portions of the parcel. 46. Affidavits of ownership and disclosure submitted by the alleged property owner is incorrect and was incorrect at the time the application was signed and submittal and approved by the County even though such Aftdavit was sworn and notarized. 47. The affidavit and application required by Collier County Rezoning Application and All failed to accurately disclose the ownership of many pieces or portions of the assembled parcel, ir owners listed with the property appraiser and tax collectors office as property owners of land JAN 2 3 2001 pg. the area of the Madeira PUD application. The issue of an incorrect and false sworn disclosure was raised on the record by undersigned counsel at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Yet the Commission voted without requiring full disclosure of ownership interests including failure to disclose any contracts for purchase pending at the time the application was filed or approved. 48. At the Planning Commission hearing the attorney for the applicant, MERIDIAN LAND CO. alleged that a Judge Baker was somehow involved in ownership of a portion of this parcel, however, no ownership interest by this elected, public official was disclosed in the Application or required by the County prior to staff recommendations, public hearing(s) or approval by the Board of County Commissioners. To the contrary, the applicant MERIDIAN LAND CO signed a sworn affidavit that it was the sole owner of the property and did not disclose any contracts for purchase as required on the Application, Question 2(d). 49. Disclosures made by the Commissioners at the public hearing concerning "out-of-hearing" conversations and discussions with the applicant and applicant's representatives, including a former commissioner who represents the applicant, were legally insufficient to remove the presumption of prejudice that attaches to such ex parte communications made in quasi-judicial matters or former elected officials. RELIEF REQUESTED PlaintiS ELIZABETH NELSON, requests that the County accept this petition pursuant to Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat. (1995), hold a public hearing on the matter, and determine that the Madeira PUD rezoning is inconsistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and thus ultra vires, and that it vacate said plat, and order that development of the site be consistent with the Plan. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of December, 2000. Elizabe~ Nelson VERIFICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and that the facts stated in it are Elizabe~ Nelson Notary Public Personally known or produced Identification ~ ~.~ of Identification Produced--~=,~ ...~'--~-~(/: ..; '%-~-~,o~x- , Type AGEND JAN 2 3 2001 CERTWICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by hand delivery to the COLLIER COUNTY Commission, 3301 Tamiami Trail E., Naples FL 341 t2 this 27~ day of December 2000. Copy furnished by USPS to: MERIDIAN Land Co. c/o Quarles & Brady 4501 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples FL 34103-3060 JAN 2 3 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 80 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAPS NUMBERED 8524N AND 8513N; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL, "RSF-3" AND "ST" TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE MADIERA PUD .LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (C.R. 880), APPROXIMATELY 3/4 MILES NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 145.93+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Brad Hedrich, P.E., of Hedrich Engineering, Inc., representing Meridian Land Company, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. ~. ~ -~ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commission~s of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONE: ~-.. . ~ The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sect]..o.~,~ 13=and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agricultural, "RSF-3" and "ST" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Madiera PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Maps numbered 8524N and 8513N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. : .~,' - · .: : '; D~fq'IG~IT E. BROCK, CLERK · . M:tast..:as, to:t;ha t ~ s s Igna~h~a.~onl$. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ~ day of ~ ~ ,2000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: r~H a~mes D. AIRIVIAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marj~ie M. StucTent Assistant County Attorney This ordinance filed with the $ecr.etary of St~e's Office the and acknowledgement of that fHing~ceJved Ih~s/~ day o~ ~ ~ ' g/admiWPUD-00-09/SM/im AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ JAN 2 3 , MADEIlIA .PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE MADEIRA PUD, A PLANNED UNIT DVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: MERIDIAN LAND CO. 10001 TAMIAMI TRIAL NORTH NAPLES, FL 34108 PREPARED BY: TIM HANCOCK, MCP PLANNING SOLUTIONS, INC. 5100 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH SUITE 158 NAPLES, FL 34103 And BRAD HEDRICH, P.E. HEDRICII ENGINEERING 1091 I BONITA BEACH ROAD SUITE 102 I BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS & REPEAL "EXHIBIT A" PUD-2000-09 2000 -No~-~.200~ November 28, 2000 AOENDA ITEM JAN .2 3 2001 pg._ ti TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE SECTION 1 SECTION II SECTION SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN COMMON AREAS PRESERVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS page :3 page 4 pages 5 thru 9 pages I 0 thru 12 pages 13 thru 1 $ pages 16 thru 17 page 18 pages 19 thru 22 AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Pg._ LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A: EXHIBIT B: EXHIBITC: EXHIBIT D: EXHIBIT E: PUD MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY SURVEY CONCEPTUAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TYPICAL LAKE CROSS SECTION AND TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING DESIGNS A C-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. ~N D A ~ 'JAN 2 3 2001 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE The Madeira Planned Unil Development (PUD) consists of +/- 145,37 acres of land located % miles North of hnmokalee P, oad, immcdialcly Wesl o[und adj,qcenl re) l.ivingslon Road in Collier Co.my. Florida. The developmeal of this Project will be in compliance with Ihe planning goals and objectives of Collier Cuunly as SOl Ibrlh i,t Ihc Collnly's (Jrowlh Managemen! Plan. This compliance includes: I. The land is located wholly in the Urban Residential Sub-district o£1h¢ Urban Mixed Use District as identified on lhe Fmure Land Use Map as required in Objective I, Policy 5.1, and Policy 5..3 of the Future Land Use Element. The subject properry's location in relation 1o existing or proposed community facilities and services permits tl~e development's residenlial density as required in Objective 2 of fi~e Future I.nnd tJse Elcmcnl. 3. The Project developmeal is compatible wilh and complementary to existing and fnlUre surrouuding land uses a5 required in Policy 5,4 oflhc F.lur¢ Land Use Etcmeul. 4. The Project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required iu Policies 3. I.H and l. oflhe Futtn'c Laqd Use Element. The project is planned [o incorporate natural systems for waler management in accordance wilh their natural [unctions and capabilities as may be required in £orthcoming regulations required by Objcclive 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-¢lcmem of the Public Facilities Element, The Urban Residential District allows for a base residential density of 4 units per gross acre. The projected density of 3 units per gross acre is in compliance with tile Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, This Project is seeking no density bonuses. 7. The Project furlher meets the intent of the Urban Residential Sub-district through restricting allowable uses to single family detached, zero lot line and two-family attached dwelling units. 8. All final local development orders for this Project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. JAN 2 3 2001 1.1 1.2 SECTION PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set [onh the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions o£1he property proposed to be developed under Ihe Projecl name of linc Madeira PCJD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being +/- 145.37 acres. is described as: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24, TOWNSlllP 48 SOUTIt, RANGE 25 EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOI.LOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 13, S88°48'25"W 275.05' TO THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 4117, PAGE 364, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 13, S88°48'23"W 1050.28'TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST V4 OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13, N00°05'58"W 1344.31 ', IO IltE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF 'FILE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13: THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF SECTION 13, S88°52'26"W 1326.34', TO TIlE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13, S00°09'32"E 1345.82', TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24, S88°43' 17W 662.04', TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST V4 OF THE NORTHWEST ~/~ OF THE NORTHEAST V4 OF THE NORTHWEST *A OF SECTION 24, S00°i I'01"E 331.48', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST V~ OF THE NORTitWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF TIlE NORTI IWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, SW88°45' I I"E 296.98', TO THE EAST LINE OF TIlE WEST 365' OF THE NORTH '/a OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF TIlE NORTIIEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTitWEST % OF SECTION 24; AGENDA ITEM NO. 'JAN 2 3 2001 '1 THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 365' OF THE NORTH OF I'HE NORTHWEST I/4 OF THE NORTI-IEAS1' '/4 OF THE NORTI IWEST OF SECTION 24, N00°i0'55"W 331.32', TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24, S88°39'45"W 365.20', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTltEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG '[HE WEST LINE OF THE NORTItEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ~A OF SECTION 24, AND TItE WEST LINE OF ]'lie SOUTttEAST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST ~/, OF SECTION 24, S00°l I' 13"E 1654.95', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH ~/2 OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEASI' % OF THE NORTHWEST 2A OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG TItE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V2 OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST 2A OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, N88°53'00"E 537.58'; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V, OF THE NORTHWEST ~A OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SECTION 24, NO I °07' 00"W 80.00'; THENCE N88°53'57"E 250.06'; TItENCE S01°04'30"E 80.00', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 2/2 OF THE NORTHEAST IA OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG SA1D SOUTH LINE OF THE NORIH I/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 2A OF THE SOUTHEAST V4 OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°55'30"E 536.36' TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH '/2 OF TItE NORTHEAST '/4 OF THE SOUTItEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 24; . THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH '/2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHEAST IA OF THE NORTHWEST I/4 OF SECTION 24, N00°!7'l 2"W 332.15', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 2/4 OF THE NORTHEAST V4 OF THE NORTHWEST I/4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST IA OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 24,'S88°50'52"W 662.05', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH V, OF TIlE SOUTHEAST % OF THE NORTHEAST I/4 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH V2 OF Tile SOUTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST IA OF THE NORTHWEST 2/4 OF SECTION 24, NO0°i !'01"W 331.48', TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH IA OF THE SOUTHEAST V4 OF THE NORTItEAST IA OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE SOUTItEAST V4 OF Tile NORTHEAST % OF TIlE NORTItWEST 'A OF SECTION 24, N88°48'59"E 662.05', TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTH V, OF THE SOUTitEAST % OF TIlE NORTIIEAST 2/4 OF THE NORTIIWESl' OF SECTION 24; AOENDA r[F.M NO. JAN 2 3 200 pg. THENCE ALONG TIlE EAST LINE OF TIlE SOUTH V, OF TIlE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST IA OF SECTION 24. S00°I I'08"E 166.$2', TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 165' OF THE SOUTH '/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST V4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 165' OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°$3'26"E 622.22', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTIIEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST '/, OF THE SOUTHEAST ~ OF TI4E NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ~ OF SECTION 24, N00°I0'07"W 20.00', TO A POINT ON SAID LINE; THENCE LEAVING THE WEST LINE OF 'file SOUTHWES]' 'A OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF TIlE NORTHWES'F % OF THE NORTIIEAST V, OF SECTION 24, S88°53'26"W 20.00'; THENCE N00°09'09"W 167.07'; TIIENCE N88°54'I2"E 60.00'; THENCE S00°10'07"E 20.00', TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST V4 OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF SECTION 24, N$8°54' 12"E 291.17', TO THE EAST LINE OF TIlE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTIIWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, S00°07'36"E 331.88', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ~A OF THE NORTHEAST IA OF SECTION 24, AND Tile SOUTH LINE OF TIlE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ~ OF SECTION 24, N88°53'48"E 1380.53', TO THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER& LIGHT EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 460, PAGE 728; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER LIGHT EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 460, PAGE 728, N00°07'04"W 665.43', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHEAST ~A OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH V~ OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST V4 OF SECTION 24, S88°50'56"W 38?.33', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SODTH OF THE NORTIiEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTi lEAST OF SECTION 24; JAN 2 3 2001 THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTIt Ya OF THE NORTHEAST ~A OF 1'HE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, N00°08'05"W 332.57', TO THF. NORTH LINE OF 'FILE SOUTH Ya OF THE NORTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH '/2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF 'FILE NORTItEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF SECTION 24, N88°49'lI"E 387.43', TO TIlE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FI.ORIDA POWER & LIGIIT EASEMENI', RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 487, PAGE 364; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGI1T EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 487, PAGE 364, N00°07'04"W 332.72', TO TIlE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTtt '/= OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTIIWEST 'A OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF SECTION 24, TOWNSItlI' 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. CONTAINING 145.37 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 i.4 1.5 PROPERTY OWNERSiIIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of or under contract for purchase Meridian Land Co. 10001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34108 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The Project site includes portions of ~cctions13 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Generally, tl~¢ Project is located immediately adjacent to and West of Livingston Road, approximately % miles North of hnmokalce Road. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD documenl was A - Agricuhurc and RSF-3. !~U¥$ICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the South Florida Water Management District Cocohatchee River Basin. The site, along with several offsitc drainage basins. currently drains to a main ohsitc wetland slough which then drains to the west to an offsire wetland slough which then oulfalls to Palm River via twin 36" pipes. Palm River thcn outfalls to Ihc Cocohatchce River. The Cocohatchee River Basin lypically has a discharge rate of 0.04 els/acre (cubic feet per second per acre), but in tills particular area, a detailed drainage study is being conducted by a consultant for Collier County that will most likely suggest a discharge A,G D ,ITEM NO. JAN 2 3 2001 rate of 0.03 els/acre due lo lite oveetaxed downstream drainage SySlcm. The maslcr slorm water managc,ncnt system will consist of a combination of onsitc detention lakes, drainage conveyance systems, and control structures ~ith bl~ed down pipes and overflow weirs ro detain Slorm water and achieve Ihc reduced discharge rare. The master slorm wa~cr management system will oulfall ~o Ihc ohsitc wedand slough that in lurn outfalls offsitc wedands to Ihc west and then ~o ~he Pahn River Canal. A majority of the elevations within the project range from 10 feet to 13 feet NGVD with smaller cxtrcluc cases u£clcvaliuns ranging fi'um 6 fcct Io 18 fec! NGVD. Based on an initial gColcchnical Sltldy Of Ihc area, u Ihick bedrock layer sluris at approximately 10 Io 12 Feet below existing ground. The cnlire site is in Flood Zone X according to the FIRM Map Ihal means Iha[ flooding only occurs during the 500-year flood. The closest 100- year flood zoue is Iotaled to the wesl ol'lh~ silo, which is flood zone AE I I (Elev, I 1.0 feet NGVD) A description of soil types found in lhc area. I I - Iiullutldalc fioc sand (From NRCS dalai Tile soils of Ihc Hallandalc Series are siliceous, hypothcnnic Lithie Psammaquents. Tl~cy arc shallow, poorly drained, modcraleiy to rapidly permeable soils that formed in Illin beds ol'saudy marine sediment over limestone. These nearly level soils are in flalwoods and in slougt~s and poorly defined drainage-ways. Slopes range from 0 [o 2 percent. (The NRCS do,'s not classify Ibis series as hydric.) 18- Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in sloughs and broad, poorly defined drainageways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. 25- Boca, Riviera, limeslone substralum, and Copeland fine sands, depresslonal These level, very poorly drained soils are in depressions, cypress swamps and marshes. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in sl~apc. Slope is 0 to I percent. 1.6 1.7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Madeira PUD is a residential community thal provides low-density development in an area permilled for up to 4 units per acre base density. The projoel will be a gated access community with recreational facilities provided for the use and enjoyment of residents. The mosl nolable feature of the development is lhe presence and preservation of a wetland slough that moves through the project. Crossings are minimized by the proposed plan ofdev¢lopmem while preserving Ihe nalural sheet flow of the slough. The importance of the slough is of significance in both cnvironmcnlal and surface drainage areas. The community will consisl of up to 436 single finally, zero lot line and two- family attached dwelling unils upon co~nplction. SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cilcd as the "Madeira Planned' Unit Development Ordinance." NO. JAN 2 3 2001 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 2.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is Io delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable Cotrely ordinances, and file respective land uses . of tile eraels included iss tile proj~:cL as well as odser project relauonships. G~N£R~L Regulations for tile developmeal of tile Madeira PUD sitall be in accordance wifi~ Ille comems oflhis document, Planned Un]l Development District and other applicable sections and parts of tile Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of building permit application. Where lhese regulations fail to provide developmental slandards Ihen Ihe provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be Ihe same as the definitions set forfit in Ihe Collier County Land Development Code in efl~cl at Ihc lime of buildin~ perrail aF, plicafion. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for lhc developmeal oflhe Madeira PUD shall become part of the regulalions, which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, lhe provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code where applicable, remain in full force and effect wilb respect to Ihe developmeal of the land, which comprises this PUD. Development permitted by lhe approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency reviaw under Ihe provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building pcrmit issuance applicable Io this development. 2.3 IpESCRIIPTION OIF pROJECT [PLAN AND PROPOSE,D LAND USES The Project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is iljustrated graphically by Exhibit "A," PUD Master Development Plnn. There shall be 9 residential land use tracts plus necessary waler managemeal lakes, street rights-o£-way, the general configuration of which is also illuslratcd by Exhibit JAN 23 2001 2.4 2.5 TRACT rS} TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT UN TS ACREAGE RI thru R9 Single family, zero lot line and two-family atlached 436 80.29 ac CR Common area and Recreation na 5.90 ac P Preservation na 31.68 ac Lakes na na 19.92 ac Roads Rights-of-way na 5.76 ac TOTAl. 436 145.37 ac Areas iljustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A' shall be constructed as lakes or. upon approval, pans thereof ~nay be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and inten~fittent wet and dry axeas shall be in the same general configuration and conLain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A." Minor modification to all tracts. lakes or other interior boundaries may be permitted at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan approval, subject to the provisious of applicable sections of the Collier County Land DevelopmenL Code or as olherwise permitted by this PUD document. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A," such easements, as necessary (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USE A maximum of 436 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the total project area. The gross project area is +/- 145.37 acres. Tile gross project densit),, Iherefore, will be a maximum of 3 units per acre. RELATED PRO.IECT PLAN APPROVAL REOUIREMENTS Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, and/or Condominium Plat for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of' Ihe appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, Ihe Collier County Subdivision Code and the platting laws of the State of' Florida. Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat if'applicable, shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with Division 3.2 oflhe Collier County Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. The provisions of Division 3.3 oflhe Collier County Land Development Code, when upplicabl¢, shall apply to Ihc devclupmem el'all plallcd Ir;.lClS, tJr pm'c¢l~ AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 2.6 2.7 2.8 of land as provided in said Division in el'feet prior to the issua,kcc ol'a building periltit or other developmerit order. The development of any tract or parcel approved for residential development contemplating fee simple ownership of land for each dwelling unit shall be required to submit and receive approval ufo Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with Ihe requirements of Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land D,'velopmcnt Code in el'Feet prior to the submittal of cunstruction plans and a I~nal plat for uny portion of the Iract or parcel. Appropriate inslruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding a~y dedications aid method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. MODEL HOMES AND SALES FACILITIES Model homcstmodd home centers including sales centers shall be permitted in conjtmctioit with like promotion of the development subject to the following: One "wet" and 3 "dry" models may be constructed prior to recording ufo plat for each residential project or phase. Localion is limiled to feature, platted lots. Tike Project owner must apply [br temporary use pertnits For all models. The models permitted as "dry" models must obtain a conditional certificate of occupancy for model parposes only. The "wet" model may nol bc occupied until a pcrmancut cerliiica~e of occupatkcy is issued. The "wet" model may bc served by a temporary utility system wilh ultimate conneclion to Ihe central system. Interior fire protcclion facilities in accordance with NFPA requirements are required unless a permanent water system is available. A water management plan must be provided which accommodates tile runoff from the model home, parking, access road/driveway and other impervious surfaces. The syslem shall be designed and constructed so that it is integrated with the master system for the entire development. All other regulations pertaining to model homes shall be consistent with applicable Sections ofthe LDC. AMENDMENTS T° PUO D~CU...MENT OR PUP MASTER PLAN, Amendments may be made to the PUP as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.7.3..5. 6SSOC!ATION QF pROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA ~AINTENANCE Whenever the developer elects to create land area and/or recreation amenities whose ownership and mai~uenanee responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of properly wilhin said development in which tile common inleres! is located, that developer entity shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishmere ufo Property Owners' Association whose function shall include provisions for the perpelual care and maintenance of all common facililies and open space subject further to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. AGENDA rTF. M , · ' '"'2 3 2001 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 SECTION LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN The purpose of this Seclion is Io identify specific development standards for areas designated on Exhibit "A" as Tracts RI, R2, R3, R4, RS, R6, R?, Rg and R9, Low Density Residenlial. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of low-density residential t~nhs allowed wiihin the PUD shall be as follows: Tracls R I Illrough R9 = 436 unils. USES PERMITTED No building or struclure. or pan Ihereof. shall be erected. altered or used. or land used. in whole or part, for other titan the following: A. Principal Uses: Single Family Dwelling Unit 2. Zero Lot Line Detached Uni~ 3. Two-Family Attached Unit The cjustering or grouping of housing structure types identified in Section 3.3 of this document may be permitted on parcels of land under nnified ownership, or as may be otherwise provided in the Collier County Land Developmenl Code, subjecl further to the provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Developmoor Code and '1 ubic I o f this document. B, Accessory Uses: Customary Accessory uses and structures, including private garages. May include common recreation amenities such as tennis courls, swimming pools, clubhouse facilities, F, mcss centers, playgrounds, basketball courts, boardwalks, and similar passive and active recreational facilities. DEVELOPMENT $TAN_ PARDS A. General: All yards and setbacks shall be in relalion to the individual parcel boundaries. except as othenvise provided. B. Front Yard Setbacks (measurement): Front yard selbacks shall be measured as follows: JAN 2 3 2001 I. If the parcel is served directly and is immedialely adjacent to a public right- of- way, the setback will be measured front the right of way line. 2. Iflhe parcel is served by a non-platted, private drive, the setback will be measured from the back of curb or edge of pavemenl. 3. If the parcel is served by a platted, private drive, tile setback is measured ~1'O111 the roud eus,'meql or properly linc. 4. Principal buildings shall be sel back a distance sufficient to provide for lwo back-lo-back parki,g spaces without encroaching into required selbacks, one of which may be an enclosed space, the other of which shall be of sufficient lenglh not to cause an at,tomobile to encroach into a sidewalk. Single Family D.U. Min. Lot Area: 6,000 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width: Inlerior Lois: 50 feet Corner Lots: 55 feel Minimum Yards: From Yard: 20 feet Side Yard: 6 feet Rear Yard: 20 feet Accessory Structure: Swimming Pool: Tennis Courts: TABLE I Screen Porch: . IO ft. rear Zero Lot Line D.U. 2-Family Attached D.U. 6,000 sq. Ft. 5,000 sq. ft. per d.u. 50 feet 40 feet min. per d.u. 55 feet 85 feel 20 feet 20 feet 0and 12 feet 7,5 feel 20 feet 20 feet · I0 ft. rear I0 fL rear I0 ft. rear 15 ft. rear 15 fi. rear 15fi. rear 10 ft. rear 10 ft. rear Min. Floor Area: One Story: 1,000 ft. 1,000 feet 1,800 ft. Two Story: 1,200 ft. 1,200 li:et. 2,000 ft. Max. Height: Principal Structures: 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Accessory Struclures: 2S feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum offalreel parking: Minimum Landscaping: as required in Section 2.3 of the Land Development Code. Where residential uses internal to the PUD directly abut buill or zoned residential uses external to Ihc PUD, the following landscaping plan shall apply: A minimum buffer strip of !0' in width shall be planted with code minimum canopy Irees on 20' centers with a double row hedge Ihat is 2 to 3 feet in height at lhc time of planting. Such buffer shall be designed to achieve 60% opacity within one year ofplanling and 80% opacity within 2 years of planting. Additional landscaping shall bc in accordance with Exhibit 'E' as attached. AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 pg. The balance of the landscaping and buffering in the development shall be consistent with Division 2,4 of the LDC where applicable. The location of structures proposed adjacent to Preserve areas styall be subject to Ihe provisions of Section :3.2,8,4.7.3. of the Land Developmenl Code. Principal struclures shall have a minimum 25- foot setback from wetland preserves. Accessory slruclures shall have a minimum 10-foot setback from ~vcllnnd preserves. AGENDA .JAN 2 3 2001 pg._ .~% 4.1 4.2 4.3 SECTION IV COMMON AREAS PLAN PURPOSE The purpose of lilts Section is IO set forth the development plans and development sluudurds for the area(s) designated as Tracts CR, Common Arcs/Recreation on tile PIJD K4aster Developmeal Plan, ExhJbil "A." The primary funelton and purpose of these tracls will be to provide aeslhelically pleasing open areas nnd recreational opporlunilics for residents except in areas to be used for water impoundtaunt and principal or accessory use areas, all natural Irees and olher vegetalion as praclicable shall be protected and preserved. USES PERMITTED No building or slructurc, or part Illerco£, shall be erected, allured or used, or land used in whole or in pa~l, lbr otllcr than Ihe following: A. Principal Uses: I. Lakes Open Spaces / Preserve Areas Pedestrian and bicycle paths or boardwalks constructed Ibr purposes of access Io or passage lhrough the common areas and preserves. Small docks, piers or other such facilities constructed for purposes of lake recreation for residuals of the project. Shuffleboard courts, lennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation. Clubhouse with macline rooms, card rooms and general-purpose areas for residents ofthe Project. B. Accessory uses: I. Small docks, enclosures or other $trnctures constructed for tile purposes of maintenance, storage, rccn:alion or shelter with appropriate screenlug and landscaping. DEV.ELOPM I~NT REGULATIONS A. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure for struclures, location of access sireels and parking areas and location and treatment of buffer araas. Buildings shall be set back a minimum of fifty feet abutting an external residential district and a landscaped and maintained buffi:r shall be provided. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner, which will protect roadways and neighborlog properlies form direct glare or other interfere,~ce. AGENDA ITEM at,' - JAN 2 3 2001 Maximum H¢igh[: I, Principal $1ruclure: 35 2. Accessory Slruclur¢: '25 feel Minimum OffS[reel Parking: As required by Division 2.3 of the Land Development Code in effecl at lhe time of building permit application. JAN 2 3 2001 - SECTION V PRESERVE AREAS 5.1 5.2 PURPOSE Preserve Area (P) - Tile purpose is Io preserve and prolace native vegetation, naturally functioning habitat and flow-ways in lh,'ir natural stale. USES PERMITTED No building or slructure of part thereof, shall be ereclad. nilered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for oilier than Ihe following,, subject Io relzional, stale and federal permits when reqt,ired: A. Principal Uses: I. Open Spaces / Nature Preserves 2. Boardwalks subject to appropriate approvals by permitling agencies. Roadway crossings as noted on Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan. AGF..NDA ~ · JAN 2 3 2001 6,1 6...t 6.4 SECTION VI DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS ~URPOSE Tile purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commit~nents for the developmenl of Ihe project. GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plats and all applicable State and local laws, codes and regulations applicable Io Ihe PUD. Except where specifically holed or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Division 3.2 oflhe Land Development Code shall apply to this Prqject even if the land within Ihe PUD is not to be ilialied The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitmeres outlined in Ihis doct~mem. Tile developer, his successor or assignee, shall lbllow Ihe Master Plan and the regulalions of the I'UD as adopted, and any otllcr conditions or modilications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title of the developer is subject to the commitments witIlia this agreement. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan iljustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tracl, lot and land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase sl,ch as final platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and ,naimenance of all service utilities in all common areas in the project. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AN,D SUNSET PROVISION fit. The project is proposed to start construction of infrastructure in 2001. Model homes construction will commence in 2001f"2002 with build-out estimated at seven to ten years. The PUD shall be subject to Ihe Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. Recreational facilities to Include at a minimum, one clubhouse facility, two lennis courts and a swimming pool will be completed prior to 50% completion of the project. An annual monitoring report shall be submilled pursnanl to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. AGENDA ITEM · JAN 2 3 2001 6.5 6.6 6.7 SUBSTITUTION T° DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Sireel right-of-way (Section 3.2.8.4.16.$ of the Land Development Code): Roads within lhc Project will be designed and built as privale roads witl) no mainlenance responsibility by Collier County. These roads shall have a minimare right-of-way of 50 feet and pavement width shall be a minimum at' 12 feet for one-way traffic and 24 feet for Iwo-way traffic. Minimum Distance for right-of-way from Lakes (Section 3.5.7.1.2 of the LDC): Internal Roads tiler run parallel to water managemenl lakes or detention areas shall be allowed a setback of less Ihan 50 feet from the top of bank or control elevation, whichever in greater. Selbacks sisall be a minimum of 20 feet unless appropriate justification can be shown fi~rough the use of walls or guardrails to reduce the selback to as Illtie as 5 feet. All construction traffic for development of the project shall access Ihe site from Livingstoq Road. TRANSPORTATION All accesses and roadways not located within County right-of-way will be privately maintained by an entity created by ttse project developer or his assigns. Road hnpacl Fees shall be paid in accordance witli Ihe Collies' Cotnuy impact Fee Ordinance in effect at lhe time of building perrail issuance, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Commission,','s. Primary access to the site shall be from Livingston Road and shall be located IO line up wilh Ihe access for the Carltoss Lakes PUD. Such access shall be consistera with the Coullly's Access Management Plan for the Livingston Road corridor. The developer shall reserve a 60' easement for fi~ture right-of-way along dm northernmost portion of the project that lines up with the North property line of Imperial Phase V (as shown on the PUD Master Plan.) Any required landscape buffer for the development shall be located outside Ihe limits of said reservation. If the Counrff requests dedication, the dedication shall occur pursuant to Section 2.2.20.3.7 oflhe Land Development Code, with the single exception that no impact fee credits may result from lhis specific dedicalion. In accordance with I~ Rules of the South Florida Waler Management District (SFWMD). Chapters 4OE-4 and 40E-40, this projecl shall be designed for a slorm event of 3-day duration and 2.5 year return frequency and shall be reviewed and perrallied by the SFWMD. Before any dcvclopmenl construction perinils are issued, .the developer's engineering consultant shall perform detailed field topographic surveys including cross-sections, a flow-way evaluation and a hydrologic / hydraulic compnter water surlhce profile modeling Slm, ly. That sludy should coslclndc that there will be no significant adverse impacts on the surrmsndiog properties caused by the intaallalion oflhe proposed control slrUClllr¢ wills overflow weir and filling within the historic low lying wetland slough Said analysis shall be ~ AGENDA ITEM · ....12 3 2001 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 reviewed and approved by the SFWMD and Collier County Engineering Review Services Staff. ~ The wetland slough shall be improved and mainlathed in perpcluiry by removal of exotic plants and fallen debris tlaal would significantly restrict storm water flow in lhe slough. The petitioner shall obtain a surface water management permit fi'om the South Florida Water Management District prior to any site development plan approval. The developer shall obtain a letter from the Collier County Director of Stormwater Managemere stating that lite drainage system conforms to local drainage or basin studies being condecled by the department. This letter shall be obtained p~'ior ~o applying fro' any Site Development Piano. UTILITIES County water and sewer is available within Ihe Righi-of-Way of Livingston Road All facilities extended to the site and which lie in platted rights-of-way shall be owned and maintained by the Collier County Water/Sewer District. The facilities, whether owned by the Dislrict or privately owned, shall be reviewed and installed in accordance wilh the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17 and all federal, state and other existing rules and regulations. ENGINEERING A. If the property is subdivided into two or more parcels, a plat shall be required. Work within Collier County rights-of-way shall meet the requirements of County Right-of Way Ordinance No. 93-64 ENVIRONMENTAL In accordance with Section 3.9.5.5..,t. oflhe Collier County Land Development Code, twenty-five percent (31,70 acres) of lhe viable natnrally functioning native vegetation on site shall be retained and/or areas of landscaping and open space to be planted with 100 perccnt nalive species, to satisfy this requiremcnl. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Section Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/constntclion plan approval. Tilts plan shall include methods and lime schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. C. Neccssary pcrmJts from the Depanmant of Environmcntal Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained prior to slaning construction. LANDSCAPING FOR OFF STREET AREAS All landscaping £or off-street parking areas shall be in accordance willa Ihe Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at tile time ol'building permit application except where other~isc noted in this documcm. AGENDA~rW~ [~- No. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 6.12 6.13 POLL}NG PLACES Pursuant to Scclion 2.6.30 of the Land Development Code, provisions shall be made for the f'umre use of a building wilhin the common area oflhe Project for Ihe purpose of accommodating an electoral polling place. An agreement recorded in Ihe official records of the Clerk o£the Circuit Courl of Collier County, wllich ,q~al[ bc biuding un any and all successor owners io inleteat that acquire ownership of such cornmoo areas including, bill ~10l limited to. co,~dumi,fium associaimns, and homeowners associations. This a~ruumcm shah provide Ibr a common · space suFFicient in size Io meet the needs of tl~c Supervisor oFEIcctions in providin~ space for electors residing wilhin Ihc development. HISTORICAL / ARCIIAEOLOGICAL If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construelion activily, a ilisloric or archaeological arfifacl is found, all development wiflfin lilt minhn,nn area ~lcccssary Io protee{ the discovery shall be hmncdialcly slopped aod Collier Coumy Code Enforcemenl Deparlmem contacled as ~mled in Seelion 2.2.25.8. I ofihe Land Development Code. 6.14 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS This PUD provides recreational amenities for the benefit of the residehis Illat live wilhin the project. These Ihcilities will include a pool, Ion,ils and baskelbai{ coutls, playground equipment, boardwalks r,,~d similar rccreationu} amenities for the use of residents. The developer recognizes that Collier County has placed a high priority on the creation of neighborhood-scaled parks. Prior to 50% build-out of the project and upon the completion of an acceptable hnpact fee credit agreement, the developer agrees to provide the following to Collier County: Within the project, the developer shall dedicate a minimum of one (I) acre of property to Collier County for the development of a neighborhood park which is accessible by the general public. The dedication shall occur pursuant to Section 2.2.20.3.7 of the Land Development Code, but in any case shall occur no later than prior to the first issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. JAil 2 3 2001 pc. ............................. JAN 2. 3 20ul .I ! EXHIBIT B AGENDA I'rDffM ~. ~,,/-f, JAN 2 3 2001 II III ,! I'! I[ll ':! '!?', I · II i: I~1 I! I ,~ I i i i I I I I I ! I IllIll AGENDA ITEM ~o. ~.~ , JAN 2 3 2001 p~. %~ , I ! 3 AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 201)1 EXHIB IT D OUrIll. ¥,,UU !J (1~' I~lN.) LAKE TYPICAL SECTION AGEND~ 4 JAN 2 3 2OOl l Exhlbll ] Section ~.T.S~ . ~hrubs rl'yn,) Exhlbl! ] M-dclrn Rtsldenlla! / Off-Site Residential plop ~;.T.S. Collier County Landsalpc l)uffer Type A Minimum ! Tree Per 30 Linear Feet AGENDA I,~ ~,-,,,.2001 Exhibit 2 ~lad~irm ~uan~ ! Off-S)le Res)den,tla Plnn N.T.$. Collier Coun~ Lmndsc&pe Bu~ct Typ~ A Ministim I Tree Per AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 --[~ m~ [fort Myers, ~ 33019 · ~0 Heddch En~/neerfnl; !n~ Springs, F/or/do // /,~ _Exblb{! ~1 MadeIre Lane I Off-Slle Re$1de"lD}Plan N.T,~- Collier Cmmly LBnd~caFm Bu ffel' Ty~ A Minimum I Tle:c pe~ 30 LF (Provided I Tru pcr 20 LF) Hodrich Engineering Inc t~onito Springs, F/or/do AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST FOR DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING A COMPLAINT FILED WITHTHE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ALLEGING THAT THE MADEIRA PUD ORDINANCE NO. 2000-80 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. OB,JECTIVE: TO obtain Board direction concerning a complaint filed with the Board of County Commissioners alleging that the Madeira PUD Ordinance 2000-80 is inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: On or about November 28, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners passed Ordinance No. 2000-80, the Madeira PUD Ordinance. On or about December 27, 2000, Henry Murphy filed a complaint with the Board alleging that the Madeira PUD Ordinance is inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. A copy of that complaint is attached to this Executive Summary. This complaint was allegedly filed in accordance with Section 163.3215, Fla. Star., which allows an aggrieved or adversely affected party to maintain an action on certain kinds of development orders which materially alter the use or density or intensity of use on a pa~cul~ piece of property and which are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Under the applicable statutory scheme, the County may respond in thirty (30) days. If the Board reaffirms its original decision, the complainant has thirty (30) days to file a lawsuit. The Office of the County Attorney seeks direction as to whether the Board reaffirms its original passage of the Madeira PUD Ordinance. GROWTH MANAG,E .MENT I.MPACT: Unknown. FISCAL IMPACT: if a lawsuit is filed, the fiscal impact to the County will be the indirect cost of staff and Office of the County Attorney time in defending any lawsuit. There also may be some "h~d dollar" costs for depositions and the retention of expert witnesses. At this' point, it is not possible to estimate those costs with great specificity. RECOM MEN DATIONS: County Attorney as to whether the Board reaffirms its original passage of the Madeira PUD That the Board of County Commissioners direct the Office of the Dated: /- //-O/ Dated: Dated: Ordinance. Prepared by. ~'~ ~: Marjori~UIVI. Student, Assistant County Attorney '~- Willi~ Mounff~rd, '.- . Assistant County Attorney ~'~ Reviewed and ~ . Approved by:~ David C. Weigel, County Attorney ~ A~DA~ "No. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. ~ BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HENRY MURPHY, Plaintiff, VS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant. / VERIFIED COMPLAINT Pursuant to statutory requirements and prior to filing suit against a local government seeking enforcement of Comprehensive Plan policies under 163.3215(4)~ Florida Statutes, Plaintiff, HENRY MURPHY, files this Verified Complaint with and against Defendant, COLLIER COUNTY, seeking injunctive and other relief against the Board of County Commissioners of COLLIER County quashing and reversing approval of the rezoning for the Madeira Planned Unit Development (PUD) on November 28, 2000; which is a "development order" that is not consistent with the COLLIER County Comprehensive Plan. PARTIES t(4) As a condition precedent to the institution of an action pursuant to this section, the complaining party shall first ~e a verified complaint with the local government whose actions are complained of setting forth the facts upon which the complaint is based and the relief sought by the complaining party. The verified complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days after the alleged inconsistent action has been taken. The local government receiving the complaint shall respond within 30 days after receipt of the complaint. Thereafter, the complaining party may institute the action authorized in this section. However, the action shall be instituted no later than 30 days after the expiration of the 30-day period which the local governmen~ h~q to tnlc~ appropriate action. Failure to comply with this subsection shall not bar an action for AlllTaMl}~r_~ restraining order to prevent immediate and irreparable harm from the actions corn )lai~ ~ 2 3 2001 1. Plaintiff, HENRY MURPHY, (hereinafter referred to as "MURPHY"), resides on property owned by MURPHY in COLLIER County, Florida, at 1000 Lakeland Avenue. MURPHY's residence and property is located directly within, literally surrounded and enclosed by, a parcel of land allegedly owned by Meridian Land Co, on which the Defendant, COLLIER COUNTY, approved a request to fezone, (from Rural-Agricultural and RSF-3 to PUD), on November 28, 2000 (the "Madeira PUD"). The rezoning approved by COUNTY creates or forms an island or peninsula within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning that can be commonly be referred to as the "hole in the donut" which is MURPHY's property. A copy of the Applicant's map showing MURPHY's property, the surrounding Planned Development rezoning and an aerial photograph of the property is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 2. Defendant COLLIER COUNTY, (hereinafter referred to a the "COUNTY"), through its Board of County Commissioners, is responsible for implementing the requirements of Florida's Growth Management Act of 1985 ("Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act", Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes), including the statutory requirements of adopting a local comprehensive plan and once such a plan is adopted, ensuring that all development orders approved by the County are consistent with each and every element of its adopted comprehensive plan ("consistency") and that the infrastructure needed to serve the development is provided concurrent with the impacts of the development ("concurrency") under Florida Statutes 163. Of course, development orders must also be consistent with Collier County Code, Florida Statutes and the Constitution of the United States and State of Florida Constitution. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. .-~ NATURE OF ACTION 3. Madeira PUD, as approved by COLLIER COUNTY, destroys MURPHY's current means of accessing his property from Lakeland Avenue and did not comply with Policy 7.2 of the Comprehensive Plan's Traffic Element mandating a Neighborhood Traffic Study intended to examine changes to local, neighborhood traffic circulation patterns that would result from rezoning approvals. Further, the approval of Madeira PUD constitutes and results in unconstitutional spot zoning. Madeira PUD is located on environmentally sensitive system of both uplands and wetlands known as "Palm River Slough". The rezoning, as approved, violates comprehensive plan policies concerning floodplain management of the natural watershed within Palm River Slough, comprehensive plan policies requiting conservation of wildlife habitat for game, non-game and listed species (including, Florida Black Bear, Big Cypress Fox Squirrels, Wood Stork, Swallow Tail Kite), preservation of wetlands and other unique environmental features (such as cypress forest, wetland forests, pine flatwoods, etc...), adds additional density to the parcel that cannot be accomodated within comprehensive plan policies protecting environnmentally sensitive areas located on site, including the Palm River Slough and fails to adequately cjuster the current and additional density on the parcel to preserve these areas, and fails to preserve a percentage of each type of native habitat types and fails to incorporate upland native vegetation into the project landscaping and design. 4. MURPHY challenges the validity of the COUNTY's approval of the rezoning request for Madeira Planned Development on November 28, 2000 which increases the density and intensity of development by 127 dwelling units above and beyond current zoning without cjustering the existing and additional units out of the regionally significant Palm River Slough and other environmentally semifive portions of the parcel. Approval of the request to rezone the prol~ 3 to Planned JAN 2 3 2001 Development is a "development order" as defined in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. And all development orders must be consistent with local comprehensive plan policies, objectives and goals under Florida Statutes, Chapter 163. 5. The basis for this challenge by MURPHY is that the COUNTY's approval of this development order is inconsistent with the COLLIER County Comprehensive Plan2. Prior to 2163.3215 Standing to enforce local comprehensive plans through development orders. (1) Any aggrieved or adversely affected party may maintain an action for injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent such local government from taking any action on a development order, as defined in s. 163.3164, which materially alters the use or density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan adopted under this part. (2) "Aggrieved or adversely affected party" means any person or local government which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan, including interests related to health and safety, police and fire protection service systems, densities or intensities of development, transportation facilities, health care facilities, equipment or services, or environmental or natural resources. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. (3) (a) No suit may be maintained under this section challenging the approval or denial of a zoning, rezoning, planned unit development, variance, special exception, conditional use, or other development order granted prior to October 1, 1985, or applied for prior to July 1, 1985. (b) Suit under this section shall be the sole action development order with a comprehensive plan adopted (4) As a condition precedent to the institution available to challenge the consistency of a under this part. of an action pursuant to this section, the complaining party shall first file a verified complaint with the local government whose actions are complained of setting forth the facts upon which the complaint is based and the relief sought by the complaining party. The verified complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days after the alleged inconsistent action has been taken. The local government receiving the complaint shall respond within 30 days after receipt of the complaint. Thereafter, the complaining party may institute th~ action authorized in this section. However, the action shall be instituted no later than 30 days after the expiration of the 30-day period which the local government has to take appropriate action. Failure to comply with this subsection shall not bar an action for a temporary restraining order to prevent immediate and irreparable harm from the actions complained of. JAN 2 3 2001 MURPHY's filing a claim in circuit court under F.S. 163.3215(4), MURPHY must file this verified letter with the local government seeking: (a) another public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners or (b) reconsideration of the COUNTY's decision to approve the Madeira PUD. 6. If the COUNTY does not rescind its decision, MURPHY will file a Verified Complaint in Circuit Court seeking a de novo trial on merits of whether the rezoning violates certain policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, including Policy 7.3 of the Traffic Element of the Comprehensive Plan requiring a Neighborhood Traffic Study for all rezoning, and other comprehensive plan policies. MURPHY will seek all appropriate judicial remedies including an order of the circuit court quashing, revoking, invalidating and vacating the COUNTY approval of Madeira PUD and attorney's fees, if available under Florida Statutes or the Rules of Civil Procedure. FACTS 7. MURPHY is the owner of a residence on a parcel of land located in COLLIER County, Florida, which is located within, and surrounded by, but excluded from, the Madeira PUD rezoning. 8. On November 28, 2000, the COUNTY, rezoned Madeira PUD to allow an increase in density changing 45 acres of Rural Agricultural land (zoned at 1 unit per 5 acres) to 3 units per 1 acre (from 9 units to an additional 127 units) as part of the approved a site plan for Madeira Planned Development (PUD). 9. The previous zoning line delineating the density differences in the area in question was a line dividing the parcel into two separate categories: the southern portion of the Madeira parcel was zoned at 3 units per acre (300 units on approximately 100 acres of property zoned RSF-3) and the northern portion of the Madeira parcel was zoned at 1 unit per 5 acres (9 units on approximately 45 acres zoned Rural-Agricultural) for a total of 309 units under the existing zoni~ 5 JAN 2 3 2001 10. The rezoning of Madeira Planned Development increases the zoning density on the parcel by approximately 127 to 135 units. Only 309 units were permitted under existing, pre- Madeira zoning scheme; (only 9 units in the Rural Agricultural zoned portion of the parcel and 300 in the RSF-3 district). The rezoning of Madeira Planned Development approves a total of 438 single-family and multiple-family dwelling units. 11. Only 288 lots are depicted on the site plan that was approved by COUNTY (150 less lots than the 438 units). 12. Rather than cjustering the additional units in the area that was previously zoned RSF-3, the additional density was spread over the entire Madeira parcel, including that portion zoned Rural Agriculture, which was previously zoned for 1 unit per 5 acres. 13. A copy of the Agenda and staff report containing recommendations for the Madeira PUD rezoning, prepared by County staff employees for the Board of County Commissioners, is attached and incorporated herein as exhibit B. 14. The COUNTY Environmental Advisory Committee voted 4-1 against the proposed project due to wetlands and environmental impacts. 15. The COUNTY Planning Commission voted to approve the project on the condition that access to local neighborhood road(s) be maintained or provided. 16. The Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the rezoning without requiring a neighborhood tratT]c study, removing MURPHY's existing access to Lakeland Avenue and isolating MURPHY's property within the project like a"hole in the donut" or island within the PUD zoning district entirely surrounding MURPHY's land and residence. 6 JAN 2 3 2001 17. The rezoning lines were drawn by the applicant ("Meridian Land Co") and approved by COUNTY to the detriment of MURPHY and for the benefit of the applicant ("Meridian Land Co"). 18. The rezoning lines were drawn around MURPHY do not have a logical basis or support a rational zoning scheme and result in unconstitutional spot zoning. 19. The current zoning scheme dividing the parcel into Rural Agriculture and RSF-3 along a straight line can be presumed to, and does, have a logical basis. The zoning scheme that existed before approval of Madeira PUD was based on zoning districts created by a straight logical zoning line was drawn across and through the property separating development of land at Rural Agricultural densities (1 unit per 5 acres) from RSF-3 densities (3 units per 1 acre), and did not isolate any small parcels or result in unconstitutional spot zoning. 20. The existing zoning prior to approval of Madeira PUD is logical; drawing the line around, and isolating, MURPHY's relatively small parcel and cutting off his pre-existing access is not. Further, even if a PUD were created to allow cjustering of development density outside the Palm River Slough and other environmentally sensitive areas located on-site, the pre-existing zoning density of 309 units can more easily be accommodated than 438 units without violating the comprehensive plan policies protecting wetland protection and flow-ways. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT 21. Chapter 163, Pan II, Florida Statutes, the Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act ("Local Comprehensive Planning Act"), requires each local government in Florida to prepare and adopt a lo~al comprehensive plan containing mandatory 7 JAN 2 3 elements that address important issues such as future land use, traffic circulation, conservation, and the adequacy of facilities and infrastructure. 22. After a local government has adopted its comprehensive plan, Section 163.3194(1 )(a) of the Local Comprehensive Planning Act, requires that all actions taken by the local government in regard to development orders be consistent with each and every goal, objective and policy of each and every element contained in the adopted local comprehensive plan. Machado v. Musgrove 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987) aff'd en banc at 1988 Fla. App. Lexis 705; 13 Fla. Law W. 522 (1998) review denied Machado v. Musgrove,529 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1988). 23. Section 163.3194(3) defines "consistency" as follows: (a) A development or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspect of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. (b) A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, or other aspects of the development are compatible with or further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all. other criteria enumerated by the local government. 24. The Local Comprehensive Planning Act provides for citizen enforcement of the consistency requirement. Section 163.3215(1) provides that "any aggrieved or adversely affected party" may bring a civil action for injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent the local government "fxom taking any action on a development order which materially alters the use or density or intensity of use" on a tract of property in a manner that is not consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. ~ . 25. As a condition precedent to seeking judicial relief pursuant to Section 163.3215(1), an aggrieved or adversely affected party must, in accordance with Section 163.3215(4), file a verified complaint with the local govemment. The verified complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days after the local government has taken the allegedly inconsistent action regarding a development order. The local government then has thirty (30) days within which to respond to the verified complaint after which time the aggrieved or adversely affected party must institute its court action within thirty (30) days. 26. Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Comprehensive Planning Act, the COUNTY has.adopted a COLLIER County Comprehensive Plan. STANDING 27. MURPHY objected in writing and was represented by undersigned counsel who made objections at the public heating on the record concerning the Madeira PUD as proposed. 28. MURPHY owns land within Collier County at 1000 Lakeland Avenue that is surrounded on all 4 sides by Madeira PUD and will be affected by the Madeira PUD in a manner that is distinct from and exceeds that of the general public. 29. As a result of the COUNTYts approval of the Madeira PUD rezoning, MURPHY will suffer an adverse effect to interests protected or furthered by the COLLIER County Comprehensive Plan, including interests which MURPHY currently enjoys from his residence and land and affect MURPHY in particular: a. land use and compatibility of the proposed development site plan and density with MURPHY's existing access and use of his parcel of land, b. compatibility of neighborhood traffic circulation with MURPHY'~ 9 2001 to his property, and c. conservation of rural, native range and environmental resources including game, non-game and listed wildlife species in the immediately surrounding area. 30. MURPHY is an aggrieved or adversely affected party as defined in Section 163.3215(2), Fla. Stat. (1993). COUNTY'S APPROVAL OF THE MADEIRA PUD REZONING APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 31. The Madeira PUD rezoning is inconsistent with the COLLIER County Comprehensive Plan, without limitation for the reasons set forth herein. Traffic Element. 32. Madeira PUD traffic circulation plan cuts-off MURPHY from his existing access to Lakeland Avenue and surrounding neighborhood streets. Approval of Madeira re-directs MURPHY's access and forces him to join other traffic generated by Madeira for ingress and egress to Livingston Road, which he is opposed and objects. 33. Policy 7.2 of the Traffic Element contains the following mandatory language: "The County shall require the submission of a neighborhood traffic impact assessment as part of all rezone and conditional use applications. This study will analyze the proposed project's impact on surrounding neighborhood streets." No neighborhood traffic study was completed or submitted as required. 34. Staff did not require a Neighborhood Traffic Study for the following reason: "since this project's access point is Livingston Road instead of the internal roadways of Willoughby Acres, the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on residential streets within the a~ 10 JAN 2 3 2001 / \ However, this rationale does not change the mandatory language of the plan policy ("shall provide...for all rezoning"), nor does it obviate the real, and immediate need for a traffic circulation analysis for the entire neighborhood including MURPHY's property. 35. The lack of such a neighborhood traffic circulation study is iljustrated by the length of time the County Commission spent discussing potential traffic inter-connections with surrounding neighborhood, mandated by Policy 9.3 (as set forth below), with no hard figures or facts concerning how many car trips might be generated on neighborhood roads by the 438 units, if connected through one of many alternative points. Or if ingress/egress to MURPHY' s residence were preserved through provision of limited ingress/egress through a Lakeland Avenue (as a condition recommended by the Planning Commission suggested). The requirement ofaNeighborhood Traffic Study for all rezoning contemplates that the Board of County Commissioners have such data on existing and proposed trips and traffic circulation in the immediate neighborhood. 36. Further, the Comprehensive Plan, Traffic Element, Policy 9.3 states the county shall encourage interconnection of developments with local streets, between developments to facilitate the convenient movement throughout the local road network unless such action will promote through traffic. Maintaining the existing access to MURPHY' s residence through a limited connection with Lakeland Avenue, promotes interconnection or facilitates movement throughout the local road network, (which includes Lakeland Avenue), but does not promote through traffic if limited to MURPHY residence. Regardless, of the ult'maate decision, the Comprehensive Plan requires a Neighborho9. d Traffic Study for all rezoning so that neighborhood traffic circulation can be examined by the County Commission based on the study, not conjecture. Surely, such a Neighborhood Study would have identified the existence of MURPHY's current, ingress/egress to ^GENO^ NO. JAN 2 3 2001 Lakeland Avenue and his desire to maintain his existing point of access. 37, The traffic study of major arterials and impacts on roadway level of service did not take into account the total traffic generated by the site, and only took into account the traffic generated by the additional increase in density of 127 dwelling units. But a total of 438 dwelling units were approved in this "development order" as Madeira PUD. 38. The statutory intent of the Growth Management Act was to ensure that the infrastructure needed to serve the development is provided concurrent with the impacts of the development ("concurrency"), Each and every development order must meet concurrency requirements regardless of the potential density under existing zoning. 39. If concurrency is deficient, even a development order that is consistent with current zoning densities must be denied unless provisions are made to increase the level of service in the 5 year Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan or provided by the developer as a condition of approval. 40. The true traffic impact of a development order is that which can be expected as a result of any additional development that does not yet exist at the time the development order is approved. In this case, 438 units that do not currently exist. 41. Even if existing density were to be maintained at 309 units the PUD would still be subject to concurrency requirements that it not reduce the level of service on roadways below what the COUNTY and state have agreed as an acceptable level. 42. To limit review of a "development order" approving an as yet un-built 438 unit Planned Unit Development to only those impacts generated by additional 127 units of density above and beyond current density is inconsistent with Traffic Element, Objective 5, Policy 5.1 and 5.2 and 12 JAN 2 3 2001 Policies 1.3 and 1.4. 43. If the traffic generated by the entire development is taken into account, roadway level of service capacities may be insufficient to meet concurrency requirements contained in the Comprehensive Plan, Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Future Land Use Element 44. The Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Objective 5, Policy 5.4 requires that "new developments shall be compatible with, and complementary_ to, the surrounding land uses," which includes surrounding lands which are surrounded by the development. The development is not consistent with MURPHY's existing ingress/egress, density, quiet use and enjoyment of his property and the unique features of his land including the Palm River Slough, associated wildlife values, rural sense of place and enjoyment of gracious "county living." 45. Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.5 states the COUNTY should "encourage the use of existing land zoned for urban intensity uses before permitting development of other areas," such as the Rural Agricultural land zoned for 1 unit per 5 acres. Other areas exist where additional units can be built outside the area zoned "Rural - Agricultural" and Palm River Slough 46. Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.6 states that the COUNTY shall "permit the use of cjuster housing, Planned Unit Development techniques, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas." No effort was made to design or cjuster this PUD at existing densities to preserve additional open space and environmentally sensitive areas such as Palm River Slough. Nor was any effo~ made to overlay or depict all 438 units on a site plan prior to requesting and receiving approval to construct an additional density of 127 additional units. The applicant did not demonstrate that it can fit all 438 units on the site and conserve NO. JAN 2 3 2001 environmentally sensitive areas (including, for example, more than 40% of Palm River Slough), through cjustering or innovative approaches such as transferrable development rights. 47. The approved site plan contains 288 lots, and does not depict 309 units (current zoning) or 438 units (approved under the rezoning). It is doubtful whether the site can accommodate 438 units without destroying additional environmentally sensitive areas, and that many lots or units has never been accurately depicted on the approved site plan. 48. The proposed PUD is not appropriately sized for the site suitability (too many units to preserve environmentally sensitive features located on the parcel) and does not adequately cjuster the 'development to conserve open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas. In fact, over 60 percent of the wetlands in this portion of Palm River Slough will be destroyed. 49. If the PUD were approved at existing current densities (309 units), additional cjustering of less units could result in preservation of more of environmentally sensitive areas. But with the approved additional density (438 units), more of habitat and environmentally sensitive areas will be needlessly lost. 50. Future Land Use Element, Policy 5.7 states that the zoning scheme should "encourage recognition identifiable communities within the urbanized area" COUNTY argues that this area is within the urbanized area, although MURPHY states that at least some portion of this parcel are currently zoned Rural Agricultural. This PUD zoning scheme will destroy the sense of place and identifiable comanunity enjoyed by MURPHY. Part of what defines this community or neighborhood and gives the area its' sense of place is the rural open space, "county living" life-style and nature of this "regionally identifiable community." None of this is "community character" is preserved apart from MURPHY's excluded, and wholly surrounded, land and residence. One reason AGF. NGA i~t/~ _ 14 NO. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 pg. \ . why MURPHY and many of his neighbors live in this area is for the natural, rural beauty, which can easily be found in the current rural agricultural zoning district on the northern portion of the subject parcel and the community called "Armadillo" along Lakeland Avenue to the south. Conservation Element 51. The Madeira PUD rezoning is inconsistent with Conservation Element of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, including without limitation: 52. Approval of this Planned Unit Development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element, Goal 6, Objective 6.2, Policies 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.5, 6.2.11, 6.2.12 protecting wetlands, such as those within Palm River Slough, and requiting no net loss of wetland' s function. Further, Policy 6.2.13 requires that "Proposed development on parcels containing naturally functioning freshwater wetlands shall cjuster development to maintain the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb the least amount of native wetland vegetation practicable and to preserve the pre-development hydroperiod." Under the Madeira P UD, over 60 % of the on-site wetlands would be destroyed. 53. Concerns about wetland loss, led the Collier COUNTY EAC (Environmental Advisory Council) to vote 4-1 against this project. This development does not preserve natural wetlands and hydroperiods and this task is made more difficult by approval of an additional 127 units, further loading the parcel with additional development units that cannot be placed anywhere else except in the wetlands. Approval of this additional density, above and beyond the 309 units allowed under current zoning, exacerbates and makes it more difficult to cjuster development outside of the wetlands and the Palm River Slough. 54. Wetland sloughs are unique environmental features in this watershed's b?0~ in. AGENDA I~..1~ JAN 2 3 2001 of our geological past, Florida is nearly flat. Sloughs act as rivers transporting freshwater to the coast al estuaries, cleaning the water as it slowly moves southwest. Difficult to discern, sloughs are Collier County's rivers of grass, barely perceptible in their slow-motion movement, but important in their function. The watersheds and basins they serve are dependant upon natural sloughs to filter impurities and maintain surface water quality. In fact, wetland sloughs are commonly referred to as the "kidneys" of South Florida's ecosystem. These policies require developers to cjustered their units outside and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as wetland sloughs onto adjacent (and preferably disturbed) uplands. 55. When incorporating and adopting these policies in the comprehensive plan, the COUNTY biologists recognized the importance and contemplated protection of environmentally- sensitive areas, including these important rivers of grass. The purpose of the "consistency" requirement in Chapter 163 is to require that the COUNTY mandate consistency with these policies in their every day decision-making with regard to individual applications for development approval, albeit it can be a much a harder task to "walk the talk", but one the legislature required of local governments in order to further the common good. Without identification of such policies in a comprehensive plan, previous development patterns threatened to damage Florida's precious resources and unique sense of place, and the legislature hoped that as developments were held to the new policies contained in the local comprehensive plans, the "proof would be in the pudding." Approval of this PUD warrants reversal and remand for a PUD that is consistent with comprehensive plan, which can be more easily accomplished through cjustering within the densities contained in the existing zoning (within 309 units instead of 438). 56. Development in wetland sloughs, such as Palm River Slough, continues to cut off the 16 JAN 2 3 2001 natural flow of freshwater in Collier County and continue to threaten the surface water quality of already degraded, non-compliant water bodies. Development displacing the Palm River Slough within Madeira PUD will only add to the cumulative and secondary. impacts of a net loss of this and other wetland functions in Collier County. Development within Madeira PUD should only be approved for the number of units that can reasonably be cjustered outside the boundaries of the Palm River Slough and other environmentally-sensitive portions of the site (e.g., nests of endangered or threatened species, such as Big Cypress Fox Squirrel). 57. Conservation Element, Objective 2.1, Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.3, which require a Watershed Management Plan, a study of cumulative impacts and changes to estuaries, preservation of existing hydroperiods and connections with upstream and downstream waterbodies. The approval of Madeira PUD does not preserve existing wetlands or hydroperiods in Palm River Slough and will have cumulative and secondary impacts to estuaries located downstream from Palm River Slough. 58. Conservation Element, Objective 2.2, Policies 2.2.1,2.2.2, 2.3.1,2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.5 and 2.3.6 requires canals, rivers and flow-ways to meet all applicable Federal, State, or local water quality standards. But Madeira PUD will discharge into canals, rivers and estuaries that do not currently meet water quality standards for surface waters, including the Cocohatchee Canal, Cocohatchee River and Cocohatchee Estuary. 59. The COUNTY's approval is not consistent with Conservation Element, Goal 6, Objective 6.1, Policies 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.7, 6.1.8, 6.1.9 protecting native habitats including the mandated adoption of standards and criteria by 1998 to preserve on-site a suitable amount of each type of native land cover (e.g., a requirement that a certain % of cypress forest, pine flatwood, scrub oak, etc...be preserved on-site). These requirements have neither been adopted, nor 17 AGENDA ~ JAN 2 3 2001 applied to this development as required by the Comprehensive Plan. 60. Conservation Element, Objective 6.4, Policies 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.7 requires that "all types of new development shall be required to preserve an appropriate portion of the native vegetation on the site...this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved...". In this case, wetlands constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved and this policy should not be interpreted to allow development in the wetland, to the contrary the cypress and wetlands of the Palm River Slough should be preserved and development should be cjustered outside these environmentally sensitive areas. 61. Conservation Element, Objective 6.5, Policies 6.5.1, 6.5.2 requires incorporation of native vegetation into landscaping designs, but preservation of native landscape has not been fully incorporated into the design or made a condition of approval of the development order for the Madeira Planned Unit Development. Such landscape designs successfully incorporating the native landscape can be found in many developments, such as Amelia Island Plantation and other state and nationally re-known developments. These landscape designs preserve the existing native landscape around building footprints, much like the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright or Frederic Law Olmstead. Many of the developments that incorporate, rather than replace, nature have higher original and re- sale values, conserve water resources and would preserve, rather than replace, eastern Collier's unique sense of place and are required by admirable, far-sighted Comprehensive Plan policies, but have not been adequately translated into the COUN.TY's development order. Consistency mandates of the Growth Management Act and local Comprehensive Plans mandate that the COUNTY and other local governments "walk it's talk" with regard to each and every plan policy in order to 18 JAN 2 3 2001 adequately consider the multitude of issues involved in development approval, translate forethought into actions to manage growth and development more effectively throughout Florida. The legislature recognized that the prior status quo, and current methods of approval, were fraught with political expediency, and consistency requirements were absolutely necessary to translate words and policies. into actions that could be seen on the ground and not just on paper. 62. Conservation Element, Objective 6.7, Policies 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.7.3 requires COUNTY to protect, conserve and appropriately use ecological communities shared with others. Efforts made to coordinate the development of these resources with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were insufficient to obtain timely comments and concerns. 63. FWC comments which were submitted to the Water Management District and applicant, were never submitted in time to allow review by COUNTY staff biologists and incorporation of additional conditions to alleviate the concerns of these agencies concerning these shared wildlife resources prior to approval of the Madeira PUD. 64. Such recommendations which were neither reviewed prior to the hearing, nor implemented, including additional nest investigations and surveys for endangered Big Cypress Fox Squirrels, a 50 foot wide upland buffer adjacent to any wetlands located on-site, and box culverts and fencing for Florida Black Bear which FWC alleged inhabit the area in the general vicinity of this development. 65. Conservation Element, Objective 7.3,-Policies 7.3.3, 7.3.6, 7.3.7 protecting federal and state endangered, threatened or species of special concern ("listed") species which may exist on site, including Swallow Tail Kite, Wood Stork, Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, and Florida Black Bear. NO. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. . As stated above the COUNTY did not incorporate conditions and the applicant did not provide the comments of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to the COUNTY biologist for review and incorporation of conditions, and design features designed to aid in the protection of wildlife occurring on-site, such as the provision of 50 foot buffers, box culverts and wildlife fencing for Florida Black Bear. THE REZONING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (REGULATIONS) 66. Collier County Land Development Code Section 2.7.2.5 requires COUNTY to consider the. following issues and make findings with regard to rezoning requests, including without limitation,: ".... (3) The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. (4) Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change, ... (13) Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning." And Collier Land Development Code Section 2.7.3.2.5 requires the applicant to demonstrate and the COUNTY to review the: ". ....(2) Adequacy of evidence of unified control ..." These issues were not adequately considered and resulted in the unconstitutional spot zoning of MURPHY's property. 67. The site plan depicts only 288 lots of the 438 requested and approved. The site plan submitted by developer was inaccurate and misleading. It is questionable whether the applicant AOENDA ~ 20 NO. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 developer can actually fit 438 units within the development as shown on the site plan without even further encroachment upon the wetlands of Palm River Slough and other environmentally-sensitive portions of the parcel. 68. Affidavits of ownership and disclosure submitted by the alleged property owner is incorrect and was incorrect at the time the application was sworn, signed, submitted and approved by the COUNTY even though such Affidavit was sworn and notarized. 69. The affidavit and application required by Collier County Rezoning Application and Affidavit failed to accurately disclose the ownership of many pieces or portions of the assembled parcel, including owners listed with the property appraiser and tax collectors office as property owners of land located within the area of the Madeira PUD application. The issue of an incorrect and false sworn disclosure was raised on the record by undersigned counsel at the public heating before the Board of County Commissioners. Yet the Commission voted without requiring full disclosure of ownership interests including failure to disclose any contracts for purchase pending at the time the application was filed or approved. 70. At the Planning Commission heating, the attorney for the applicant, MERIDIAN LAND CO alleged that a Judge Baker was somehow involved in ownership of a portion of this parcel, however, no ownership interest by this elected, public official was disclosed in the Application or required by the COUNTY prior to staff recommendations, public heating(s) or approval by the Board of County Commissioners. To the contrary, the applicant MERIDIAN LAND CO signed a sworn affidavit that it was the sole owner of the property and did not disclose any contracts for purchase as required on the Application, Question 2(d). 71. Disclosures made by the Commissioners at the public heating c_onceming "out-of- NO. 2] JAN 2 3 200! VERIFICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Under penalties of peri ury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and that the facts stated in it are true. HE~rRY ~O~HY ~ / Sworn to and subscribed before me this Personally known Produced ~/~ day of December 2000, by HENRY MURPHY. otary Publie" or produced Identification , Type of Identification 13 ~DA JAN 2 3 2001 hearing" conversations and discussions with the applicant and applicant's representatives, including a former commissioner who represents the applicant, were legally insufficient to remove the presumption of prejudice that attaches to such ex parte communications made in quasi-judicial matters or former elected officials. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, HENRY MURPHY, requests that the COUNTY accept this petition pursuant to Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat. (1995), hold a public hearing on the matter, and determine that the Madeira PUD rezoning is inconsistent with the COLLIER County Comprehensive Plan, and thus ultra vires, and that it vacate said plat, and order that any future development proposed for the site be consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ~ day of December, 2000. Ralf (3. Brookes, Attorney 22 AOENDA I'~ NO. JAN 2 3 2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished to the following individuals by overnight mail this ~d' :/z_. day of December 2000. (FBN 778362) 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway # 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 941-910-5464 phone 941-945-8480 fax Copies furnished: COLLIER County, Chair, Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples FL 34112 MERIDIAN Land Co. c/o Quarles & Brody 4501 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples FL 34103-3060 24 AGENDA IT~ NO. JAN 2 3 2001 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA I'1~ NO. JAN 2 3 200! .../LFImageDisplay.exe?doc= 10708&page=0&fit= 1 &xlen=640&ylen= 1000&xsourc4=2544&ys, 12/21/00 ?~g¢ 1 o£2 AC~.NDA FfEM JAN 2 3 2001 P~" ~ .../LFImageDisplay. exe?doc= 10708&page= 1 &fit= 1 &xlen=640&ylen= 1000&xsource=2578&ys, l 2/21/00 Page 1 of 2 A PLANNgO U~IT D~V~.LOPMENT 11.BOUT~ AND SL,1PPOJI.TD, I~ )~iIA STI~L PLAN PL,ANI4GD LIl~T ~M~IT P'T.~9~IANT TO ]'RO9 L. A14D DBV'BLOPMENT 5i00 TAM1AMt TIUdL~ trdlT~ 1JI ORD~,IAId~B T4GNI~iL ................. · ~GENDA ~ JAN 2 3 Z001 .../LFImageDisplay.exe?doc= 10708&page=2&fit= 1 &xlen=640&ylen= 1000&xsource=2544&ys,12/21/00 ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 80 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAPS NUMBERED 8524N AND 8513N; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL, "RSF-3" AND "ST" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE MADIERA PUD LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (C.R. 880), APPROXIMATELY 3/4 MILES NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 145.93+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Brad Healrich, P.E., of Hedrich Engineering, Inc., representing Meridian Land Company, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. . .' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commission?rs Collier County, Florida, that: : SECTION ONE: ~:-.. . > The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sect~.~O,~ 13:.'and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agricultural, "RSF-3" and "ST" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Madiera PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atla~ Maps numbered 8524N and 8513N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, ar~ hereby amended accordingly. $EC.T.ION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective Upon filing with the Department orSlate. 2'3 2001 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ~ day of ~ aO.*ton.,~_.~~ ,2000. ATTEST: '.'/5:':. .'.3 ~ '. : ; O~rIO~IT E. BROCK. CLERK '. ~tt~st.:~s,to :.~haJr~ $ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: James D. r~, CI-IAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marj~ie M. Stu~'ent Assistant County Attorney This ordinonce filed with the 5ecr9Iory of Smgle's O~fice the ond acknowledgement Of that filing~4Lceived Ihis/~ doy ot ~ ~ , ~u~ C~ ~ g/admintPUD-OO-O9/SM/im JAN 2 3 2001 MADEIRA A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPSlENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE MADEIRA PUD, A PLANNED UNIT DVELOt'MENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF TtlE COLLIER COUNTY I.AND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: MERIDIAN LAND CO. 10001 TAMIAMI TRIAL NORTtt NAPLES, FL 34108 PREPARED BY: TIM HANCOCK, AICP PLANNING SOLUFIONS, INC. 5100 TANIIAMI ']'RAIL NORTH SUITE 158 NAPLES, FL ;34103 And BRAD tIEDRICH, P.E. HEDRICIt ENGINEERING 10911 BONITA BEACH ROAD SUITE 1021 BONITA SPRINGS, FL .341.35 NOV 3 0 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS & REPEAL "EXHIBIT A" PUD-2000-09 Jul,/20, 2000 -~b~.~.~O~(~ November 28 2000 .{AN 2 3 200~ TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES STAI'EMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SttORT TITLE SECTION I SECTION I1 SECTION 111 SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN COMMON AREAS PRESERVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS page 3 page 4 pages 5 thru 9 pages I0 thru 12 pages 13 thru 15 pages 16 Ihru 17 page 18 pages 19 thru 22 JAN 2 3 2001 pg. -:"~,--:~ LIST OF EXHIBITS AND 'FABLES EXHIBIT A: EXHIBIT B: EXHIBIT C: EXHIBIT D: EXHIBIT E: PUD MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY SURVEY CONCEPTUAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TYPICAL LAKE CROSS SECTION AND TYPICAL PAVEMENT S I~.C'I'1ON ADDITIONAL I.ANDSCAPING DESIGNS ' -A JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. STATEblENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE The Madeira Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisis of +/- 145.37 acres of land located 3/, miles North oflmmokalce P, oad, immediately Wes~ of and a~jacent I(:, l.ivingslon Road in Cnllier Cosrely. Florida. The development oflhis Project will be in compliance with lite planning goals and objectives of Collier COUltJ)~ as sol foflJl ill Ih~ Cottnly's O~owth Managemere Plan. This compliance inckMes: The land is located wholly in the Urban Residential Sub-district or Ihe Urban Mixed Use District as identified on Ihe Future Land Use Map as required in Objective I, Policy 5.1, and Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. The subjecl properly's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits die development's residential densily as reqnired in Objective 2 Grille Fulure I.and Use Element 3. The Project developmenl is compatible widl and complementary to existing and fhture surrounding land uses as req,ircd in Policy 5.4 o£1hc I:umr¢ Land Use ElcmenL The Projecl developmerit will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as reqnired in Policies 3. I.tl and l. oflhe Ful,re Land Use Element. The project is planned to incorporalc natural systems for waier management in accordance with their uatural functions and capabilities as may be required in forflscon',ing regulations required by Objeclive 1.5 oflhe Drainage Sub-element ofttie Public Factlilies Element. The Urban Residential Dislrict allows for a base rcsidenlial density of 4 units per gross acre. The projected density of 3 unils per gross acre is in compliance wills the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. This Projecl is seeking no density bonuses. ?. The Projecl further meets the intent of the Urban Residential Sub-district Ihrough reslricting allowable uses to single family detached, zero lot line and two-family attached dwelling units. All final local development orders for this Project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. AGENDA ITEM NO. JAN 2 3 200! I pg. ,. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1,1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and 1o describe tile existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under tile l:h'qjccl name of Ib¢ Madeira PUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being +/- 1,:15.37 acres. is described as: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTIt, RANGE 25 EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOI~LOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 13, S88°48'25"W 275.05' TO TltE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 487, PAGE 364, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE SOUTtt LINE OF SECTION 13, S88°48'2Y'W 1050.28'TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTItWEST ~/,~ OF THE SOUTHEAST 7., OF SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ',4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 9',~ OF SECTION 13, N00°05'58"W 1344.31', TO TIlE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ~/, OF SECTION 13: THENCE ALONG THE NORTtt LINE OF TIlE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF TIlE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13, S88°52'26"W 1326.34', TO TItE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ~/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG TttE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ~`4 OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 13, S00°09'32"E 1345.82', TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24, S88°43'17W 662.04', TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST */,~ OF THE NORTHWEST ',4 OF THE NORTHEAST '/, OF THE NORTHWEST 1`4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 7,, OF THE NORTHWEST ~,4 OF TIlE NORTHEAST 1`4 OF THE NORTH\VEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, S00°I l'01"E 331.48', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST I/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST ~,4 OF THE NORTHWEST ~/,~ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST *¼ OF THE NORTllWEST '/4 OF TIlE NORTllEAST ~A OF TI IE NORTI IWEST '/4 OF SECTION 24, SW88°45'1 t"E 296.98', TO THE EAST LINE OF Tile WEST 365' OF THE NORTH '/: OF THE NORTIIWEST '/4 OF TIlE NORTI lEAST 'A OF TIIE NORTItWEST ~A OF SECTION 24; AGENDA .rI'F.M JAN 2 3 2(101 THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 365' OF THE NORTH V: OF THE NORTIIWEST % OF THE NORTIIEAST ¼ OF THE NORTItWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N00°I0'55"W 331.32', TO TflE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 24, S88°39'45"W 365.20', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTItEAST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; TtlENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTllEAST 'A OF TIlE NOI{THWEST % OF SECTION 24, AND TIlE WEST LINE OF TIlE SOUTttEAS1' '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, S00°l I'13"E 1654.95', TO TIlE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V2 OF TItE NORTHWEST ¼ OF TIlE SOUTHEAST ~A OF TIlE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG TIlE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH '/, OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°53'00"E 537.58'; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V~ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N01°07'00"W 80.00'; THENCE NS$°53'57"E 250.06'; TIIENCE S01°04'30"E 80.00', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V: OF THE NORTtfEAST 1/, OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST V4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH V2 OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°55'30"E 536.36' TO THE EAST LINE OF TIlE NORTtf I/2 OF TIlE NORTHEAST % OF TIlE SOUTIIEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH V~ OF TIlE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHEAST ~A OF THE NORTHWEST ~A OF SECTION 24, N00°17'I2"W 332.15', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTItWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORIHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, S88°50'52"W 662.05', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH 72 OF TIlE SOUIHEAST V4 OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ~ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH V: OF TIlE SOUTHEAST */4 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N00°I I'01"W 331.48', TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE SOUTttEAST ¼ OF TtIE NORTItEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH tA OF THE SOUTItEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHEAST *A OF TIlE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°48'59"E 662.05', TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTH OF ]'HE SOUTItEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTItEAST % OF THE NORTI IWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24; AGENDA t. , JAN 2 3 2001 pg,. - - TItENCE ALONG TI IE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTtl V2 OF TI IE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST i/4 OF SECTION 24, S00°I I'08"E 166.82', TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 165' OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF SECTION 24; TIIENCE ALONG TIlE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 165' OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST 'A OF THE NORTItEAST V, OF SECTION 24, N88°SY26"E 622.22', TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF TI IE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF TI IE NORTtlWEST ¼ OF THE NORTtlEAST ~A OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG TIlE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTttWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHEAST ~ OF SECTION 24, N00°I0'07"W 20.00', TO A POINT ON SAID LINE; TtIENCE LEAVING TIlE WEST LINE OF 'file SOUTHWEST ¼ OF TItE SOUTitEAST 'A OF TIlE NOF, TtlWEST ¼ OF 'I'IIE NORTIIEAST V, OF SECTION 24, S88°53'26"W 20.00'; THENCE N00°09'09"W 167.07'; TI IENCE N88°54'12"E 60.00'; THENCE S00°10'07"E 20.00', TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF TIlE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ~ OF Tile SOUTHEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°54'I2"E 291.17', TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTtlWEST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOI. JTHWEST ¼ OF TIlE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORT14WEST ¼ OF THE NORTttEAST ¼ OF SECflON 24, S00°07'36"E 331.88', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST '/~ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SEC'FION 24, AND TIlE SOUTtl LINE OF TIlE NORTHEAST ~A OF TttE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N88°53'48"E 1380.$3', TL) THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEME "' R. ECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 460, PAGE 728; THENCE/xL~NG THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 460, PAGE 728, N00°07'O4"W 665.43', TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Va OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTIiEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Va OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, S88°50'56"W 387.33', TO Tile WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH V~ OF THE NORTIiEAST ~A OF TIlE NORTllEAST ¼ OF TIlE NORTIIEAST ',4 OF SECTION 24; AC-,ENDA. ITF. J~ NO. ~ ~/'~ - ]AN 2 3 2001 THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTIt V2 OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF 7'HE NORTHEAST 'A OF 'File NORTIIEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, N00°08'05"W 332.57', TO THI:' NORTH LINE OF TttE SOUTH 'A OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHEAST V4 OF SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE NORTHEAST 5'4 OF TIlE NORTItEAST % OF TIlE NORTttEAST % OF SECTION 24, N88°49'4 I"E 387.43', TO TIlE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FI.ORIDA POWER & LIGIIT EASEMENI', RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 487, PAGE 364; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A 125' WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGIIT EASEMENT, RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 487, PAGE 364, N00°07'04"W 332.72', TO THE PO1NT OF BEGINNING. LESS THE SOUTH V2 OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTIIWEST ~A OF TIlE NORTtlEAST V,, OF SECTION 24, TOWNSItIP 48 SOUTH, 1La. NGE 25 EAST. CONTAINING 145.37 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 1.4 1.5 PROPERTY O~,VNERSI!IP The subjoel properly is currently under the ov, nership of or under contract for purchase to: Meridian Land Co. 10001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34108 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA A. The Project site includes portions of $ections13 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Generally, the Project is located immediately adjacent to and West of Livingston Road, approximately 54 miles Nmlh of Immokalee Road. The zoning classification of the subject properly prior to Ihe date of/his approved PUD document was A - Agriculture and RSF-3. ptt¥sic.^b D£SCRIpTION The project site is located within the South Florida Waler Management District Cocohatchee River Basin. The site, along witl] several offsitc drainage basins, currently drains to a main ohsitc wetland slough which then drains to the west to an offsite wetland slough which then outfalls to Palin River via twin 36" pipes. Pahn River then outfalls to the Cocohalchee River. The Cocohatchee River Basin typically has a discharge rate of 0.04 els/acre (cubic feet per second per acre), but in this particular area, a detailed drainage study is being conducted by a consullant for Collier County that will most likely suggest a discharge AGENDA JAN 2 3 2001 tale of 0.03 cfs/acre due Io tile overtaxed downstream drainage system. The master storm water management system will consisl of a combination of OhSire detention lakes, drainage conveyance systems, and conlrol structures with bleed down pipes and overflow weirs to detain slorm water and achieve tile reduced discharge rate, The masler storm water managemenl system will outfall to tile onsile wetland slough that in turn outfalls to offsite v, etlands to tile wesl and then to the Pahn River Canal. A majority ofthe elevations within the project range from 10 feet to 13 feet NGVD with smaller eXll'¢llle cases ofclevations ranging fi'onl 6 leer Io 18 feet NGVD. Bused on aa iniliul gcOlcchnical slndy oflhc area, u Ihick bedrock layer staris at approximately 10 to 12 l~et below existing grouod. The cnli~c site is ia Flood Zone X according to lhc FIRM Map that means dial flooding only occurs during the 500-year flood. The closest 100- year Good zone is located to Ihc west of the site, which is flood zone AE I I (Elev. I 1.0 feet NGVD) A description of soil lypes found in the area. II - ilallandale fine ~and (From NRCS data) The soils of the Hallandale Series are siliceous, hypolhermic Lithie Psammaquents. They are shallow, poorly drained, moderately Io rapidly permeable soils tl]at formed in Ihin beds of sandy marine sedimeal over limeslone. These nearly level soils are in flatwoods and in sloughs and poorly defined drainage-ways. Slopes range ~om 0 to 2 percent. (The NRCS does no~ classify this series as hydric.) 18- Riviera fine sand, lime,Ion, substratum This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in sloughs and broad, poorly defined drainageways. Individual areas are elongaled and irregular in shape. Slope is 0 to 2 percent. 25- Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum, and Copeland fine lands, depressional These level, ve~ poorly drained soils are in depressions, cypress swamps and marshes. h]dividual areas are elongated and irregular in sl~ape. Slope is 0 m I percem. 1.6 i.7 P. PROJECT DESCRIPTI.O.N. The Madeira PUD is a residential community that provides low-density development in an area permilted for up to 4 units per acre base density. Tile project will be a gered access corninanity with recreational facilities provided for the use and enjoyment of residents. The most notable feature of the development is the presence and preservation of a wetland slough that moves through the project, Crossings are'minimized by Ihe proposed plan of development while preserving the nalural sheet flow oflhe slough. The imporlance of the slough is of significance ill bolll enviromnental and surface drainage areas, The community will consist of up to 436 single family, zero lot line and lwo- fanlily attached dwelling units upon completion. This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Madeira Planned' Unit Development OJ'dinance." JAN 2 3 2001 SECTION i! PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 2.2 2.3 PURPOSE 'rile purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the pro.]eel plan of development, relationships to applicabl~: County ordinances, and the respective land uses of the Iraels included in tile project, as well as other project relationships. GENERAL Regulations for tile development oftl~e Madeira PUD sitall be in accordance with tile conteals of this document, Planned Unit Developnlent District and olher applicable sections and parts oflhe Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards Ihen It~e provisions of the most similar dislricl in the Courtly Land Development Code shall apply. Unless otherwise holed, tile definitions of all terms shall be the same as tile definitions tel forlh in tile Collier Counly l,and Development Code in et'l~.ct at th" lime of baildinE perrail application All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Madeira PUD shall become part of the regulations, ~¥hich govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code where applicable, remain in full force and effect wifi~ respect IO tile developmeal of the land, v, hich comprises this PUD. Development permitted by the approval ellhis petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3. I,S, Adequate Public Facilities at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. ~..ESCI~IPT[ON OF PROJECT pLAN .AND PROPOSED LAND USES The Project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for tile various tracts, is iljustrated graphically by Exhibit "A," PUD Master Development Plan. Tilere shall be 9 residential land use Iraels plus necessat3, water management lakes, street rights-of-way, tile general configuration of which is also iljustrated by Exhibit Jill 2.4 2.5 TRACT (S) TYpE OF DEVELOPMENT UNITS .A .CREAG E R I thru R9 Single fanlily, zero Iol line and two-family nilached 436 80.29 ac CR Common area and Recreation na 5.90 ac P Preservation na 31.68 ac Lakes na na 19.92 ac Roads Righis-of-way na 5.76 ac TOTAl. 436 145.37 ac Areas iljustraled as lakes by Exhibit "A' shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts lhereofmay be construeled as shallow, mlermitlent wet and dry depressions for water reteutiou purposes. Such areas, lakes and intemfittent and dry mess shall be in the same general configuration and contain die same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A." Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other inlerior boundaries may be permitted at die time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan approval, subject Io die provisions of applicable sections of tile Collier County Laud Development Code or as otherwise permilled by this PUD document. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A," such easemeals, as necessary (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along lhe various Tracts as may be necessary. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USE A maximum of 436 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the total project area. The gross project area is +/- 145.37 acres. The gross projecl density, therefore,. dl be a maximum of 3 units per acre. RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, and/or Condominium Plat for all or pan of the PUD, final plans of all required improvemeals shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with Ihe PUD Master Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code and the platting laws oflhe State of Florida. Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent Io or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat if applicable, shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. Any division of properly and the development of the land shall be in compliance wills Division 3.2 of tile Collier County Land Development Code, and Ihe platting laws ofthe Stale off Florida. The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, when applicable, shall lipply to tht: development ul'ull platted trilcts, fir purc~2l!i AG . IDA JAN 2 3 2001 2.6 2.? 2.8 of land as provided in said Division in effect prior to Ibe issuauce of a building perrail or olber developmeal order. The development of any tract or parcel approved for residential development contemplating fee simple ownership of laud for each dwelling unit shall be req.ired to s,bmil and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plal in conformance with Ibe requiremeals of Division 3.2 oflhe Collier County Land Developrecur Code in effect prior to the subinitial of construcliou plaits and a Ihv,I plat for an), portion of die .act or parcel. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding any dedicalions and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. MODEL HOMES AND SALES FACILITIES Model homes/model home centers including sales centers shall be permitted in conjmlction wilh Ihe promotiou of Ihe development subject to the following: One "wet" and 3 "dry" models may be conslructcd prior Io recording of a plat for each residential project or phase. Location is liralied to fiiture, platted lots. The Project owner mast apply lbr lemporary use permits for all models. Tile models permitted as "dr)'" models must obtain a conditional certificate of occupancy for model proposes only. The "wet" model may not be occupied until a permanent cerlificate of occupancy is issued The "wet" model may be served by a temporary utility system with ultimate cooneclion to tile central system, Interior fire protection facilities ill accordance wilh NFPA requiremeuls are required unless a permanent water system is available. A water managemeal plan must be provided which accommodates the iHrloff riOIll tile model home, parking, access road/driveway and other impervious surfaces, Tile system shall be designed and constructed so that it is integrated v,'itll tile master s).stem for tile entire development. All other regulations pertaining to model homes shall be consistent with applicable Sections oflhe LDC. AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.7.3.5. ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTy OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Wilenever tile developer elects to creole land area and/or recreation amenities whose ownership and tnaintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of property within said development in which the common luterest is located, tha~ developer entity shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners' Association whose function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facililies and open space subject furlher to tile provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. AGENDA 3.1 .3.2 3.3 5.4 SECTION III LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN PUI.IPO.SE Tile purpose oflhis Section is Io idenlify specific development standards for areas design.',led on Exhibil "A" as Tracls RI, R2, R3, g4, RS, R6, R7, R8 and R9, Low Dcnsily Residemini. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of low-density residential units allowed wilhin Ihe PUD shall be us follows: Tracts R I through R9 = 436 unils. USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or pan thereoF, shall be ereclod, allercd or nsed, or land used, in whole of part, for olber Illall Ih¢ following: A. Principal Uses: I. Single Family Dwelling Unit 2. Zero Lot Line Detached Unit 3. T~,.-Family Attached Unit The cjustering or grouping of housing structure lypes identified in Section 3.3 of this ciocumenl may be permitted on parcels of land under nnified ownership, or as me) be oilierwise provided in tl~e Collier County Land Development Code, subject timher to the provisions of Division 3.3 of tile Collier County Land Developmum Cod,.: and '1 able I of this docuine~ll. B. Accessory Uses: Customary Accessory uses and struclures, including private garages. May include common recreation amenities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, clubhouse facilities, fitness centers, playgrounds, basketball courts, boardwalks, and similar passive and active recreational facilities. PFVELOPM ENT $TAN pARDS A. General: All yards and setbacks shall be in relation to tile individual parcel boundaries, except as otherwise pro,, ideal. B. Front Yard Setbacks (measurcmenl); Front yard setbacks shall be measured as folioas: AGENDA : NO. JAN 2 3 2001 I. If the parcel is served direclly and is immediately adjacenl to a public right- of- way, Ihe selback will be measured from tile right of way line. 2, Iflhe parcel is served by a non-platted, private drive, the setback will be measured fi'om the back of crab or edge of pavement, 3. If the parcel is served by a platted. private drive, Ihe setback is measured flora lit road casement or p~operly line. 4. Principal buildings shall be set back a distance sufficient to provide for two back-to-buck parking spaces withoul encroaching into required setbacks, one of which inay be an enclosed space, the olher of which shall be of sufficient length not to cause all automobile [o encroach into a sidewalk. TABLE I Single Family D,U. Zero Lot Lme D,U. 2-Family Attached D.U, Min. Lot Area: 6,000 sq. fl. 6,000 sq. ft, 5,000 sq. fl. per de. Min. Lot Width: Interior Lots: 50 feet 50 feel 40 feet min. per d.u. Cornet' Lots: 55 feel 55 feet 85 feet Mininmm Yards: Front Yard: 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side Yard: 6 feet 0 and 12 feet 7.5 feet Rear Yard: 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet AccessoD Structure: Swimming Pool: I0 ft. rear 10 fl. rear I0 fl. rear Tennis Courts: 15 fl. rear 15 ft. rear 15fl. rear Screen Porch: 10 fi. rear 10 fl. rear 10 fl. )'ear blia. Floor Area: One StuD': 1,000 ft. 1,000 feet 1,800 Ii. Two Slory: 1,200 fl. 1,200 libel. 2,000 fi. Max. Iteight: Principal Structures: 35 feel 35 feet 35 feet Accessory Structures: 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum offstreet parking: Minimum Landscaping: as required in Section 2.3 of the Land Development Code. Where residential uses inlernal to the PUD dircclly abul built or zoned residential uses external Io Ibc PUD, the following landscaping plan shall apply: A minimum buffer strip of 10' in width shall be planted with code minimum can'opy trees on 20' centers with a double row hedge Ihat is 2 to 3 feet in height at tile time ofplanling. Such buffer shall be designed to achieve 60% opacity within one year of planting and 80°A opacity within 2 years of planting. Additional landscaping shall be in accordance with Exhibit 'E' as attached. AC ._NDA NO. JAN 2 3 2001 Pg, The balance of the landscaping and buf£¢ring in the dewlopmenl shall be consistenl with Division 2.4 of the LDC where applicable. The localion of structures proposed adjacenl to Preserve areas shall be subject 1o lhe provisions of Section 3.2,8.4.7.3. oflhe Land Development Code. Principal structures shall have a minimum 25- foot selback from wetland preserves, Accessory SlrUCtUres shall have a minimum 10-foot setback from wetland preserves. .JAN 2 3 2001 Pg.- i -- 4.1 4.2 4.3 SECTION IV COMMON AREAS PLAN PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plans and development stand;,rds for Ihe area(s) designsled as Tracts CR, Common Area/Recreation on the PIJD Master Development Plan, Exhibit "A." The primary timelion and purpose of these Iraels will be to provide aeslhelically pleasing open a~eas and recreational opportunities for residents except in areas to be used for water impoundment and principal or accessory use areas, all natural trees and olher vegelalion as practicable shall be pro{cried and preserved. USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, nilered or used, or land used in whole or in pall, Ibr udder than Ihe following: A. Principal Uses: I. Lakes Open Spaces / Preserve Areas Pedestrian and bicycle paths or boardwalks constructed lbr purposes of access 1o or passage through Ihe common areas and preserves. Small docks, piers or other such facilities constructed for purposes of lake recreation for residents of the project. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation. Clubhouse with meeting rooms, card rooms and general-purpose areas for residents of the Project. B. Accessory uses: Small docks, enclosures or other structures constructed for tim purposes of maintenance. storage, recreation or sheller with appropriate screening and landscaping. DEVELOPI~IENT REGULATIONS Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure for structures, location of access streets and parking areas and location and treatment of buffer areas. Buildings shall be set back a minimum of fifty feet abutting an external residenlial district and a landscaped and maintained bufli:t' shall be provided. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner, which will protect roadways and neighboring properlies form direct glare or other interference. AGFJqDA~ NO. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 Maximum Hei§ht: t, Principal Structure: 35 feel 2. Accessory Structure: 25 feet Minimum Off Street Parking: As required by Division 2.3 of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of buildting permit application. 5,1 5.2 SECTION V PRESERVE AREAS PURPOSE Preserve Area (P) - The purpose is 1o preserve and protcci native vegetation, naturally [LmctioHiJ~g habilal and lima-way5 in their nalLuaI 5111l¢ USES PERMITTED No building or strutlure ofparl lhereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in ~'hole or in pan, for other than die following, subje. ct 1o regional, state and federal permits when required: A. Principal Uses: I. Open Spaces / Nalure Preserves 2. Boardwalks subject to appropriate approvals by pemfiuing agencies, 3. Roadway crossings as noted on Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan. iAGENDA [Pt. · JAN 2 3 2001 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 SECTION V! DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE The purpose of this Seelion is IO set forlh Ihe development commitments for lhe developmenl of the project. GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plats and all applicable Slate and local laws, codes and regulations applicable to Ihe PUD. Except where specifically holed or slated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Division 3.2 of the Land Development Code shall apply to this Prqjecl even iflhe land within the PUD is not to be plalled. l'he developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in lilts document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall tbllow Ibe Masler Plan and the regulalions of Ihc PUD as adopted, and any other condilions or modilicatious as may be agreed Io in the rezoning of the property. In addilion, any successor or assignee in title of the developer is subjecl Io the commilmems within Ibis agreement, PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan iljustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nalure, Proposed tract, lot and land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase s~,lch as final platling or site development plan application. Subject 1o the provisions of Section 2.7,3,5 of the Land Development Code, amendme.rs may be made from time to time. All necessary easements, dedications, or othm instruments sitall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in all common areas in the project. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT / MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET [PROVISION The project is proposed to start construction of infi'astructure in 2001, Model homes construclion will commence in 2001/2002 with build-ont cslimaled at .seven to len years. The PUD shall be subject to Ihe Sunset Proviz:ions of Section 2.7.3,4 of the Land Development Code. Recreational facilities to include at a minimum, one clubhouse facility, two lennis courts and a swimming pool will be completed prior to 50% completion of the project. An annual monitoring report shall be sobmitred pursnanl Io Se. ction 2,7,3.6 of the Collier Courtly Land Developmenl Code. A(~ENDA~ NO. . JAN 2 3 2001 6.5 6.6 6.7 SUi}STITUTION TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Street right-of-way (Seelion 3,2.8.4.16.5 of the Land Development Code): Roads witliin tile Project will be designed and built as private roads witll no mainlenance responsibilily by Collier Coltory, These roads shall have a minimLan right-of-way of 50 feet and pavement width sllall be a minimum of 12 fee[ for one-way traffic and 24 feet for Iwo-way traffic. Minimum Distance for righi-of-way froin Lakes (Seelion 3.5.7.1.2 ofttie LDC): hnernal Roads that run parallel Io water management lakes or detention areas shall be allowed a setback of less than 50 feet from the top of bank or control ele,,alion, whichever in grealer. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet unless appropriate justification can be shown through the use of walls or guardrails to reduce Ihc setback to as liltle as 5 feet. All conslruction traffic for development of Ihe project shall access the site from LivingsIon Road TRANSPORTATION All accesses and roadways not located within County righi-of-way will be privately maintained by an entity created by the project developer or his assigns. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance wilh Ihe Collier Coumy Impact Fee Ordinance in effecl at tile time of building permit issuance, tinless olherwise approved by the Board of Cmnmissiouers. Primary access to the sile shall be from Livingston Road and shall be located to line up whh ;he access for the Carbon Lakes PUD. Such access shall be consistent with the County's Access Management Plan for the Livb~gston Road corridor. The developer shall reserve a 60' easemenl for future right-of-way along tile northernmost portion oflhe project that lines up with Ihe North property line of hnperial Phase V (as shown on the PUD Master Plan.) Any required landscape buffer for the development shall be located outside the limits of said reservation. If the County requests dedication, the dedication shall occur pursuant to Section 2.2.20.3.7 of the Land Development Code, with the single exception lhal no impact fee credits may resull li'on~ this specific dedication. In accordance wilh the Rules of the Soulh Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 40E-d0. this project shall be designed for a storm event of3-day dnralion and 25 year relun~ fiequency and shall be reviewed and permitted by tile SFWMD. Before any development construction perinits are issued, the developer's engineeriag consultant shall perform detailed field topographic surveys including cross-sections, a flow-way evalualion and a hydrologic / hydraulic compnter water surlhce profile modeling study. That sludy should conclude that Illere will be no significant adverse impacts on the surrounding properties cansed by the ingtallation of the proposed control structure wilh overflow weir and filling within Ihe hisloric low lying wetland slough. Said analysis shall be 6.8 6.9 6.10 6,11 reviewed and approved by the SFWMD and Collier County Engineering Review Sesviccs Staff. ,t The wetland slough shall be improved and mainlathed in perpetuity by removal of exotic plants and fallen debris that would signilicanlly restrict storm waler How in the slough. The petitioner shall obtain a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District prior to any site development plan approval, The developer shall obtain a letter from the Collier County Director of Slormwalcr Ma,~agement stating thai the drainage system conforms to local drainage or basin studies being conducted by the dcparhnent. This letter shall be obtained prior to applying for any Site Development Plan. UTILITIES Courtly waler and sewer is available wilhin Ihe Right-of-Way of Livingston Road All facilities extended to the site and which lie in platted rights-of-way shall be owned and mainlathed by the Collier County Water/Sewer District. The factlilies. whether owned by the District or privately owned, shall be reviewed and installed in accordance with the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17 and all federal, state and other existi,~g rules and regulations. ENGINEERING If lhe property is subdivided into two or more parcels, a plat shall be required. Work within Collier County rights-of-way shall meet the requirements of County Right-of Way Ordinance No. 93-64 ENVIRONMENTAL In accordance wilh Section 3.9.5.5,3. of tile Collier County Land Development Code, twenly-five percent (31,70 acres) of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site shall be retained and/or areas of landscaping and open space to be planted with 100 percent native species, to satisfy lhis requirement. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Section Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/conslruction plan approval. This plan shall include methods and time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservatio./preservation areas, C. Necessary permits fi'om the Dcparlmcnt of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained prior to starting construction. ~ANDSCAPING FOR OFF STR ,EET AREAS All landscaping for off-street parkit~g areas shall be in accordance wilh the Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Developmen! Code in efl~:ct at Ihc lin~,c of building permit applicalion except wt~csc ott~¢r~ is" noted ii~i this d~.~cumcnl. 6.12 6.13 I~OLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 of the Land Development Code, provisions shall be made for the fullire use of a building within the common area of tile Project for Ihe purpose of accmnmodaling an electoral polling place. An agreement recorded in tile official records of lhe Clerk of tile Circuit Court of Collier County. which sl~all be binding on any and all successor owners in imer¢st Illat acquire ov,'nership orsrich coinilion aleas includiog, bul nol limited Io, condomini,.ml associations, and homeowners associalions. This agreemere shall provide Ibr a common space sufficient in size IO meet Ihe needs of tile Supervisor of Elections in providing space for electors residing within the development. !11STORICAL / ARC!tAEOLOGICAL If during tile course of site clearing, excavation or other conslruction activity, a Instin ic or archncological artifacl is fore,d, all development within the nfinimmn area necessary to protect the discovery shall be. immcdintcly slopped and the Collier Counly Code Enforcement Dcpartnlenl contacted as rioted in Seelion 2.2.25.8. I ofttie Land Developmenl Code. 6.14 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS This PUD provides recreational amenities for the benefit of tile residehis that live within Ihe projecl. These liicililies will include a pool, lennis and basketball corals, pla)'ground equipment, boardwalks and similar recreational arecollies t0r the use of residents. The developer recognizes that Collier County has placed a high priority on the creation of neighborhood-scaled parks. Prior to 50% build-out of tile project and upon lhe complelion of an acceplable hnpact fee credit agreement, the developer agrees to provide the follo~,ing to Collier Counly: Within the project, the developer shall dedicate a minimum of one (1) acre of property to Collier County for the development of a neighborhood park which is accessible by the general public. The dedication shall occur pursuant to Section 2.2.20.3.7 of the Land Development Code, but in any case shall occur no later than prior to the first issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. .JAN 2 3 2001 ~vq NO. __~j.~.Z, . _ JAN 2 3 2001 pj~. '~ ~ --) EXHIBIT B JAN 2 3 2001 ',~', !11', l AGENDA ~ NO._ ~rr~.~ JAN 2 3 2001 (-,) (-' ~ .J il AGENDA ITEi~ NO. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 EXHIBIT D i LAKE TYPICAL SECTION AGENDA I'T'EN JAN 2 3 20[ Sect on ~:xblbll ! Madeira R¢)ldenllal / Oft*Site Reslclenlial Plop Collier Count/Lmnds:ape Buffer T~c A ~inlmum I Trcc Pc~ 30 Linear Feet l~ ¥A_NASSE & DAYLOR, LLP Suite RO,5 AGENDA I ~T~. ~M~ NO. ~ "" 2 3 2001 IExhlblI ~ $ecHon ~.T~$~ Treet Gumbo Limbo / [,~h!bll 2 Collier County Landscape Buff¢~ Type A Minimum I Trcc Per 30 LF (Provided 1 Tree per 20 LF,I AGF..NDA~ITF~M ~o. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 Hedrlch Engineering, In= $h rubs I'TvD.) ~ · J~:~bll:)J( 3 J~adelr~ Lane ! O(F~it~ ~eslden(iql Plpn ~'.T.S. Col,tier County Landscape ~utTer T.~?e A Minimum I Tree Per 30 LF (i~/o~idcd I Ttcc per 20 LF) ~=7o co~q, ~.r~.~ Hedrlch Engineering Inc suit, eo~, Bo~ito Springs, Flor/do NO. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER(S) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OBJECTIVE: To appoint 2 members to serve 3 year terms, expiring on February 14, 2004 on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CONSIDERATIONS: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board has 2 terms expiring on February 14, 2001. This 7 member board, plus 2 alternate members, is composed of, but not limited to, individuals representing the occupations of architect, businessman, engineer, general contractor, subcontractor and Realtor and are considered, in part, on the basis of experience or interest in the areas of the codes and ordinances to be enforced. Members are required to file a Form 1 Statement of Financial Interest each year with the Supervisor of Elections. Terms are 3 years. A list of the current membership is included in the backup. Ms. Roberta Dusek and Mr. Clifford Wesley Flegal, Jr. terms will expire on February 14, 2001. A press release was issued and resumes were received from the following 7 interested citizens: APPLICANT CATEGORY DIST ELECTOR ADV. COMM. Kathleen Curatolo Citizen 2 Yes Productivity Committee Robert R. Beaudry Engineer 3 Yes Robert Pahl Architect 3 Yes Nancy Bisbee Citizen 5 Yes Robert J. Livingston Engineer 2 Yes Roberta Dusek - reappt Realtor 3 Yes Code Enforcement Clifford Wesley Flegal, Jr.'Realtor 1 Yes Code Enforcement Reappt Public Vehicle COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Quasi Judicial - no recommendation FISCAL IMPACT: NONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the requests for appointment, appoint 2 members and direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution confirming the appointments. Prepared By: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Agenda Date: JANUARY 23, 2001 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Director~ · / ,~ Michelle E. Arnold, Code Enforcement ' ~(~. ~( January 04, 2001 Candidates for Code Enforcement Board Vacancy The resumes for the applicants listed below were reviewed and these meet the Code Enforcement Board Ordinance No. 92-80, general classification requirements in the following categories: NAME CATEGORY Kathleen Curatolo Robert R. Beaudry Robert Pahl Nancy Bisbee Robert J. Livingston Roberta Dusek Clifford W. Flegal, Jr. Citizen Engineer Architect Citizen Engineer Realtor - Current Member Realtor - Current Member If you need further assistance, please advise. MEA/mc Code Enforcement Department ....... Community Development & Environmental Services Division Collier County Code Enforcement Board - North Name Peter Lehmann 67 Johnny Cake Drive Naples, FL 34110 District: 5 Category: REGULAR - Engineer Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateRe-appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term ~--o~:83-r~/10/06/9802/14/00 2 Years f~ ~-. ~.~11/23/99 02/14/03 3 Years Roberta Dusek 963 Fountain Run Naples, FL 34119 District: 3 Category: Realtor 774-2428 02/10/98 2 Years 261-1111 07/28/98 02/14/01 3 Years Kathryn M. Godfrey 630 18th Avenue, N.E. Naples, FL 34120 District: 5 Category: ALTERNATE - Business 436-5151 11/23/99 02/14/02 2 Years 348-9645 Don W. Kincaid 314 Torrey Pines Pt. Naples, FL 34113 District: 1 Category: Citizen 775-2019 01/25/00 02/14/03 3 Years Clifford Wesley Flegal, Jr. P.O. Box 2663 Naples, FL 34106 District: 1 Category: REGULAR/Realtor 06/03/97 3 Years 774-9674 02/10/98 02/14/01 3 Years Rhona E. Saunders 3770 Parkview Way Naples, FL 34103 District: 4 Category: Realtor/Business 434-9230 02/23/99 02/14/02 3 Years Collier County Code Enforcement Board - North Name Work Phone ~4ppt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phone DateRe-appt 2ndExpDate 2rid Term Dan'in M. Phillips 641 Jacana Circle Naples, FL 34120 District: 4 Category: ALTERNATE - Attorney 262-7748 11/23/99 02/14/00 3 Mos. 11/23/99 02/14/03 3 Years George P. Ponte 565 Augusta Boulevard, Apt. 10 Naples, FL 34113 District: 1 Category: Retired CBS Employee 02/18/97 02/14/00 3 Years 793-1370 01/25/00 02/14/03 3 Years Diane Taylor 3760 Golden Gate Blvd, E. Naples, FL 34120 District: 5 Category: REGULAR - Civic Assoc. 02/23/99 02/14/01 2 Years 353-9444 11/23/99 02/14/02 ..~ Year This 7 member board was created pursuant to Chapter 162 of the FL Stat. by Ordinance 88-89 and is composed of, but not limited to, individuals represenl~ng the occupations of architect, businessman, engineer, general contractor, subcontractor and Realtor and are considered, in part, on the basis of experience or interest in the areas of the codes and ordinances to be enforced. Members are required to file a Form I Statement of Financial Interest each year with the Supervisor of Elections. Terms are 3 years. This is a Quasi Judicial Board. Two alternate members were approved by Ord. 96-78 on 12/3/96. FLSTAT: 162 Staff: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director:: 403-2413 Wednesday, January 26, 2000 Page 2 of 2 ~ AGENDA ITEI~ MEMORANDUM DATE: December 27, 2000 TO: FROM: Vinell Hills, Elections Office Sue Ffison, Adnumstrat~ve Assistant/, Board of County Commissioners Voter Registration - Advisory Board Appointments The Board of County Commissioners will soon consider the following individuals for appointment to one of the county's advisory committees. Please let me know if those listed below are registered voters in Collier Count),. Also, please list the commission district in which each applicant resides. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD COMMISSION DISTRICT Kathleen Curatolo 7649 San Sebastian Way Naples, FL 34109 Robert R. Beaudry 2640 White Cedar Lane Naples, FL 34109 Robert Pahl 2501 Sailors Way ~ ~3~ O Naples, FL 34109 ,) Nancy Bisbee 2400 White Blvd L ~,/- ) Naples, FL 34117 I Robert J. Livingston 312 Chancery Circle Naples, FL 34110 Roberta Dusek 963 Fountain Run I~?'57 Naples, FL 34119 3 Clifford Wesley Flegal, Jr.¢' :/? 6590 Beach Resort Drive, #2 d Naples, FL 34114 ~57Z ~J Thank you for your help. MEMORANDUM DATE: December 27, 2000 TO: FROM: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Sue Filson, Administrative Ass' x.kst~.`- Board of County Commissioners'X(,./~ / Code Enforcement Board As you know, we currently have vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit a resume for consideration. I have attached the resumes received for your review as follows: Kathleen Curatolo 7649 San Sebastian Way Naples, FL 34109 Robert R. Beaudry 2640 White Cedar Lane Naples, FL 34109 Robert Pahl 2501 Sailors Way Naples, FL 34109 Nancy Bisbee 2400 White Blvd Naples, FL 34117 Robert J. Livingston 312 Chancery Circle Naples, FL 34110 Roberta Dusek 963 Fountain Run Naples, FL 34119 Clifford Wesley Flegal, Jr. 6590 Beach Resort Drive, #2 Naples, FL 34114 Please let me know, in writing within the 41 day time-flame, if the applicants are qualified to serve as members on the board, and I will prepare an executive stuntomy for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 774-8097. A C-. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -~:~ A iTEM Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments FRO~ : PHONE NO. : Jun. 06 2000 06:~PM P1 December 19, 2000 Mrs. Sue Fielson Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Dear Mrs. Fieison, I am interested in applying for a position on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. Attached for review, please find a copy of my resume. Should you require further information, please feel free to contact me dudng the day at 594-8847 or, in the evening, at 514-2172. , Wishing you a happy and healthy holiday season. enclosure C:word/¢_~c_ndeenforceltr FROM : PHONE NO. : Jun. ~ 2000 06:26PM P2 KATHLEEN CURATOLO 7649 San Sebastian Way Naples, Florida 34109 Home: (941) 514-2172 OfFice: (941) 594-8847 Fax: (941) 5t4-2152 E-mail: kacuratolo~prodigy. net PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ..,.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1998-present American Specialty Contractors of Florida Coordinator: Masonry Association of Florida, SW Chapter Naples, Florida Responsibilities: Foster and promote professionalism and ethical business pra~fices among members. Develop educational and social activities. Monitor legislative issues. Includes resource development, Personnel management, proposal writing, volunteer coordination, membership solicif=afion. Manage Masonry apprenticeship program and related legislative affairs. EX~E_ C__ U TI VE DIRECTOR 1987-1997 Niagara Frontier Industry Education Council Buffalo, New York Responsibilities: To foster. promote, research and initiate par~ership activities between business, industry, government, and education throughou~ the WNY region. Includes resource development, personnel managemerit, proposal writing, volunteer coordination, membership solicitation. Directing programs/services such as community forum meetings, a regional career fair, maintaining a resource bank of research malarial for use by members, and consulting services assisting members develop partnership initiatives. EDUCATION M.A. in English, $UNY College at Buffalo, New York 8.A. in English, Deemen College, Buffalo, New York 1984 1974 Additional Training: Leadership .Buffalo: Professional Development: Class of 2000 Class of 1993 i.D.E.A. Facilltetor Training Ciaburri Training for Shared Decision Making Creating Quality Cultures Facilitating Change Collaborefively Shared Decision Making in an Organizational Context Total Quali~ Management ?~_.~ .... FROM : PHONE NO. : Jun. 06 ~ 06:26PM P~ K. Curerolo Resume p. 2 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Instructor-. State Gert~l~ Continuing Education Course in Quality Management Principles for Construction Industry ~ Pro~ssor, Edison Community College Department ~ English Adjunct Pl~feseor. Canisius College School of EducaUon and Human Sewices .Instructor, Niagara Community College Depa, b~ent of English ~d_lu. nct Professor, Deemen College Oepaf b.ent of Cooperative Education jlnstructor, Bryant &Stratten Business Institute Women in Business. Veterans' Outreach Program 1999.present 1998 1990-1995 1986 1984-t 986 1979-1983 COMMUNITY SERVICE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AAUW, Naples Chapter, Scholarship Committee Amherst Chamber of Commerce Community Advisory Council, SUNY Buffalo EPIC (Effective Parenting Information for Children) Greater Buffalo Community Quality Council 1998-present 1992-1994 1989-1997 1992-1994 1994-1997 CHAIRPER~;ON Amherst Chamber, Quality of Life Committee EPIC, Personnel Committee Leadership Buffalo, Education committee (Co-chair) Resource Allocation Committee, Amherst School District Western New York Women in Administration: 1992-1994 1993-1994 1993 1992 1991-1994 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS. American Association of University Women 1998-present Tempo, Naples Chapter 1999-present Mentow Big Brothers/Big Sisters of collier County REFERENCES PROVIDED UPON REQUEST.~ .... ;! AGENDA i'rF_~ ~EC-21-00 THU 10:26 AM BOBzLIHDA ~EAUDRY 941 514 24?2 ROBERT tL BEAUDRY 2640 White Cedar Lane Naples, Florida 34109 Tel (941) 514-2472 December 21, 2000 Sue Wilson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners 3301 U.S,41 East Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Ms. Wilson: I am submitting my resume for your consideration in filling any vacancies on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, I have had substantial work experience working with r~l-t, MO., MN. N.Y., MA., ME., AND RI Since my retkement from the USDOT i~ 1995, I have been a permanent resident of Naples. I am especially interested in Code and Ordinance enforcement and believe that my background in highway construction and contract administration would be of value to Collier County's activity in this area. I appreciate any consideration you may give to my application. Very~truly yours, _ RleSUMI OF: ROBERT R. BEAUDRY PERMANENT HOME ADDRESS: 2640 White Cedar Lane, Naples, FL 34109 TELEPHONE: (941) 514 2472 CURRENT WORK POSITION: Retired EDUCATION: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, BS in civil Engineering University of Southern California Environmental Management Institute Indiana/Purdue University AASHTO Management Institute PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION: Massachusetts, PE, Civil Engr. #30841 Minnesota, PE, civil Engr. ~8620 Ret. New York, PE, Civil Engr. #051498 Ret. WORKING EXPERIENCE: 35 years with USDOT, Federal Highway Administration in various locations and engineering and administrative positions from project engineer to managing State-Federal Aid programs up to $140 million. PERSONAL INTERESTS: I am married with two children, none living at home. My hobbies are golf, woodworking, fishing, and bicycling. I am Vice-chair of Transportation of the Naples LPGA Golf Tournament, wa~ the Vice-chair of Transportation for the Naples Father/Son Golf Tournament in 1999. ARCHITECT Robert Pahl, AIA Emed!~s 3227 $. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Voice/FAX 941-213-g265 Fla. Reg. AR6502 December 13, 2000 Collier County Government Collier County Code Enforcement Board 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Attn: Ms. Sue Filson Dear Ms. Filson: This submittal is for the purpose of being considered for an appointment to the code enforcement committee. I have lived and worked in Collier County since 1972. I was co-chairman of the ad hoc committee zomng section for the proposed original Land Development Code adopted in 1991. This service gave me considerable insight as to zoning issues as well as many years of working with the zoning code as a professional. Many hours were spem on the LDC over a period of 3 months preparing for scheduled meetings, attending public meetings for citizen input and administrative matters for the committee. Enclosed is my resume for consideration. Thank you. Very truly yours, Robert Pahl Enc '~ ARCHITECT ****** R F', $ U M E ****** Robert Pahl, AIA Emedtus 3227 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Voice: (941) 213-9265 Fax: (941) 213-9265 Florida Reg. No. AR 6502 CERTIFICATIONS Florida Architectural Registration Ohio Architectural Registration National Council of Architectural Registration Board Florida State Building Conil'actofs License Commercial Pilot's Rating Certification No. AR6502 Certification No. 2985 (inactive) Certification No. 13926 (inactive) Certification No. CBO 17943 (inactive) Certification No. 1853726 (inactive) HONORS American Institute of Architect's Medal Certificate of Merit from the Architect's Society of Ohio Scholarship from Joseph N. Bradford Memorial Fund Elk of the year award - BPOE 2010 A residence featured in the Better Homes & Gardens magazine PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS The American Institute of Architects Emeritus member Past president of Florida Southwest Chapter Past State Director Chairman of Publication Committee Charter member of Collier Building Industry Association (inactive) Southern Building Congress International (inactive) Co-chairman of the Zoning Section Subcommittee of the Collier County Proposed Unified Land Development Code ad hoc committee EXPERIENCES Served eight years active and reserve military duty with the Army Corps of Engineers. Honorable discharged with the grade of Captain in 1962. Provided architectural design, construction drawings, specifications and inspection services for commercial and residential building projects as an employee and as a firm principal for the majority of my professional career. Provided building contractor and construction management services for commercial and residential construction. Provided lender inspection services on the Sands Condominium on Marco Island a $9,000,000 project. Lender was Atlantic Financial Federal, 50 Monument Road, Cala Cynwyd, PA 19004. Inspected many commercial and residential projects for my project clients and provided inspections for other owners. Served as an expert witness for several trials. Experience in the building industry in Southwest Florida s'mce 1968. Currently the architect of record for the Hotel Escalante downtown Naples that is about completed. Currenfiy an inspector for First Union Mortgage Corporation. Currently semi-retired. Emeritus ~oe ~ . 3 !13-,. .~ 13-1r'Z65 AR 65O2 CO(i'.. ~ ~ith the t residential was Robert J. Livingston 312 Chancery Circle Naples, Florida 34110 Phone: (941) 566-3988 Fax: (941) 566-7790 Ms. Sue Filson - Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners 3301 U.S. 41 East Naples, Florida 34112 December 10, 2000 Dear Ms. Filson: I have a strong interest in serving on the advisory committee to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. To further that interest the following resume of both my business experience and academic training is offered. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my background and learn more about the advisory committee. Resume: Mrs. Livingston and I have been residents and registered voters of Collier County for the past eight years. During those eight years we have resided on the grounds of Audubon Country Club where I am currently a member of the board of directors and recently completed a term as presiden[ I hold a degree in engineering with post graduate work in business administration and economics. At 68 years of age I am in excellent health and still love a challenge. My business experience has included the direction of a General Contracting Company specializing in the construction of retail stores and shopping centers. Walmart was among our many customers. Several of our engineers held Florida Commercial General Contracting certification. I consider Naples my home and therefore have a vested interest in the future of Collier County. The proper and fair enforcement of ordinances and codes will be a key element in the quality of that future. I have broad experience in both real estate and commercial construction and believe I can make a meaningful contribution to the advisory committee. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, November 30, 2000 Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of Collier County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112-4977 Subject: Collier County Code Enforcement Board Dear Ms. Filson: It has indeed been a pleasure to serve on the CEB for the past two years. I submit my resume to you for your consideration to continue serving on the CEB for a second term. Sincerely, Roberta Dusek 963 Fountain Run Naples, FL 34119 PROFESSIONAL PROFILE ROBERTA (BOBBIE) DUSEK 941-434-0101 X 963 941-354-1355 REAL ESTATE BROKER Licensed Real Estate Broker - State of Florida Licensed Real Estate Broker - State of New York Nineteen plus years of experience National Paralegal Certification - graduated "With Distinction" Former Florida and New York school teacher EDUCATION B.S. Degree in Education, Florida State University; C.W. Post College, L.I., NY(continuing education); Westchester Commumty College, Westchester, NY(real estate brokeifs course); Mercy College, White Plains, NY(Paralegal National Certification recognized by the ABA). PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS & DESIGNATIONS NAR- National Association of Realtors FAR - Florida Association of Realtors NABOR - Naples Area Board of Realtors GRI - Graduate Realtors Institute CRS - Certified Residential Specialist ABR - Accredited Buyers Representative Legal Resource Committee - NABOR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES Code Enforcement Board for Collier County Naples Women Club A NATIVE FLORIDIAN NOV--21--00 TUE 12~58 C W FLEGAL 941 ??4 2~80 P. 01 Post Office Box 2663 Naples, Florida 34106 941-.774+5966 FAX 941 ~774-~'380 November 21, 2000 Mrs. Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34122 Re: Collier County Code Enforcement Board Dear Mrs. Filson: I am in receipt of notice that them are two terms expidng on the above referenced board. I believe one of these to be mine. I would like to apply herewith for consideration for an additional term, if I meet the required criteria. i have served on this board with great interest in obtaining compliance to the county codes and ordinances. I have made being fair to those parlies who seem to be in violation with such, while maintaining impartiality toward the county for whom I serve paramount. I have served as Chairman of this Board for the last few years and the membership seems confident with my ieademhip. My experience on Ifiis board, I believe, makes me a good and reasonable candidate for reappointment. I am a full time resident and elector of the county. My resume is attached for your review. Thank you for you consideration. Very Truly Yours, Clifford~l Jr~~ Broker NOV-21-00 TUE 12:58 C W FLE~AL 941 774 2380 P. 02 CLIFFORD WESLEY FLEGAL JR. 6590 Beach Resort Drive #2 Naples, Florida 34114 941-774-5966 A resident of Collier County since '88, a resident in the Lely community since '92 11 YEARS --- REAL ESTATE and MORTGAGE Licensed Real Estate Broker and Mortgage Broker Responsibilities include daily operational management of a real estate firm. Working with Buyers, Sellers, contractors and lenders on properties in Collier County. 10 YEARS -- COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT Li~ Community Association Manager ( CAM ); Responsibilities included daily operational management of condominium associations in the Vineyards, Pelican Bay and Borfita Bay. Significant hands on working knowledge of finance/budgets, employee/contractor management, required Florida Statutes and Administrative Codes, Articles Grimcorporation, Declarations of Condominium, By-Laws, and Rulc~ & Regulations. Excellent interpersonal skills with board members, owners, employees, attorneys, contractors ard governmental 28 YEARS --- CONTRACTS & LOGISTICS, worked under NASA; DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE and DEPARTMENT of ENERGY Respons~ilities/ncluded writing and negotiation of multi-m/llion dollar contracts for various aircraft systems, space flight systems, weapons' systems, nuclear system components, nuclear medicine systems and construction; logistics management for transportation of various hazardous, radioactive and nuclear materiMs throughout the world; management of various departments and operational responsib'tlity for budgets in excess of one million dollars. Detailed working knowledge of contracts, legal aspects, specifications, blueprints and various Govemn~ntal regulatory requiremeres. Strong problem solving skills with ab'dity to work well with and supervise others. Chairman - Collier County Code Enforcement Board Vice Chair - Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee Past President - Lely Civic Asst,, Inc., a Homeowner Association of 480 members in Lely. Past Treasurer - Ironwood Inc., a Condominium Association School History Graduate - Valley Forge Military Academy and College, Wayne, PA Various college courses - Accounting, Contracts, Office Management, Contract Law. Purchasing Various evening cowses - Negotiation Techrdqucs, QA Audits,~.~w_ Logistics, Inventory Control, Government Contract Law, Government Propeaay Management, Traffic Management EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO THE CHAMPION LAKES RV RESORT PUD AMENDING SECTION 3.4 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ENTITLED "PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES" TO DELETE THE WORDING "OR SIMILAR TYPE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE" AND PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR "CLASS A MOTOR COACH" FOR A PROPERTY KNOWN AS CHAMPION LAKES RV RESORT PUD. OBJECTIVE: To correct a scrivener's error in Section $.4 of the PUD Document to accurately reflect the decision of the Board of County Commissioners. CONSIDERATION: On April 11, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners heard and approved the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD (PUD-99-29, Ordinance No. 2000-21). During the discussion, Commissioner Carter stated his desire to see a class A motor coach park. The PUD then was approved subject to the stipulation stated by Commissioner Carter. However, the PUD Document, in Section 3.4 stated "Class A motor coach or similar type recreational vehicle." The intent of this action is to remove the wording "or similar type recreational vehicle" and simply state" Class A motor coach" as a permitted principal use. FISCAL IMPACT: None. GROVVTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the scrivener's error correction to the Exhibit "A" (PUD Document) of Ordinance No. 2000- 21. ITEM PREPARED BY: CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph.D., AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE REV~WED BY: RONALD F. K!INO, AICP, MANAGER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION DATE ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP, DIRECTQR PLANNING SERVICES DATE APPROVED BY: ' AGEISA IT~.IN4 JAN 2 3 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 01- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2000-21, WHICH REZONED AND ESTABLISHED THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CHAMPION LAKES RV RESORT; AMENDING SECTION 3.4 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ENTITLED "PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES" TO DELETE THE WORDING "OR SIMILAR TYPE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE" IN SUBSECTION (A)(1); AMENDING SECTION 3.4 TO LIMIT THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TYPES DEFINED WITHIN THE PUD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, through Ordinance No. 2000-21, approved the Champion Lakes RV Resort Planned Unit Development "PUD" on April 11, 2000 and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, the County staff and the owner of the PUD property wish to clarify the PUD document as set. forth in this Ordinance; and V~q-IEREAS, the Board finds that these changes constitute Scrivener's Errors and that the PUD document, as amended below, reflects the correct intent and decision of the Board of County Commissioners at the time Ordinance No. 2000-21 was adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLL1ER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT: Section 3.4 of the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" of Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-21 is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Recreational Vehicles - Class A motor coach cr s'2mi!~ type retreat!anal 2. Resort Homes not to exceed a maximum of 30 Vo of the total permitted units within the PUD. 3. Model Homes/Model Home Center including Underlined words are additions; ~tri~:e ..:reug..: are deletions. offices for project .~.~A IIFJ~ JAN 2 3 200] Pg. ~ administration, construction, sales and marketing. 4. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds and pedestrian/bikeways. Parking and outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and related facilities. Project signage, subject to Section 2.18 of the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible. Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including swimming pools, docks, piers, spas, screen enclosures, RV ports, recreational facilities designed to serve the Development, and essential services. Screen-in porch, elevated or built at ground level, not to exceed as area equal to that of the recreational vehicle to which it is attached. The screened porch may include space for on-site utility/storage space; however, said areas shall not contain ducts or facilities for the provision of heating and cooling. Storage/Utility building, not to exceed an area of one hundred (100) square feet. Storage/utility buildings may be detached or attached to the principal structure. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible in the area identified as Residential on the PUD Master Plan. Definitions: Recreatiena! V:h!cles A!~ recreat!cna! :'chicle Pj~e: ~e.."m.2~,~. -.:'/thin Champien La!te: PUD shall be as ~efi.':e~ in Chapter 220.0:, F.S. Class A Motor Coach - Class A Motor Coach shall mean a motor coach recognized by industry standards to be "Class A" and shall be a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet in length and capable of being hooked up, and which subsequently is hooked up, to ufiliW. services within the Champion Lakes RV Resort. Specifically excluded are mobile homes (as defined by the Florida Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles), park models, tents, truck campers, fold-out campers and any RVs not equipped for full utility hookups to water, sewer and electrical systems. Resort Homes - For purposes of this Section, a resort home is a single family detached dwelling unit. Integral to the resort home is a covered recreation vehicle port or enclosed garage designed to store the residents recreational vehicle. Underlined words are additions; g~ke .q~'.zeug~s are deletions. AC-,EI~A ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 SECTION TWO: EFFECTWE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this __ day of ., 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: By: CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency M~arjo~t~udent~*dZ~ Assistant County Attorney Underlined words are additions; $~2ke .TS.'m:gE: are deletions. JAN 2 3 2001 PII. ~ ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAPS NUMBERED 1611, 1614N, AND 16 i $N; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "MI-I" AND "RSF-l" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CHAMPION LAKES RV RESORT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE IN SECTIONS 11, 14, AND 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 101+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich of GoodieRe, Coleman & Johnson, ~.~.~.., ~ D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Ra _~3~d nela, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zomng classi~ ,ation of th~ herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ~DUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sections 11, 14 and 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed fxom "MH" and "RSF-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. Thc Official Zoning Atlas Maps numbered 1611, 1614N, and 1615N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, are hereby amended accordingly. -1- SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ~ [..1~ day of ~ ,2000. ATTEST: · Approved as !o Form and Legal Sufficiency Marjo¢lie M. Student Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA This ordinonce filed with the Secretary of Stote's Office the ~?.Y~ dov o~ ~--, ond acknowledoement of tho~ filing rec.eived this~day G/admit~PU D-99-29/Ci~o -2- JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CU-2000-11 JEFF DAVIDSON, P.E., OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. REPRESENTING BIG ISLAND EXCAVATING, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "A-MHO" ZONING DISTRICT FOR EARTHMINING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING LONGAN LAKE EXCAVATION IN THE CORKSCREW COMMUNITY IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, CONSISTING OF 102 ACRES. OBJECTIVE: That the community's interests are maintained in the proposed expansion of an existing earthmining operation. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant requests a Conditional Use in order to add additional land to an existing earth mining operation. The property is currently used as a citrus grove. (Because the site is currently a citrus grove, the petition did not require an Environmental Impact Statement and therefore the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition.) The earth mining operation is planned in phases and will include littoral zone plantings and a perimeter buffer. There are neighbors within one-quarter mile of the operation and, along the southerly portion of the west property line, there are mobile homes immediately adjacent to the berm of the subject property. The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition at its November 16, 2000 meeting. After considering testimony by staff, the petitioner and the public, the CCPC added several conditions. The conditions approved by the CCPC (which differ from those recommended by Planning Services staff) prohibit blasting and regulate the times of operation, access, and a re- heating five years after approval. The CCPC voted 6 to 0 to forward petition CU-00-11 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval. It is staff's opinion that the Land Development Code regulations on blasting and hours of operation adequately protect the adjacent property owners and are consistent with other earthmining operations in the County. AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 3 ZOO1 FISCAL IMPACT: If this petition is approved, there may be fiscal impact to Collier County in the form of Transportation Impact fees. According to the Transportation Services Department, these fees are $1,500.00 according to the initial phase of the excavation permit for a duration of one year. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits earthmining, oil ~xtraction and related processing uses. This site is within the area of the County subject to Final Order No. AC-99-002, issued June 22, 1999, by the Administration Commission (Florida Governor and Cabinet). However, the Final Order does not prohibit the conditional use of earthmining. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use for the subject site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The truck trips generated by the expansion will not exceed the significance test standard (5 percent of the LOS "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (CR-846). In addition, the expansion will not lower the level of service below any adopted LOS "D" standard within the project's radius of development influence (RDI). Therefore, the project is consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an Area of Historical and Archaeological Probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no survey or Waiver of Historic and Archaeological Survey & Assessment is required. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve Petition CU-2000-11 subject to the following conditions (which differ from the conditions recommended by the CCPC): 2 ~GENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2.001 1. Blasting is permitted subject to Division 3.4 of the Land Development Code (Explosives). 2. A required lake littoral zone planting area of 10% of the perimeter of the shoreline is required prior to final acceptance of the excavation by the Planning Services Director. 3. Prior to final acceptance of the excavation by the Planning Services Director, a 20-foot maintenance easement around the perimeter of the lake shall be dedicated to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. 4. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other construction related activity, an historic or archeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped, and the Collier County Code Enforcement Director shall be contacted. 5. Access to the site shall be via Immokalee Road only. 6. Hours of operation are regulated by Division 3.5 of the Land Development Code (Excavation), which at the time this Executive Summary was written, are 7:00 AM until 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 3 AGENDA ITEM No.__ - JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY: // FRED ._R2E_ .~S_ CHL, AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER / - /L'- DATE REVIEWED BY: RONALD F. NINO, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: J j(~-IN M. DUNNUCK, III DATE I151TERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR executive summary/CU-2000-11 4 AGENDA ITEM ' -- No. JAN g 3 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: .COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 SUBJECT: CU-200¢-11 (LONGAN LAKES II) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNER: Big Island Excavating, Inc. 7000 Big Island Ranch Road Naples, FL 34120 AGENT: Jeff L. Davidson, PE Davidson Engineering, Inc. 1720 J&C Boulevard, Suite 3 Naples, FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: The Petitioner requests Conditional Use approval, per Section 2.2.2.3 (1) of the Collier County Land Development Code, for expansion of an existing earth mining operation. JAN 2 3 2001 D' 6l: '~I'S JAN 2 3 LOCATION: The subject parcel is located south of Immokalee Road in the Big Corkscrew Island area, in Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East. The site consists of approximately 102 acres. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant requests a Conditional Use in order to add additional land to an existing earth mining operation. The property is currently used as a citrus grove. The earth mining operation is planned in phases and will include littoral zone plantings and a perimeter buffer. The petitioner states that the sand has been certified by the Department of Environmental Protection as beach renourishment quality. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT: Citrus grove; zoned A-MHO SURROUNDING: North: East: South: West: Existing Longan Lakes excavation, then Immokalee Road ROW, across which is property used for agricultural activities and single-family homes; zoned A-MHO Golden Gate Estates, Unit 47; zoned E Land in active agricultural use; zoned A-MHO Land in active agricultural use; zoned A-MHO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits earthmining, oil extraction and related processing uses. This site is within the area of the County subject to Final Order No. AC-99-002, issued June 22, 1999, by the Administration Commission (Florida Governor and Cabinet). However, the Final Order does not prohibit the conditional use of earthmining. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. 2 AGEhI~A ITF,~m,4 , jAN 2 3 2001 Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use for the subject site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The truck trips generated by the expansion will not exceed the significance test standard (5 percent of the LOS "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (CR~846). In addition, the expansion will not lower the level of service below any adopted LOS "D" standard within the project's radius of development influence (RDI). Therefore, the project is consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an area of historical and archaeological probability, as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. An Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment waiver is not required. TRANSPORTATION, EVALUATION: INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed impact of an earthmining operation on transportation, infrastructure, and the environment was reviewed by the applicable reviewing agencies and their comments have been incorporated into this Staff Report. STAFF ANALYSIS: Before any Conditional Use shall be recommended to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual Conditional Use, if any, have been met by the Petitioner and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. Since earth mining is recognized as a Conditional Use of land in Agricultural/Rural designated areas, this Conditional Use request has been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Earthmining operations are not prohibited by the Final Order. Consistency with Development Code will be determined at the time of Site Development Plan iewew. 3 JAN 2 3 2001 Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. PRO: The proposed earth mining operation shall have access off Immokalee Road through the existing Longan Lakes operation. There is very little pedestrian activity in this area. The truck trips generated by the expansion will not exceed the significance test standard (5 percent of the LOS "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (CR-846). CON: The expansion of the earth mining operation will add truck traffic to Immokalee Road, primarily between the subject site and the Naples area. The expansion is proposed to add 80 to 100 truck trips per weekday. ANALYSIS: Due to the existing turn lane, the traffic ingress and egress to the earth mining operation should operate adequately and with an acceptable level of safety. The traffic count for this segment of Immokalee Road is 8,958 AADT and is operating at LOS "C". The segment of Immokalee Road west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) is currently operating at LOS "E". It should be noted that the four-laning of Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is scheduled to begin construction in 2001. Collier County's construction industry requires fill. The fill is required whether it comes from excavations within Collier County, or from excavations outside the County. In either case, trucks hauling the fill have an impact on Collier County roads. Fill operations outside Collier County do not pay Collier County impact fees, but have an impact on County roads. 3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. PRO: The petitioner states that the volume of truck traffic with its associated noise will be less than that from the existing citrus grove during season. (However, the earth mining operation can function year-round.) CON: The effects of noise from the extraction process and from truck traffic will have an impact on the neighboring properties. 4 JAN 2 3 2001 ANALYSIS: The proposed operation will generate noise from the extraction process and from truck traffic. However, Immokalee Road already has a relatively high volume of truck traffic, the increase will not be significant. Perimeter buffers will ameliorate some of the effects of the operation on neighboring properties. 4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. PRO: The operation will be conducted in phases. The extraction, therefore, will not be adjacent to the same neighbors during the entire life of the operation. At a density of one dwelling unit per five acres, the 102-acre site would have potentially supported 20 single-family homes (however the Final Order prohibits subdivision of land). CON: The subject property will no longer be available for agricultural production. During the life of the operation, there will be noise from the operation of heavy machinery. ANALYSIS: Earth mining and the noise generated by the extraction process is unavoidable in a community experiencing a rapid rate of growth. Rural areas with a less dense population are the preferred areas for such operations. Therefore, it is staff's finding that the proposed earthmining operation is compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition CU-2000-11 to the Board of Zoning Appeals, subject to the stipulations in the Resolution. EAC RECOMENDATION: This petition did not require an Environmental Impact Statement because it is currently used as a citrus grove; therefore the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition. 5 PREPARED BY: RONALD F. NINO, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE DATE DATE APPROVED BY: JOI-I~, ~M. DUNv~UcK III INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR DATE & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Petition CU-2000-11 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: 6 AC_.~LNDA I T.F..M JAN 2 3 2001 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: CONDITIONAL.~=~.!~o Petition No.: C U 0 0 1 1 "'a Commission District: .5- Date Petition Received: Planner Assigned: ,.._ 7 2C33 SERVICES ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF General Information Name of Applicant(s) Applicant's Mailing Address __ City Maplos Applicant's Telephone # Big Island. Excavating, Inc. 7000 Bill Island Ranch Road State 455-1218 Name of Agent Agent's Mailing Address City Naplos Aoent s Telephone # Jeff L. Davidson, P.E. 1720 d & C Boulevard, Suite 3 FI Zip 34120 Fax # Firm Davidson Engineering, Inc. State FI Zip 34109 941 597 3916 Fax # 597 5195 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAIqNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968 APPLICATION FOR PUBI.IC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAl. USE - 6/98 PAGE F 15 Nc~~. JAN 2 3 2001 Disclosure of Interest Information: If the property is owned fee simple by an IND~U~, tenancy by the entke .ty, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties wSth an ownership interest a~ well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownersh.ip NA If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name, Address and Office Percentage of Stock NA If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest NA , APPLICATIOH FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE - 6/98 PAGE2 AC.~A IIEI~ F15 JAN 2 3 2001 do If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NA If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCI-La, SE, with an individual or individu:-'..!:., a Corporation, Trustee, or a Parmership, list the names of the contract purck.: .. ers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Big Island Excavating, In.c. Percentage of Ow~emhip William L. McDaniel 113 James E. Ivey 113 Anthony Glenn Simpson 113 Date of Contract: April 21, 2000 If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Addreas ho Date subject property acquired {<) leased ( ): Term of lease yr./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option:April' 200~d date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date Oct. 1, 2000 Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public heating, it is 'the APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE -6/98 iAN 2 3 2001 responsibihty of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Detailed legal description of the property. covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six montt~s, maximum I" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal descript;,o; . !f questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineers certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 25 Township:_ 47 S Range: 21 F Lot: Block: Subdivision: Model Ranch Acres Plat Book__ Page #: Property I.D.#: 00103880004 Metes & Bounds Description: · See attached description Size of properS: 2660 ft. X 1673 ft. = Total Sq. Ft.Acres 102 +- &ddress/general location of subject property.: 1/2 mile south of Immokalee Road and south of existing Longan Lake excavation. Jn the c6mmunity of Corkscrew. Adjacent zoning and !and use: N S A E A W a Zoning Land use A Ag/Native Condition Acj/Native Condition Estates AfllMobile Home APPLICATION FO~ PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL IJS£- ([./98 .JAN Does property owner own contiguous property to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Yes Section: 25 Township: 47 Range: 27 Lot: B lock: Subdivision: Plat Book__ Page #: Property I.D.#: Metes & Bounds Description: E 112 of the NE 114(Longan Lakes Under const.) Longan II is the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 Type of Conditional Use: This application is requesting conditional use # the A9 . district for crVVE or US£) Earth Mining Present Use of the Property: Existing Orange (grove of Evaluation Criteria: Provide a narrative statement describing this request for conditional use. NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2.7.4. of' the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met, and that further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. Please provide detailed response to each of the criterion listed below. Specify how and why the request is consistent with each. (Attach additional pages as may be necessar).'). ao Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan (include information on how the request is consistent t~PPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDFFIONAL USE- 6~8 PAGE 5 iF 15 AG~A JAN 2 3 200i with the applicable section or portions of the future land element):. The project is consistent with the Land Development Code in that earth mining is a permitted conditional use under sec 2.2.2.3. Also the rural location and relatively low intensity of use are consistent with both the growth management plan and future land use element. use b o Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property. ~.~,.d proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedesu-ian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in ease of fi~.~, or catastrophe: The planned ingress/egress to the project is via an .... existing driveway access onto Immokalee Road. The existing access to the existing farm operation on the property from Platt road will be discontinued thereby eliminating existing farm traffic within residential areas to the west of the _~ro_iect. Describe the effect the conditional use wiA have on neighboring propertie~ in relatim, iu noise, glare, economic impact and odor: Aglricultural pesticides and fertilizer use will be discontinued eliminating odor and potential contamination. Existing farm equipment noise will be eliminated. No impacts are expected from lighting. No detrimental economic impacts to neighboring property is expected. Existing excavation equipment will continue. -- Describe the site's and the proposed use's compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district: The Completed excavation (Lake) will enhance the asthetics of the area. ~PPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARlING FOR COlNDrrloiNAL USE - 6/98 PAGE 6 JAN 2 3 2001 e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. __ Fill, Beach Sand, Roadway Stabilizer Material and Shell are Necessary products for the building and recreation projects in Collier County. 10. 11. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property. owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous laud use petitions on the subject property_: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No Additional Submi.ttal requirements: In addition to tkis completed application, the following must be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the preapplication meeting. a. A copy of the pre-application meeting notes; Eleven (l 1) copies of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan [and one reduced 8Y2" x ll" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, depicting the folloxving [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon completion of staff' evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), or CCPC]; · all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, · provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], APPLICATIOIN FOR PUBLIC HEARlING FOR CONDrYIONAL USE-6/98 PAGE 7 15 ~x~ JAN 2 3 2001 Waiver Request CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED 'WITH APPLICATION PACKET! R E Q UIREMENTS COPIESREQUIRED REQUIRED 1. Completed Application ~/11 xx 2. Copy of Deed(s) and Hst identifying Owner(s) and all Partn.ers if a Corporation XX 3. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavits, Notarized v/ 1 XX 4. Pre-application notes/~in~tes v/l'l XX 5. Conceptual Site Plans ,~ll XX 6. Environmental Impact Statement- (EIS) ''4 'Q-'~ver Ri qu;st~ 7. Aeriai Photograph-(_w!th,_habitat area, ,denti~.ed) l v--'4XX 81 '~-~-~mpleted~l~:ovisions Statement (with required ! 4 attachments and'sketches) 9. Traffic Impact Statement- ('ILS) ~4 Tdp Generation Est. 16~ Historical & A'~chaeological Survey or Waiver t~ 4 Application Waiver R~,,quest 11. CopiesofStateand/orFederaiPermits ?~a>,.,~6 4 lPe~tO/vv,~2XX 12. Architectbrai Rendering of Proposed Structisre(s)/~r4 3J~ 'xx 13. Application Fee, (~heck shall be made payable to .... Collier County Board of Commissioners k~t~/"~ ~ XX 14. Other Requirements'- .... As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in thedelayo r~~ ~//A~'pplicantYAgent Signature Date _APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC }lEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE- 6/98 PAGE 14 OF 15AGO4oA IT~J~I JAN 2 3 2001 AEFIDA am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing.' that aH the a~wers to the questio~ in this applica~on. including the d~closure of inter~t irfo~ation. all sketch~. data. and other supplementa~ ~tter attached to and made a pan of th~ appli~tion. are hon~t and t~e to the b~t of our ~owledge and beli~ We~ understand that the information requested on this application m~t be complete and acetate and that the content of this fom. whether computer generated or Couno' printed shall not be altered. Public hea~ngs win not be adven~ed until this application is deemed complete. and all required inJb~ation h~ been submitted. As prop~ owner ~'~/f further authorize ~ ?P D, ~ .'~ 3 ~ ~ to act as ou~/mf represen~tiv ~ ~ anF matters re~arding this Petition. 5tgnatur~of Proper~' I ~ner Stgnature of ProperO. ~'ner Typed or ~rinted Name of ~er Typed or Printed Name of ~ner &ateof Florida ~ ~ f ' ~ ~ufil' - ( · Coun~ of Collier Flori~ova,v ~u~t~c~ ~,~ no~n COMMISSION e CC~ ~IRES ~ BONDED THRU ~ 1~OT~1 (Print. Type. or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PAGE 15 ( (NOT FOIl CONOOalmlltmm ~,~ ~ .............................. $ ,,,/,&*- JAN 23 200t IN THIS CQNTR~'I' ~ BE AC:~EilmTEO BY A IqM{TY IN A IVIRTIC~JII{ 'lR/ING~"'TIOK YHIG IS A LJ~,RLLY Bl4]ld/, ~ m m ctsm~ m ~i~ p~mmMmkmy~ m I~m kI. MM,, Smk~'~ m m m~ ram. Smmm~' m~m~ ~-- prmmlad~, wdm S deys i,~r lIM~l el ii m~mor. upan Ncelx d lipll~W wrme~ 26b. O~Y Tram ~f CmdW(m ~o)]e-'ml Jnn~roph b mbst, IMed. Biff Islef~ct £~cc&vt~m. Inc. ~,ddendum Pl~t: 6 cdr i 6 Photo is not available. Public Records 219~ PLATT RD NAPLES 34120-2,00 Property Career Route: R044 JACO!~ ET AL, HENRY J ~41 SABAL PALM RD NAPLES, FL Zip Code: 34114-2549 Carrier Route: R011 ACREAGE HEADER GGE Unlt~: ;25 47 27 El/2 OF SE1/2., El/2 OF El/2 OF W1/2 OF SE1/4 100 AC 001 Lot/Unit: .0OO Sec~on: 25 Township: 47 S15J,110 Exemption Agriculture: $520,318 Exemption Homestead: S18,966 Exemption Wholly: $539,284 Exemption W~low: Exemption Blind: Exemption Disabled: Exem~on Exemption Energy: Land Use Code: 66 Number of Acres: Owner Name: Mailing Address: City/State: Country: Sub/Condo: Legal Description: BlockJBIdg/Tra ~-t: Ag Value: Land Value: Improved Value: Total Value: Total Assessed Value: $170,076 Total Non-Ad Valorem Assess: S0.1N) Total Ad ValoremTax: $2.,.~4~).57 Total Tax Bill: $2.,509.5? Tax YeaF 19~) Land Square Footage: Description: 66 Or¢l~ar~ Gro~e~ Citrus, Frontage: Depth: Number of Stories: Number of Bedmorns: Prop IDa: 00103880004 Range: Year Built: Number of Baths: STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROV~$IONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE REOIfEST NAME OF APPLICANT: 2. MAILING ADDRESS: CITY ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section: Township: ZIP BLE): Range:, Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book__ Page #: Property I.D.#: Metes & Bounds Description: o TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM e. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME ct. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT (GPD capacity) e. SEPTIC SYSTEM TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED: a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM CITY UTILITY SYSTEM FRANCIIISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM CWELL) TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIOi~AL USE - 6t98 PAGE 12 Oi~t5 ~,GENDA iTEM iAN ~ 3 2001 10. 11. 12. PEAK AND AVERAGE DAII.Y DEMANDS: A. WATER-PEAK AVERAGE DAILY B. SEWER-PEAK AVERAGE DAILY IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONA.L WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED: NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide~lk brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of treatmint Pi~S to be used as well as a specific statement sewage regarding the method of effluent anc~slu~'6~isposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil in~ sl~II be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY' DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system. written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utiliw easements for serving the water and sewer systems. STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PRO;qDERS: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. Utilit~ Provision Statement RJNi 10/17/97 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDrr!ONAL U$1~-~0n~l PAGE 2 3 2001 From: MMMMMBALL@cs.com[SMTP:MMMMMBALL@cs.com] Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 4:34 AM To: reischl f Cc: JimColletta@colliergov.net; FRAMET@aol.com Subject: Correction of misinformation In reviewing the minutes of the Dec 6 EAB meeting and the Dec 12 agenda attachments regarding Longan Lakes expansion for the County Commissioners' meeting, I was disappointed by the misinformation provided. There was even a repeat of a mistake which I had previously pointed out. Starting with Sept 27 Planning Services Dept Memo on CU-2000-11 (Longan Lakes II) Staff Analysis: page 4, item 2 CON: "The expansion is to add 80 to 100 truck trips per weekday" This translates to only 40 to 50 dump truck loads a day. You admitted in the 11/16/2000 Planning Commission meeting this was only a guess which my husband corrected to "250 trucks coming in and out a day" If there are only 40 - 50 dump trucks in and out a day, then the pit would need only to be ~pen half a day like 10 am to 2 pm. page 4, item 3 PRO: "The petitioner states that the volume of truck traffic with its associated noise will be less than that from the existing orange grove during season." As previously stated in my email and letter, 5 semi truck loads per season is not the same as even the low estimate of 80 to 100 truck trips per weekday. It's like comparing the SuperWalmart with a 7-11 busy only during the Christmas season. The comparison supports erroneous conclusions. page 5, item 3 "ANALYSIS: ...Perimeter buffers will ameliorate some of the effects of the operation on neighboring properties." Even the Big Island/Longan Lakes I has no buffer except for the Immokalee border. Neighbors have an uninterrupted view on the other borders. (To be effective, a burm at least 10 -15 feet high, dependent on the level of land, complete with sod and a functioning watering system would need to be in place within 30 days of permit approval.) page 5, item 4 PRO: Based on current operation the statement, "The extraction, therefore, will not be adjacent to the same neighbors during the entire life of the operation." Since pumps, roads, sorting/grinding equipment stations are not usually mobile, neighbors will continue to be bothered with the noise of earthmining operations however long the county permits them to continue operation/expansion. Also reserve areas of sand with specific properties will be kept for periodic long-term use. page 5, item 4 ANALYSIS: Essentially states that rural people are less likely to object to having their peace and quiet disturbed than city dwellers. However, in town, bigger estates (like Port Royal) translate into more valuable property. No one mentions placing earthmining operations there even though it would be closer to where the beach sand is needed. But seriously, the county could lessen the pain of earthmining which rural are forced to accept by: 1. Specifying more reasonable hours of operation 8 am to 6 pm with no excavation or earth moving on weekends. 2. Require water pumps to be housed and muffled since they often run during night time hours. 3. Limit operation to 10 years after which land must be re-landscaped and converted to housing or otherwise aesthetically pleasing appearance. The original pit owner(s) should be held financially liable to guarantee this would be done in a timely manner. 4. Prohibit blasting, especially in already established resi¢ areas. Serious enforceable commitment needs to be made and honored to JAN 2 3 2001 landowners to know that there won't be an operation similar to "Naples Quarry" in their backyards lasting more than 30 years. Also re: "surrounding land use and zoning, there is a difference from the petitioner's application for conditional use. The west border has mobile home use. Moving along to the petitioner's application for conditional use: Item 8a Evaluation Criteria: If an earthmining operation with blasting privileges and over 500 to 1000 dump trucks in and out a week all year long is "relatively low intensity" rural use, I can't name a higher intensity use unless the Coastland Mall wants to relocate to this location. Item 8c "Existing farm equipment noises will be eliminated" The owners description of planned operations repeatedly mentions water pumps (diesel) will be in frequent use even after stated hours of operations. Now, in addition to pumps, there will be heavy equipment, dump trucks, back-up alarms, dirt loaders, excavation/crushing machinery, blasting etc. Statement "No detrimental economic impact to neighboring property is expected." This defies common sense. A country home with a noisy, dusty, earth-marring pit is certainly not as marketable as a similar house with the previously pleasant quiet environment. Granted our property taxes continue to go up about 10 to 12% per year based on the general linear development of Naples, but would you seriously consider buying a place where the quality of life is so compromised by a noisy neighbor? If the county finds it so essential to use the sand in our neighborhood, they should grant us a discount on property taxes to show they appreciate our loss. Re: EAB meeting of 12/6/2000 Blasting - This should never be permitted since it was the agreement made originally with the neighbors just to "make it easier to get approval." Now in most contractual agreements, a person is forced to stand by his word, whether or not it is "financially inconvenient". I have lived in an area where blasting was permitted and ~he plaster on my house began cracking. What assurances do I have that this won't happen again? If blasting is permitted a finite limit needs to be established prior to approval of conditional use. I understand that blasting is more efficient but when it compromises even further the peace of the neighborhood which was in place long before the pit was in operation, I fail to see the philosophy for carte blanche approval. Would the board be so "neutral" if it were in their neighborhood? (None of the owners live nearby the pit.) I was orally assured that blasting would need to be done only 2 or 3 times just to free up a small area. Seems to me the story is changing. This is similar to the science lesson about how to boil a frog. First, you put him in a pot and then gradually turn up the heat so he doesn't notice he's being cooked (compromised). His environmental outcome and value cannot be restored. Also my email specified an item in the Feb 9, 1999 County Commissioner meeting minutes. Whether or not anyone pulled up the minutes via on-line resource (a process taking less than 5 minutes) the truth is that the policy is still in effect and is enforceable. I personally gave Mr Simpson and Mr McDaniel a copy on 12/12/2000. I was very surprised that professionals of their experience and computer expertise were not aware of this transcript of a meeting which they attended only last year which directly impacted their business especially with a lawyer and engineer involved. Regarding work done on Sunday, Mr McDaniel was notified shortly after the dump trucks were sighted. He attributed it to a worker obtaining materials for personal use. This however is not a one-time event. Regarding watering-this requirement needs to be put in writing. Mr Chrzanowski evaluated the pit when operation was relatively curtailed being deferred to their other pit on Oil Well Road. Bottom Line: The County commission recommendation made in February 1)99 ignored and not enforced. The information on the application for pub ic ~~ JAN 2 3 2001 hearing for conditional use is at best questionable. Insufficient consideration was given to the fact this newly developed pit is encroaching on a neighborhood established more than 20 years ago. Commitments made to the neighbor were not kept and are being further weakened by claims of "financial inconvenience". A petition against the operation is on file with more than 50% of the residents strongly opposed. (There are more opposed; I just wasn't apply to visit them due to our work schedules.) In a city where pride is taken on the aesthetic appearance of a bridge (at the cost of over 1 million dollars), not to mention eagle and turtle habitats, cannot big business desires be restrained to lessen impact on the impact on rural quality of life? Quality of life in an aesthetically pleasing surrounding balanced with responsible developr~ent is something Naples takes pride in, but does this stop at the city limit sign? JAN 2 3 200I From: MMMMMBALL@cs.com[SMTP:MMMMMBALL@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:26 PM To: StanCharzanowski@colliergov.net Cc: reischl f; baxtech@worldnet.att.net; ECartson@audubon.org; JPDiNunzio@earthlink.net; Mkcornell@aol.com; Mickey644@mindsspring.com; SmithLaw@netnaples.com; TOMGATOR@aol.com; tomatoes@sprynet; FRAMET@aol.com; MMMMMBALL@cs.com Subject: Excavation Permit No. 59.755, Longan Lakes II, EAB meeting The proposed expansion of the earthmining operation, Longan Lakes, will negatively impact the quality of life in the Friendship Lane area. It was a quiet rural area, home to 37 families, most who own their homes on 5 acres. Aesthetically, the noisy, dusty, intensely-used barren windblown former orange grove is not a pretty sight. The neighborhood originally tolerated this because of written commitments that the truck traffic and noise would not be more than that of the orange grove. The Feb 9, 1999 Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners (page 316) stipulated that excavation and hauling operations were limited to Monday thru Friday 7am to 7 pm with rare designated exceptions at the current Longan Lakes/ Big Island pit. Even this last Saturday and Sunday trucks were active at the pit. Now the owners want to double the size of the pit and double the depth of digging. Fortunately, the Nov 16, 2000 Planning Commission prohibited blasting in accordance with the original Feb '99 agreement. Another concern is the lack of an established final end point and approved closure plan to prevent the pit being left an ugly gapping hole in the ground. My property and that of my neighbors is certainly less valuable and pleasant with this ever expanding pit-marked industrial area. The fac~ that we are being forced to accept this pit in our neighborhood is also used against us when other companies want to mine our neighborhood. We have less rights than birds and turtles. Please help me to limit the negative impact by placing specific limitation of the number of loads to be removed daily, cutting back hours of operation, requiring earth barrier walls along all perimeters, requiring that pit operation be discontinued in 5 years and the area re-landscaped. Twice daily watering of pit roads and other dust reduction measures should also be required if you will not deny approval. I am sorry I am unable to attend the December EAB meeting. Since I am a nurse working night shift and also work with the church youth group on Wednesday's nights; I have to sleep rather than participate in today's meeting. (Several of my ne£ghbors and I showed up for the canceled November meeting.) If there is anything else I can do to convince you of the seriousness of this problem, please contact me at 348-8821 or mmmmmball@ cs.com. Thank you. Milly Ball 6650 Friendship Lane, Naples 34120 JAN 2 3 2001 ;eischl_.f From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MMMMMBALL@cs.com[SMTP:MMMMMBALL@cs.com] Monday, October 30, 2000 10:31 PM chrzanowski_s; MMMMMBALL@cs.com reischl_f; ECarlson@audubon.org; Baxtech@worldnet.att.net; JPDiNunzio@earthlink.net; Mkcornell@aol.com; Mickey644@mindspring.com; SmithLaw@netnaples.com; TOMGATOR@aol.com; tomatoes@sprynet.com Re: EAC meeting... Longan Lakes I am concerned about the proposed expansion of Longan Lakes because of its negative impact on my Friendship Lane neighborhood and the additional environmental problems it would create. ( I base this on the current operation of the Longan. Lakes earthmining pit.) 1)Impact on area wells - The original Longan Lakes current reservoir size is estimated to cover an area approximately the size of 30 football fields with a permitted depth of 30 feet deep. Since it is a known fact that water follows the pathway of least resistance, it is hard to believe that the use of this much water would not impact the water table. Longan Lakes II seeks to double this, both in area and depth. All residences are dependents on wells for personal and agricultural use. Already there has been a noticeable decrease in standing water in yards and ditches along Immokalee Road compared to areas less than a mile away. Residents have noted an increase in brown sediment that never had been a problem before the pit became operational. Water can also become contaminated from leaking diesel fuel and other chemicals. Dump truck operator can be independent contractors and difficult to supervise. 2) Established precedent - An application for another earthmining project located less than a quarter mile away from the proposed location of Longan Lakes II was addressed in the February 8, 2000, County Commission meeting. A list of restrictions was placed at this time. Although that pit did not open, it would be logical that the same restrictions be applied. 3) Truck traffic on Friendship Lane and Platt Road Both roads are dirt and maintained at the courtesy and expense of the local residents. The intersection of Immokalee Road and Friendship is barely wide enough to allow two cars to pass side by side. Use of these roads was not addressed in the environmental study. Access is already established through the current pit onto Immokalee Road; any expansion should require all truck traffic to continue to use this route. 4) Noise - sound of trucks including "beep-beeping" back-up alerts every day of the week including Sunday from 5:30 AM to way past dark. Awakening to this sound and hearing it while trying to get cool on screened-in porches is disruptive. Original assurances were made that the pit would operate only during business hours during the week with a rare Saturday. Also commitment made when petition filed in Feb 99 with Planning Commission "that the volume of truck traffic with its associated noise will be less than the existing citrus grove". These commitments were not honored. It's like comparing a mini-mart that's only busy during the Christmas season to a Super Wal-Mart. Five semi tractor trailer loads per season compared to 250 loads per day is a big difference. 5) Dust- Management of flying dust is inadequate. It is harmful to all of us especially children with asthma and older people with lung problems. It damages air conditioning units and makes housekeeping more difficult. The Friendship Lane (South), Platt Road, Pantera Lane, and Fawn Lane areas provide 37 single family homes for approximately 79 adults and 32 children. Most families own their own home, only one rental unit exists to my knowledge. The dirt roads are privately maintained without assistance from the county. I plan to bring a petition from my neighbors asking that you serious consider the problems created if you do not turn down Excavation Permit No 59.755. Thank you, Mildred A Ball ph 348-8821 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 > two cars to pass side by side. Use of these roads was not addressed in the > environmental study. Access is already established through the current pit > onto Immokalee Road; any expansion should require all truck traffic to > continue to use this route. > 4) Noise - sound of trucks including "beep-beeping" back-up alerts every day > of the week including Sunday from 5:30 AM to way past dark. Awakening to > this sound and hearing it while trying to get cool on screened-in porches is > disruptive. Original assurances were made that the pit would operate only > during business hours during the week with a rare Saturday. Also commitment > made when petition filed in Feb 99 with Planning Commission "that the volume > of truck traffic with its associated noise will be less than the existing > citrus grove". These commitments were not honored. It's like comparing a > mini-mart that's only busy during the Christmas season to a Super Wal-Mart. > Five semi tractor trailer loads per season compared to 250 loads per day is a > big difference. > 5) Dust- Management of flying dust is inadequate. It is harmful to all of us > especially children with asthma and older people with lung problems. It > damages air conditioning units and makes housekeeping more difficult. > The Friendship Lane (South), Platt Road, Pantera Lane, and Fawn Lane areas > provide 37 single family homes for approximately 79 adults and 32 children. > Most families own their own home, only one rental unit exists to my > knowledge. The dirt roads are privately maintained without assistance from > the county. I plan to bring a petition from my neighbors asking that you > serious consider the problems created if you do not turn down Excavation > Permit No 59.755. Thank you, Mildred A Ball ph 348-8821 Page 2 AGE.~A IT~_M JAN 2 3 2001 . eischl_f From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jack Baxter[SMTP:baxtech@worldnet.att.net] Tuesday, October 31,2000 12:02 AM MMMMMBALL@cs.com; chrzanowski s reischl_f; ECarlson@audubon.org; JPJ~iNunzio@earthlink.net; Mkcornell@aol.com; Mickey644@mindspring.com; SmithLaw@netnaples.com; TOMGATOR@aol.com; tomatoes@sprynet.com Re: EAC meeting... Longan Lakes Hi Guy's I'm very touched allong with you have thing's to worrire about, see www. EnviroWatch.com and www,GenAlert.com Send the supotr with your cocern's ................... jack baxter ceo www.baxtech.coim HELP .... Original Message .... From: <MMMMMBALL@cs.com> To: <StanChrzanowski@colliergov.net>; <MMMMMBALL@cs.com> Cc: <FredReischl@colliergov.net>; <ECarlson@audubon.org>; <Baxtech@worldnet.att.net>; <JPDiNunzio@earthlink.net>; <Mkcornell@aol.com>; <Mickey644@mindspring.com>; <SmithLaw@netnaples.com>; <TOMGATOR@aol corn>; <tomatoes@sprynet.com> ' Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 10:31 PM Subject: Re: EAC meeting... Longan Lakes > I am concerned about the proposed expansion of Longan Lakes because of its > negative impact on my Friendship Lane neighborhood and the additional > environmental problems it would create. ( I base this on the current > operation of the Longan Lakes earthmining pit.) > 1 )Impact on area wells - The original Longan Lakes current reservoir size is > estimated to cover an area approximately the size of 30 football fields with > a permitted depth of 30 feet deep. Since it is a known fact that water > follows the pathway of least resistance, it is hard to believe that the use > of this much water would not impact the water table. Longan Lakes II seeks > to double this, both in area and depth. All residences are dependents on > wells for personal and agricultural use. Already there has been a noticeable > decrease in standing water in yards and ditches along Immokalee Road compared > to areas less than a mile away. Residents have noted an increase in brown > sediment that never had been a problem before the pit became operational. > Water can also become contaminated from leaking diesel fuel and other > chemicals. Dump truck operator can be independent contractors and difficult > to supervise. > 2) Established precedent - An application for another earthmining project > located less than a quarter mile away from the proposed location of Longan > Lakes II was addressed in the February 8, 2000, County Commission me~!ing, A > list of restrictions was placed at this time. Although that pit did not > open, it would be logical that the same restrictions be applied. > 3) Truck traffic on Friendship Lane and Platt Road Both roads are dirt and > maintained at the courtesy and expense of the local residents. The > intersection of Immokalee Road and Friendship is barely wide enough to allow Page 1 JAN 2 3 2001 Collier County Planning Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Nap!es, FL ..'~4.104 Conecrus Re: Excavation Potreit Application No. ~:'" '~=~= ~ -"--~" ' m,,,., ~- .... i urn Ve!ly cun~rf]ud abuui. ihe p~upusud uxparlsiurl uf [i~u Lungan Luku~ ua!fiimiflirlg operation. It will have signifi~nt impa~ on neighbors living on Platt, Pantera, Fa~ and Friendship Lane. ( I base this assessment on current operation of the L~gan I e.~hmininn pi* ) ~n ,.,,i*,-in- the ~qineerin~ ~ --~---~ k,, ~- Ch~anowski. ! . ~,, ~, ~, ~ believe some additional itern~ need to be address~ with ~n~ideration to enwronmental impact. · Noise ~ eadh-moving equipment ~n be heard from early in the momi~ (5:~ ~_M) until !ate at night eve~ day of t~ week even Satur~y and Sunday. The ..... ~ ~ m~ors ~nd the "b~ep-~pino" g the b~-up aloes c~n be h6ard ~'~r a ~1 I~ miie away. 5in~ ~e proposed io~tion ~ the new pi~ wiii be even dloser to residential areas, these sounds will change from annoying to obnoxious. Working p~pla and ~o~onl e~ildren ~ra entitled t~ ~ d~e~nt nioht's sleep ~d u~ of fi)ust leave wind~s opt3 ro~ ven[ilation. There will be no es~pe from the in,eased noir. Sin~ "FLUE poii~ 5.4 requires land use to be ~mpatible wi~ surrounding area", this increase in noise is not ~nsistent with a quiet residential area. Another problem is t~ sporadic nature of the noise ~ich is even more dis~i.ng than the ~nstant r~ar. Vvt,~n the petition for the original pit '~s fil~ back in Februaw i999, the Planning Commission was assured that "The Petitioner states that the volume of t~ traffic ~th its as~ciated noise will be less than ~at from ~he existing dtrus grove during .season. Hoover the eaChmining operati~ ~n "'-~ ............ ~" (at~ I) Neigh~rs a.t that time were. vocally assur~ that the pit would operate only during normal business ~urs during the week with a rare Saturday and no Sunday operation. These ~mmitments were not kept. It's li~ ~mparing a mini-mad that's only busy during Christmas break to a Super day ....... Ull t~1 iI.,;t~, I~i i~l Ul~J iI~l JAN 2 3 2001 I ~ Management of even mor-~, flying dust is not sdd,-essed. Excsvaition plus planned removai of vegetation ,,viii create more dust prohiatus. Daily watering of roads inside the pit area and other erosion control such as planting sod or trees. needs to be insriband and cJnsely monitored to limit exac4~rb~tion af ~xisling asthma and other -'~o"'~""'""' """'~*"""° of neighbors. Dust also creates more woW, for air uurMi[ivniny uni[~ and makes huu-aukt~epi~,y mew ~ Lim,-uu~ ~Um'ih~. Sir,ca the'water table in the neigl~borhood 13as been lessened, it takes even more rain to wet down Friendship Lane. The ground is so dry, the rain is absorbed more quickly than in Potential for impact on residential wei!s The original Longan Lakes site current reservoir size is estimated to cover an area the approximate size of 12 football stadiums with a permi.,_ed. depth of 30 feet deep..Since it is a known fa~ that water follows '~'" pathway of least resistance, it is hard to believe the use of that much water would net impact'the water table. Aii residences are dependent on We'l~S ~o supply water for personal and agricultural use. Already there has been a noticeable decrease in standing water in yards and ditches along Immokalee Road compared noted an increase in brown sediment U'~at i~as never been a problem before the pit became operational. it the proposed 'lake is dug almost twice as deep and thples in size, there would be a decrease in the quality and quantity of available water. Therefore, all residents will need deep wells; this additional expense should not be the .respc-n$~lJt~/'of the landowner. There is also cantamir, etlon from ','eaking' dieseJ fuel and other chemi'ceis. Some truck operators are independent contractors and it would be difficult to adequately supervise and prevent accidental spills. E~tnbli.h,~4 nr~r'~,dent ~ proposed. earthmining project to be located less than a quarte,-~mi',e away from Longar,'Lakes II 'w~is addressed :,n ~e February 8, '"'"'" County Commission meeting. A list of restrictions was institumd at that time(attachment ~2) This should be modified to allow work from 9AM to 5PM only end require pa. vin9 on. both roede if any dump truck tm.m.,.c is permitted. Truck traffic on Friendship and Platt 'Lanes -Both roads are private dirt 'rbads maintained at the courtesy of a few of the local residents at their own expense and time. The intersection of immokalee Road and Friendship does not allow two cars ,,, .,o,,o ,.',.u, ~,,, o;~,, J"'"'of ,h.~o-- roads ,,,o,, n.,, ,,4,4,o,~,a i,. ,~,. environment,--4 $~udy'. Oi-~e ...." ......'-dy ...................' ......"'" .....'- li=111UUWl I~l' h~ i~{i'l~ u~1101 ! LUIM UMIII~ L;UUIU LJU[I I I U~U~ ~ecause they adjoin the proper~y. ~nce turn lanes have alreaOy 'been established on Immokalee Road for Longan Lake I: only access through the current pit should be pertained if this expansion is approved. Ho,~ever, since any dump truck use of Friendship Lane ......'"' wu~,,~,. ~ ~,~ ,=uu,uu,~, hard~ipcurrent-re$ider, ts, this concern needs to be specifically restricted. A minimum requirement of paving and maintaining these roads in addition to improvements already established by the County Commis.~io~ would !e._~$en environment! impact bL~ t~e. ffic ~ou!d re.m...ein dangeluu~ ruad:~ in Fiudda. Dump i, ruck~ ar~ dange[ou~becau~:~ %hah' heavy loads prevent them from stopping quickly to avoid accidents. At least 20 elementary age school children catch the bus at the intersection of Irarook l e~l~o~ ~TF_~' JAN 2 3 200! '--:- '~- :- - ~,vu,,.,~, ,,,,,,,~,~ by a ditch ,, ,,=nuoh,~, Lar,~. T,~ ~ad -~-'-'~-- is vary ':-:'-~' =, ,~ heavy tragic us~. A tr~ic study should be considered to validate the heaw tm~ traffic near the pit and also the number of residents using Friendship Lane. In addition, a numar of vmhinlaR ml mt ha parked el~g Friendship I aria ~a~r Immnkal~ Road at ~"~"~ ~ ~'"~ .... ;'~ tc monitor ~,,,, .... , ct bemuse of the child's limitea ability to walk. Other people ~mmute to wo~ ana must be afforded a~ss to Immo~iee Road via Friendship Lane. (Piaff Road d~riora~es. w~th po~hoi~ and m~. ) ~agement ~ Water ~un-oN. ~oa~ siae ~itcMes are not ~eep enough if ex~ss water ove~ onto ~e road ~ea. Need to fence off access to eaChmining. operation All accesses including gates need to ~,~ ,,,u, ,,v, ~u and secured 'to lirr, K'a .ccess to pedestrians and A'P¢'s. Loss of progerry value/aesthetics Our property is certainly less valuable with a noisy. dusty earthmining operation in the neighbo..rhood. !t .would be dLffic~J!t to. sell a house v¢~thin earshot of ,~o, ,, ,,,,,.,,~ opr~atior,. (The prop~rty.haa previously been a quiet orange grove.) The current pit is shielded from immokalee Road but neighbors have an unobstructed view of bare dirt and earth-moving equipment. !.mpac:t nn live,~tOC'~ and ~xntir.. animal.~ ~c)n.~tant nni.~. and dust is stre,~sful _on herse,g, hogs, cov,,s, chickens and panthers, all which, are kept outdoors. ~ L)lesel tumes now replace the smell ot orange blossom, especially M the pit is expanded even closer to our neighborhood. Lack of closure .alan. Since. the original pit w~'s supposed to be. completed quickly and then converted to an .RV park anti the plan apparently changed, i believethere should be a date established by which time no additional dirt could be removed and the area would be re,sodded to a aesthetically pleasant landscape. A bond cc,.dd ..he required to · ' "' ""' not be left, at, ~yesc.-~ in ths ..... ' "' .... "~'""' ..... '"" land being donated back to county. In addition; I would like to provide a more in depth description of our neighborhood =.;o,,~.,~,.-,, o,,../~,.,, ,+~ ~,o,..~n ~,,..~.-.,. ,,,;,~, 4n sd'.:Its and '~ ') "~'~,'~ Platt Road 13a$18 homes with 42 a~lults and 1 ,, childrei3. Pantera Lane 13as 4 t3omes wit!3 ~ adults ancl 2 c!311aren. Fawn Lane has 5 homes with 11 adults and 7 children. TOTALS '~" h-om~s"'" "" children ,.,, , ~ adults,.,~.- JAN 2 3 2001 resL~ents commute to ~ork ,.~ =riendship ~ imr:..aiee ~oad. Most families o~ their ext. ,~. ~ my knowledge. homes; only one rental ~, , ...... ?~,Itl~,, against the approval of ao~ this addition to the eaChmining pit. It is not welcome nor ~mpatible with the suerounding neighborodd Mildred A. Ba!! JAN 2 3 2001 Go v N G/t Goo February16,2000 James Ivey 2280 19th Street SW Naples, FL 34117 Dear James, On behalf of our entire congregation, I would like to thank you for your generous donation of the fill dirt for our new sanctuary building project in March/April 1999. Your contribution was a tremendous savings to us as the contractor deducted $2,841.00 for the fill that you donated. We deeply appreciate your support of our church family over the years, and most certainly during this exciting building project. Now that the building is complete and in use, we pray that the Lord will he glorified throu~ His work here. May the Lord richly bless you for your faithfulness to t-run, brother. God bless. Sincerely, 3899 29a~ Avenue S.W. · Naples, l~1orida 34117 · Phone: (941) 455-7051 ° F~ JAN 2 3 2001 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA EXTENSION Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences June 20, 2000 · Collier County 14700 Immokalee Rd Naples, FL 34120 Tel. {941) 353-4244 SUN 974-5098 FAX (941) 353-7127 ...... - .. ?3- ~.~: - v ~ * - - ~ , ~. Gle~ Simpson Big Island Excavation 3000 Big Island ~nch Road Naples, ~ 34120 Dear Mr. Simpson: In addition to our deep appreciation for your generosity in contributing materials, time and talent to the Horticulture Learning Center, I am sure that your tax accountant would appreciate confirmation for your tax files. Your contribution to the citrus garden in the value of fill was approximately $6,062 for 1,212 cubic yards. The land leveling and grading was valued at $460 for a total of $6,522. For your records our FEIN# is 31-1496677. While tax rules require that we put a value on any contribution, your continued interest and support are invaluable Sincerely, Director, Collier County University Extension Service DLB:sl ::- I'he ixxs;ntu te o( Fowl ,:~:~ ::x'zri.::di-,~31 S<.ievc¢s ~.~ ,,~n Equ~t Ernl: Ioymeni: C ~p<,r ~;r~ity - Affirmative Actium £mploy er aulhorJzed tn ~, JAN 2 3 2001 ,v'i,le ~es_~_~rd~, Muca~onal § 3.4.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 3.4. EXPLOSIVES* Sec. 3.4.1. Title and citation. This division shall be known and may be cited as the "Collier County Explosives Regulations." Sec. 3.4.2. Purpose. This division is intended to control and regulate explosives in Collier County for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and to prevent damage to property, personal injury and loss of life resulting from detonations of explosives. Further this division is intended to prevent the possession and use of explosives by unauthorized persons in the unincorporated areas of Collier County, or in roadways maintained by Collier County but which lie within municipal boundaries of Collier County, and to protect the structural and physical integrity of private and public facilities and materials along such roadways. It is to be liberally construed to accomplish such intent and purpose. Further, it is the intent of this division to recognize that a user of explosives license an~l blaster permit must be approved and issued by the State of Florida and that, in addition to the requirements of this division, the user and blaster is responsible for compliance with state or federal explosive regulations including, but not limited to, the following: 3.4.2.1. 3.4.2.2. 3.4.2.3. The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Standards, subpart H, Ex- plosives and Blasting Agents, section 1910.109, and subpart U, Blasting and the Use of Explosive B, section 1926.900 through and including section 1926.914. The State of Florida enactment of F.S. ch. 552 and the state fire marshal's regulatory rules designated as chapter 4A-2, Florida Administrative Code. The National Fire Protection Association 495, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage and Use of Explosive Materials 1985 Edition. Sec. 3.4,3. Applicability; permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to acquire, possess, handle, dispose of, store or use an explosive in Collier County without first obtaining a Collier County user/blaster permit (hereinafter referred to as "permit") issued pursuant to the provisions of this division. A permit obtained by a user in accordance with provisions of this division shall be suiTicient to authorize [hose blasters and handlers who are employed or engaged by the user and who are fully disclosed to Collier County in accordance with permit application requirements and conditions of this division. *Code reference--Fire prevention and protection, ch. 58. Special acts reference~-Fire p~'evention and protection, ch. 230. State law references---Explosives, F.S. ch. 552; county ordinances regule~ting i?S. § 552.25. )losives, ,kGEN~A ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.4.5.1 Sec. 3.4.4. Exemptions from permit requirements. The following are exempt from the provisions of this division: 3.4.4.1~ The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service or the Collier County sheriffs designated employee/personnel and all other law enforcement officials acting in their respective official capacities in performance of their duties. This exemption shall be applicable only to the personnel of these agencies and shall not apply to private contractors and subcontractors employed by these agen- cies. 3.4.4.2. The sale and delivery of explosives and the sale or use of pyrotechnics (fireworks/in accordance with applicable Collier County ordinances. 3.4.4.3. The transportation of explosives through Collier County under regulations of the Federal Department of Transportation 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regula- tionsl parts 100 to 177. 3.4.4.4. The Armed Forces of the United States or the state militia. 3.4.4.5. The possession, transportation and use of small arms ammunition and supplies such as black powder and smokeless powder. Sec. 3.4.5. 3.4.5.1. Permit application requirements and conditions. Ge~.~eral c~pplication requirements. Application for the Collier County user/ blaster permit shall be pursuant to a letter of application for the permit signed by the user and filed with the development services department. The applica- tion letter shall derail the purpose of the permit and shall include, but shall not be limited ~o, the follo~ving data and information or, where applicable, shall have such data and information submitted as an attachment. It is not the in;.e, nr of this division to require an applicant who has previously obtained a St.at~· of Florida user of explosix'es license or explosive blaster permit to again prodt~ce origihal data and information (other than the originals requested in section[s] 3.4.5.1.1 through 3.4.5.1.6 below) that was supplied as part of the application process for the state license or permit and which original data and informnation is on file with the development services department. In the event [,DC3:75.3 3.4.5.1.11 3.4.5.1.2. 3.4.5.1.3. 3.4.5.1.4. 3.4.5.1.5. 3.4.5.1.6. 3,4.5.1.7. 3.4.5.1.8. 3.,t.5.1.9. 3.4.5.1.I0. 3.4.5.1.11. that application data or information required by this section has been previ- ously supplied to the department of natural resources, the applicant may supply copies of such information to Collier County to fulfill the specific data or information requirement. A Collier County fingerprint information card which has been completed by the user ~or its legal representative!, all blasters and handlers. Full name, address and the telephone number of the user or its represents rives. A physical description of the user and all blasters and handlers. Fingerprints of the user and all blasters and handlers. The signature of the user and all blasters and handlers. Recent photographs of the user and all blasters and handlers. A legal description of the site at which blasting will occur, including section, township, and range. The dates on which the blasting is expected to commence and terminate and a detailed explanation of the reason and purpose of the blasting. Copies of the user's State of Florida user of explosives and explosive blaster permit licenses and when applicable manufacturers distributor of explosives State of Florida explosive license. Distance between the blasting site and all neighboring properties. Written authorization or proof of authorization from the owner of the site, setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the owneris) and providing: 1. Authorization to blast on the property; and 2,. Authorization for the county's personnel to enter upon the property from time to time in order to carry out inspections and verify compliance with the provisions of this division and the blasting permit. 3. For geophysical seismic operations, legal permission, which may he in t~te form of a lease, written permission of an owner of the mineral:-'., or an affidavit of the applicant affirming that he will obtain permission conduct geophysical seismic operations using explosives for oil, gas, or minerals underlying the lands. 4. Evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements as set forth m section 3.4.10 of this division. 5. Evidence of permit approvals, where applicable, from the State of Florida ,:tepa~ment of natural resources, or other federal, state or local agencies havingj.risdiction over th,~. prot,ased work. 6. A x~'itten statement that the usor has. read this division and agrees cc, nduc~ all blasting act. i~it[e~ ~.n accordance with this division arid all applicaMe county and state code:~ and law.~. 2 3 2001 3.4.5.2. 3.4.5.2.1. 3.4.5.2,2. X'~,rificat/nn of project development appr~val by Collier County wh~n tl~e :..', ~s-ti~.4 is to be done i~: conjun,:tion with such deve]~pment. At~y ~,t~;r'~ ,t~f~,r~nation or data reasnnably required and requested by t}~e do.. velop:t~e~t ~;,~r'Aces director in order to fully review or evaluate any speciai circus:silences or considerations for permit application approval applicable t,~ speck fit: k~l;~sting site!s). fOrher information or data required and requ~-sted bv the develr,pment semces director is not intended to require the submission geophysical information or data when the confidentiality of such information or dai~ is protected by common law, state stalute or an administrative rule prornt:l~ated thereunder.i BIastz~g/cx)wIosi~.,es znforrnation. A site plan shox~dng the intended blasting locations and expected pattern of explo.~4ons. For geophysic~ seismic blasting a location map shall be submitted in place of the site ply. A full description of the followSrig blasting information (in cases where a manuf3cturer, ~stributor or de~er x~-ho is acting as a user in conjunction with a commermM excavation ~d that sito's representative(s', is purchasing explo- sives at~d has a user's license, it shall Be the responsibility of the sito's user or blaster to supply the appropriate information cont.~ned below to the develop- ment se~ces ~rector for review and approv~ prior to placement of explosives within the ~ound): 1. Depth and nu~nber of holes. 2. Size of the holes. 3. Size of the explosive ch~ges. 4. Ma~mum number of pounds of explosives per hole; mmximum pounds per delay. Number of boles which ~e planned to be shot each day. 6. Type of initiation deuce to be utilized, i.e., blasting caps, detonating cord, etc. 7. The hour of the day when blasting will occur. ?]~.~ ?u~ds per shot whe~ underwater "doby" detonation is peribrined ?~:ch infbrmation is applicable to the blasting activity.. When };~ophyM{:al seismic blasti~g i~ to occur, tl~e application shall include a list el the names, addresses, social security numbers and telephone numbers all emptovec, s of the geophysi{tal seismic parties. Fi~,: ~t:~-,r ?hall update the list ~nd api',lic:t}.,l~, i~,.f: r~q;~fic,~ ,. n~r. ~"c~;'i;s~rsr during the geophysical seisml,' JAN 2 3 2001 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.4.7.1.3 actions of all blasters and handlers while engaged in the course and scope of their employment by user. The user shall file with the development services director, at the time of permit application, the name, address, telephone number and business affiliation of a third party observer(s) who meets all requirements of this division. Sec. 3.4.6. Obligation of user to utilities. Prior to permit issuance, the user shall make appropriate arrangements with all utility companies which may be affected by the blasting to minimize the chance of damage to utility facilities. The user shall notify, at least 24 hours prior to blasting, all utility companies which have facilities or equipment which may be affected by the blasting. Sec. 3.4.7. Permit application review procedures. 3.4.7.1. Upon submittal of the letter of application to the office of the development services director, processing shall commence. 3.4.7.1.1. A field review of the site may be required at the discretion of the development services director. 3.4.7.1.2. 3.4.7.1.3. Checks may be performed by law enforcement officials on all permit requests and on the user, blaster or handler. Pro-blast inspections. 1. Prior to detonation of explosives a list of all pro-blast inspections performed shall be provided to Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Services. Pro-blast inspections are required for structures if one of the ibllowing conditions has been satisfied: a. If the structure is within a distance of 150 feet times the square root of the charge away from the blast, as iljustrated by the following formula: D = 150 x W (Where "D" equals the distance in ibet and "W" equals the weight of the charge in po~mds of explosives per delay.) [fth~ structure is within 300 feet of the blast permitted for any size charge. Pre-blast respections shall be conducted by ~m independent seismologist, vibration enghxeer, structural engineer, or their ,'epresentative. The pre-blast survey inspection shall consist of compl~te documentation of all visible in~cri~cr a~d exterior defects ot~;erved ~t LlbC 'a:sx JAN 2 3 2001 § 3.4.9.2.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.4.9.2.1. 3.4.9.2.2. 3.4.9.2.3. 3.4.9.2.4. 3.,'1.9.3 3.4.9.4. A cash or surety bond or letter of credit in such amount as may be deemed necessary by the development services director or the board for the financial protection of adjacent or nearby public property or facilities. The bond or letter of credit shall be drawn in favor of Collier County and the terms of the instrument shall be such that it provides for forfeiture of the bond or credit upon written demand by the development services director specifying the public property or facilities damaged and the amount of damage. In the event that the applicant has provided a cash or surety bond or letter of credit to the State of Florida in fulfillment of state license bond requirements and the development services director determines that such security is in effect in such amount and type so as to provide the financial protection required by this section, the deve]opment services director shall permit the applicant to provide such current security with an endorsement or rider in favor of Collier County. A condition limiting the amount and type of explosive which may be used at any one tixne, whether fired or detonated instantaneously as a single charge or by a delay series charge, as may be deemed by him reasonable under the conditions existing in the locale for which the permit is issued. A condition requiring the user to conduct a series of test shots to determine that vibrations are within required hmitations. From time to time to change, amend, modify or impose more restrictive conditions and limitations if circumstances and conditions at and surrounding the site area concerned so warrant or prove to be necessary in order to carry out the purpose for which the conditions and limitations were imposed. If such conditions and limitations are found by the development services director to be too restrictive, he may modify them accordingly within the bounds of the purposes for which they were imposed; provided, however, the imposed limitations and conditions as to the amount of explosives permitted in any permit shall not be increased by the development services director until and unless the permittee shall first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the development services director by due and proper proof that the desired increase would not in any event result in a resultant peak particle velocity in excess of that prescribed in section 3.4.13.5.1. To verify the use of an amount of explosive which will result in vibrations up to but not exceeding the required limits of this division, the development services director shall require that the user provide a minimum of one continuous monitoring seismic instrument for use during the daily blasting se~mnents to ascertain that described limits are not exceeded at the nearest building or st~xmture. The user shall be responsible for all costs incurred in providing such rnonitoring. LDC3:84 AC~.NOA FrEJ~ ,f DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ~, 3.4.10.2 3.4.9.4.1. The seismic instrument shall be placed at a location either on the blasting site or the instrument may be relocated to an off-site location. 3~4.9.4.2. The development services director shall be advised of the instrument's loca- tion. 3.4.9.4.3. 3.4.9.4.4. The results from the seismic instrument shall be provided to and analyzed by a seismologist who shall sign the results of his analysis. All orig/nal records of the seismic analysis will be the property of the user but a copy of the seismic results and/or analysis shall be furnished to the development services director with full and complete and supporting data at monthly intervals or upon demand. 3.4.9.4.5. 3.4.9.4.6. Each instrument shall be frequently checked to insure proper operation and shall be calibrated annually. Notification of the calibration date shall be supplied to the development serv/ces director. The development services director is authorized to waive the requirement for a continuous monitoring seismic instrument if the development services director determines that the instrument is unnecessary as a result of existing monitoring data or in the event that there are no probable adverse impacts due to the remote and isolated location of the blasting. Sec. 3.4.10. Issuance. 3,4.10.1, 3.4.10.1.1. The development services director, as a condition to the issuance of a permit, shall require evidence of insurance coverage to protect the applicant, Collier CmmW and the public as follows: Workers' compensation as required by Florida law. 3,6.10 1.2. 3.4.[0.1.3. Cotaprehensive general liability (including, but not limitcd to explosive haz- ard, collapse hazard, underground property damage, contractual liabihty)-- bodily injury, personal injury: $1,000,000.00 each occurrence and aggregate; property damage: $1,000,000.00 each occurrence and aggregate. Additional coverage: as may be required depending on special circumstances. 3.4.1{).2 %' 2,::; $ °.F, 12-17-97! A certificate of insurance shall be provided to the development services director ~o confirm that the above insurance coverage will be in effect during the entire period of blasting. The insurance coverage shall not be canceled or changed ,.v4thout a minirotan of 30 days' prior whtten notice t,:> the development stowices director. 200! § 3.4.11 COLLIER COUNTY [,AND DEVELOPMENT CODE Sec. 3.4.11. Fees. 3.4.11.1. The following nonrefundable, nontransferable permit application fees shall be applicable to all permit applications submitted after the effective date of this division: 3.4.11.1.1. A fee set by resolution per site will be charged for issuance of a 30*day permit. 3.4.11.1.2. A fee set by resolution per site will be charged for issuance of a 90-day permit. 3.4.11.1.3. A fee set by resolution per site will be charged for issuance of a yearly permit. 3.4.11.1.4. A fee set by resolution will be charged for each handler who assists the user or blaster in the use of explosives. It shall be the user and blaster's responsibility to ensure the handler's permits are kept current with the development services director. 3.4.11.1.5. If it is necessary to renew a permit, a renewal fee, set by resolution, per permit will be charged. The renewal shall be for only 30 days and shall only be renewed twice for the same permit. 3.4.11.1.6. Permit fees may be waived in those cases where blasting is to be performed for a governmental agency. 3.4.11.2. An after-the-fact permit may be granted, at the sole discretion of the develop- ment services director, where it is verified that the applicant has submitted all application information required by this division and said applicant would have been granted a permit pursuant to an original application. The following fees and conditions shall be applicable to an after-the-fact permit: 3.4.11.2.1. A fee set by resolution for the issuance of the permit; and 3.4.11.2.2. A fine set by resolution per detonated shot; and 3.4.11.2.3. Correction of all applicable damages caused by the blasting; and 3.4.11.2.4. A six-month moratorium for the user and blaster on future permit application requests within Collier County; The issuance of an after-the-fact permit or the payment of an after-the-fact permit fee shall not prevent or prohibit the county from imposing or pursuing such other administrative, civil or criminal penalties as may be deemed appropriate. Sec. 3.4.12. Information and requirements during and subsequent to geophysical seismic blasting. 3.4.12.1. For geophysical seismic blasting and under such other circumstances as may be specified by the developrnent services director, the following requi~, shall be applicable dmqng blasting operations: ~ments~_~i.._.~.~-.. AGEh~)A ly JAN 2 3 2001 DE~v~ELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.4.12.2.1 3.4.12.1.1. 3.4.12.1.2. 3.4.12.1.3. 3.4.12.1.4. 3.4.12.1.5. 3.,1.12.2. The user shall provide a location map of all intended shot points along all survey lines to the development services director prior to drilling and loading any shot holes. The location map shall be appropriately keyed with symbols and shall be on an aerial photographic base at a scale of one inch equals 400 feet. The user shall provide, at his expense, an independent third party observer(s) who shall be thoroughly familiar with applicable county ordinances, the rules of the state fire marshal and current State of Florida department of natural resources geophysical rules and shall, when practical, meet all Florida state police board standards. The third party observer(s) shall witness the drilling, loading, shooting and plugging of all holes detonated by the user and shall maintain a shooting log book as required by the department of natural resources. In addition, no remedial operations to neutralize an undetonated shot hole shall take place without the observer(s) also witnessing the activity. The name, address and telephone number of the independent third party observer(s) shall be provided to the development services director prior to the commencement of blasting operations. Where any requirement of this subsec- tion is mandated by state statute or administrative rule as part of state licensing requirements, the applicant may comply with the requirements of this subsection by providing copies of materials or data supplied to the State of Florida in fulfillment of the state~s requirement. Appropriate signs shall be placed at intervals along the shot line to advise all persons of an explosive hazard. Complete copies of files on the number of blasting caps used and pounds of explosives used on each shot line shall be provided to the development services director. Where necessary due to terrain or unusual geographic conditions, transporta- tion to and from the blast site shall be provided by the user for any county official acting in their respective official capacities in performance of their duties that is required to visit the site for any purpose. The following requirements shall be applicable subsequent to blasting opera- tions: Within 15 days after completion of each shot line, a survey base line and exact shot points must be established for future relocation of each shot hole. The survey must have a minimum closure of one to 5,000. Such survey shall be made in relation to the nearest section line or other appropriate line of demarcation so as to insure proper relocation of shot holes in the future. Legible copies of all field books and computations shall be submitted to and retained by the development services director. In the event that survey data that bla,~.ting bas occ~trred at other ~han the permitted JAN 2 3 200] § 3.4.12.2.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.4.12.2.2. Sec. 3.4.13. 3.4.13.1. 3.4.13.2. 3.4.13.3. 3.4.13.4. 3.4.13.5. 3.4.13.5.1. S~pp. No. 9 development services director is authorized to require an after-the-fact permit application for the area where the blasting has taken place and to require any and all actions by the user to comply with the intent and purpose of this division.' The development services director is further authorized, however, to waive the permit fee for an alter-the-fact permit application where it is determined that the user has relied in good faith on inaccurate survey data or if the development services director determines that specific site conditions render the fee inapplicable or unnecessary. The user shall certify in writing that the State of Florida's bureau of geology's field office representative is satisfied that all owners on whose property blasting operations have occurred, have been properly restored including, but not limited to, removal of pin flags, wire and trash from the site, and that all detonated holes and ruts have been backfilled to surrounding grades. Restrictions for the use and handling of explosives. Detonation of explosives shall normally be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The development services director may reduce or waive this time frame due to existing site conditions/locations or may extend this time frame to all daylight hours for sites remote from residential development. Detonation of explosives shall not occur on Sundays or legal holidays. An exception may be granted for geophysical seismic operations or when justifi- cation is submitted in writing by the user and is subsequently reviewed and approved by the development services director. Should structures which are expected to receive a resultant peak particle velocity in excess of acceptable standards as indicated below require evacua- tion or in other circumstances in which evacuation for an extended period of time (more than two hours) is required, the user shall notify the Collier County sheriffs office by telephone a minimum of 12 hours prior to commencement of the evacuation. Twenty~four hours prior to detonation of explosives or applicable segments thereof, the user or blaster shall orally notify the development services director and specify the location and proposed time of such blasting. This time limit may be waived by the development services director under special circum- stances such as underwater doby detonations. Blasting permit and limits. It shall be unlawful for any person, to blast, fire, detonate or use any amount of explosive within the territorial limits of the county without first obtaining a blasting permit as hereinafter provided by this section; provided that in any event it shah be unlawful for any person to blast, fire or detonate or use any amount of explosives which would result in a resultant peak particle v~ LDC3:88 JAN 2 3 2001 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMEN'rS § 3.4.13.5.4 3.4.13.5.2. 2.4.13.o.o, 3.4.12.[;.4. in excess of 0.5 inches per second when measured on the ground at the nearest building or structure not owned by the permittee, or at a location identified by the seismologist of record and the planning services director, or designee. A blasting control procedure is hereby established by adopting an 80 percent rule for controlling blasting in urban construction environments. If 80 percent of the allowable particle velocity is exceeded, no blasting may be undertaken until a letter, facsimile transmission, or telephone call with a follow-up letter or facsimile transmission is provided by the blasting permit applicant to the county identif~dng a revised blasting methodology which provides procedures that will be implemented to assure that a peak particle velocity of 0.5 inches per second will not be exceeded. The maximum allowable airblast, measured at the nearest building or struc- ture not owned by the permittee, or when measured at a distance of 5,280 feet from the blast shall not exceed 129 decibels when measured by an instrument having a fiat frequency response over a range of at least 6 to 200 hertz. If the airblast is measured with an instrument having a fiat frequency measure over a range of at least 2 to 200 hertz, the corresponding limit is 133 decibels. The following requirements shall apply to all blasting within the urban boundaries of the county: Overburden shall not be removed prior to blasting. When overbur- den exceeds four feet of depth, a minimum of four feet of overburden shall remain in place prior to blasting. b) All blast holes within 1,000 feet of the nearest structure based on a GPS me~surement with 89 stone or approved equal material shall be stemmed to confine the gaseous products of detonation. The "borehole" surrounding the blast tube shall be backfilled to ensure stability of the ground surface. d) All surface detonators shall be covered or buried. All charges shall be at (originally placed) proper depth prior to the detonation of multiple blasts. Exception. Upon written request, the development services director may authorize the resnltant peak particle velocity exceeding the aforementioned limits when vibration levels specified in the Alternative Blasting Criteria of ~he United States Bureau of Min~.s Report and Investigations No. 8507, Structm'e Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting are used. Exph~'dves shall not be abandoned or left in an unsecured location. In tbc~ ~_'vent that a chargedAoaded hole. does not detomtte the user or Master ~h:~d i~L~ ,,vh~tev~-~r a~tion is neces:~try tmd~:~r the conditions p.reva JAN 2 3 2001 § 3.4.13.5.4 COLLIER COUNTY LAND' DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.4.13.5.5. 3.4.13.5.6. 3.4.13.5.7. 3.4.13.5.8. 3.4.13.5.9, site to neutralize the misfire the same date as placed and prior to the continuance of loading/drilling more holes. Should the depth of the explosive be such as to prohibit recovery or neutralization the same date as placed and the explosive is irretrievable or neutralization is impracticable, the user shall ensure that the charged/loaded hole's location shall be documented and noted utilizing existing landmarks to facilitate return to the location as necessary, and ~vith the actual pinpoint location by survey provided to the development services director. Prior to the detonation of any explosives within commercial excavations and during the course of the day's blasting activities, a warning signal such as a horn or siren, audible at adjacent properties, shall be sounded a minimum of one minute prior to detonation and an all-clear signal shall also be sounded upon completion of the blast(s). This warning signal shall be of sufficient duration (a minimum of 30 seconds) to allow complete alert of all individuals adjacent to the blast area. Blasting caps shall not be loaded through the drill steel, also known as the "Kelly bar." A record of blast data shall be recorded on daily blasting logs. The logs shall be maintained by the user or blaster on an approved form with copies of the completed logs submitted to the development services director monthly unless otherwise requested. Overspray from all detonations shall be contained at the blast site. ,ill explosives placed in the ground must be detonated the same date as placed and must not be left in the ground overnight. If conditions so warrant and with justification the development services director may authorize "sleepers" pro- vided, however: 1. The development services director receives verbal and followed by written approval from the bureau of explosives and fire equipment oiT~ce of the state fire marshal, Tallahassee, Florida; and 2. The Collier CounW sheriffs olT~ce receives verbal information confirming the location/condition of such "sleepers"; and 3. The user utilizes night security along with taking other appropriate protective safeguards. a. Exception for geophysical seismic users. For geophysical seismic operations, overnight security shall not be required when the explosives are loaded at a depth that avoids deformation of the ground surface upon detonation; provided, ho~vever, that the explo- sives are locked in the hole at the intended depth of burial with a borehole anchor and/or a sealing material to prevent removal. 'No. 97-~13, ,}~: 3.F,. 12-17-97; Ord. No. 99-46, § 3.1, 6-16-99) Supp. ?.c. :~ I,DC3:90 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.4.15.1.5 See. 3.4.14. 3.4.14.1. 3.4.14.2. o.4.14.3. 3.4.11.3.1. 3.4.14.3.2. Sec. 3.4.15. '].415. I. 3.4 :~. [.1. :J..t.15,1.2. 15.1.3. Sale or disposal; inventory; theft or illegal use. Sale or disposal to person without permit. It shall be unlawful: 1. For any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any explosive to any other person who does not have a valid permit. To dispose of any explosive not owned by the user, without providing a minimum of 24 hours' prior notice to the Collier County sheriffs office and the development services director. InventoZ'. Every user having any explosive in his possession, dominion or control shah have on file a schedule or inventory. form accurately setting forth the quantity and description of such explosives. Reports of theft, illegal use or loss. In the event any explosive is stolen, misplaced or lost or there are unexplained shortages, such occurrences shall be reported immediately after discovery, to the Collier County sheriffs office and the development services director. Within 12 hours after discovery, in accordance with F.S. § 522.113, notification shall be given to the bureau of explosives and fire equipment office of the state fire marshal, Tallahassee, Florida, and within 24 hours after discovery notification shall also be given to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' nearest office. The area in which the incident occurred shall be secured until an investigation has been made and the scene released by the investigating agency. Revocation and/or suspension of permit. Permits may be revoked and/or suspended by the development services director for the following reasons: Noncompliance by the user, his agents or employees with any directire of the development services director relating to the permits, the permitting process, permit limitations, stipulations or conditions, or any related matter. The development services director determines that the blasting has caused actual personal or real property damage to a party other than the user or blaster and determines that a suspension or revocation of the permit is necessary to investigate and/or remedy the blasting activities resulting in the damage. In the event that false information was given or a misrepresentation 'was made to obtain the permit. In the event the permittee is a fugitive from justice. permittee has. been judicially determined to be mentally :90. In the event the incmnp~tent. JAN 2 3 2001 § 3.4.15.1.6 COLLIER COLq~TY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.4.15.1.6. 3.4.15.2. 3.4.15.3. 3.4.15.4. 3.4.15.5. Sec. 3.4.16. 3.4.16.1. Violation by the permittee of any provision of any explosives la~v or regulation or provision in this division. When a permit is revoked and/or suspended by the development services director, the permittee shall be notified of the revocation and/or suspension and the reasons therefore, in writing by certified mail, return receipt re- quested, or such notification may be hand delivered to the user or blaster at the blasting site. Such revocation and/or suspension shall be effective immediately upon receipt, if by mail, or immediately upon hand delivery. In the event, however, the development services director deems it necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to prevent probable damage to private or public property the development services director may orally direct the suspension and/or revocation of a permit. Such revocation and/or suspension shall be effective immediately and written notice shall be provided to the permittee by certified mail within five working days thereafter. Upon such revocation and/or suspension of permit, the development services director shall provide notice to the Collier County sheriffs otT~ce and such other agencies as he may deem appropriate. When a permit has been revoked and/or suspended by the development services director, the permittee may appeal such decision by filing a written notice of appeal with the board, with a copy to the development services director, within ten working days after notification of such revocation and/or suspension. Within 45 days after the filing of the notice of appeal. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the board. At such hearing the board shall review those facts presented by the permittee and the development services director and the board shall thereafter determine whether the revocation and/or suspension was in accordance with the provisions of this division. The board shall render a decision upholding the decision of the development services director or shall direct the development services director to lift and remove the revocation and/or suspension of the permit. In the event that a permit is revoked and/or suspended by the development services director and, if appealed, such revocation and/or suspension is upheld by the board, it shall be necessary that a new application be submitted to and approved by the development services director. Such approval shall be in accordance with the provisions of this division unless the development services director determines, in writing, that such new application is unnecessary and does not further the intent and purposes of this division. Such determination by the development services director shall become part of the permanent permit file. Authority vested in the development services director. The development services director is vested with the authority to admi~,ister and enforce the provisions of this division and is authorized and directed to take any action authorized by or contemplated by this division to insure compliance with or prevent violation of the provisions of this divisio LDC3:90.2 DE¥~2LOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.5.3.1 Sec, 3.4.17. Penalties. Any firm, partnership, corporation, individual or other entity who violates the provisions of this division, or fails to comply with any requirement of this division, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as provided by law, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of such violation. Each violation and each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition, and as an alternative means of enforcement, Collier County may enforce the provisions or requirements of this division by means of any available civil remedy in a court of competent jurisdiction. State law referencewPenalty for ordinance violations, F.S. § 125.69. Sec. 3.4.18. Previously issued permits. The provisions of the division shall govern all permits issued after the effective date of this division. DIVISION 3.5. EXCAVATION Sec. 3.5.1. Title and citation. This division shall be known and may be cited as the "Collier County Excavation Regulations." Sec. 3.5.2. Purpose. The purpose of this division is to establish a reasonable regulatory framework to regulate excavations within the county so as to minimize any potentially adverse impacts of the excavation activiw on public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this county and its natural resources. Sec. 3.5.3. Applicability; permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person, association, corporation or other entity to create, attempt to cceate, or alter an excavation without having obtained a permit therefor, except as provided herein. 3.5.3.1. Excavations on undeveloped coastal barriers shall be prohibited, except as specified fix section 3.12.8.3. (Ord. No. 93-37, § 3) ,JAN 2 3 2001 DEX,~LOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ~ 3.5 5.1.1 Sec. 3.5.4. Exemptions. The following activities, to the extent specified herein, are exempt from the requirements of this division, provided that no excavated matehal is removed off-site, but are subject to compliance with all other applicable laws and county ordinances: 3.5.4.1. Earth moving in conjunction with any routine maintenance activity which restores the excavat/on to the final, and previously excavated, slope and depth configuration approved by the board, Or with the installation of an under- ground utility whSch is to be backfilled. 3.5.4.2. Foundations of any building or structure, providing the excavation -~511 be confined to the area of the structure only. 3.5.4.3. Excavations relarhag to the accessory use of property which by nature are of limited duration and designed to be filled upon completion, i.e., graves, septic tanks, swimming pools, fuel storage tanks, etc. 3.5.4.4. The regrading only of any property for aesthetic purposes that does not create a body of water or affect existflag drainage patterns or remove native vegeta- tion in excess of county standards. 3.5.4.5. Agricultural drainage and irrigation work incidental to ag-ricultural opera- tions. 3.5.4.5.1. Excavations incidental to agriculture surface water management and water use facilities as included in existing South Florida Water Management District permits. All excavated materials must remain on lands under same ownership. Any transportation of matehals over public roads is subject to appropriate transportation impact fees. 3.5.4.6. The grading, filling, and moving of earth in conjunction with road construction within the limits of the right-of-way or construction easement when the construction plans have been approved by the Collier County or state depart- ment of transportation. 3.5.4.7. Farm animal watering ponds or excavations located on single-family lots/ tracts where the net property size is two acres or more are exempt from the permittix~g procedures contained in this division, but must comply with all the construction standards of tiTis division. Such exemptions apply only if: 3.5.4.7.1. Excavation does not exceed one acre in area and 12 feet in depth. 3.5.4.7.2. No excavated material is removed from the property. 3.5.4.7.3. A building permit for the single-family home must be issued prior to the county issuing a letter of exemption. (Ord. N,~. 92-73, § 2; Ord. No. 93-$9, § 3; Ord. No. 97-26, § 3.}t, 6-4-97) Sec. 3.5.5. Excavation rexdew procedures. ~ ~ Tkpe.s' of exc~'atiorz permits. The permits required by this division shall be issued by the development serxdces director in accordance with the procedures set forth here~ ~d shall come ~der one of the following categoNes: :q 5.5 i.1. P~'/~,rz~e e_rc~'etior~s. P~vate excavations are considered to be an excavation where the ex,zavated material is not removed &ore the property and where the j.au 2 3 2001 §3,5.5.1.I COLLIER COU,NTY L~NI_~ DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.5.5,1.2, 3.5.5.1.3. 3,5.5.2. 3.5.5.2.1. 3.5.5.2.2. -2.5.5 -k disturbed surface area at grade does not exceed two acres, Where more than one excavation is proposed for the same piece of property or properties under common ownership and the combined disturbed surface area exceeds two acres, the permits shall not be issued as a private excavation. Commercial e.~cavations. Commercial excavations are considered to be any excavation wherein the excavated material is removed from the subject property. Development excavations. Development excavations are considered to be any excavation located within the boundaries of a planned unit development, subdivision development, or where the disturbed area of an excavation exceeds two acres, but no fill is removed from the subject property for whatever purpose provided that: 1. The excavations were clearly defined and detailed as to location, size, shape, depth and side slopes during the development's review process and, if applicable, approved by the board after appropriate public hear- in~s. 2. If approved by the board during the rezone and/or preliminary. subdivi- sion plat process, excavated material in an amount up to ten percent (to a maximum o£ 20,000 cubic yards) of the total volume excavated may be removed from the development. Intentions to remove material must be clearly stated durin~ the development's review and approval process. The desi~mn depth of the excavation shall be adjusted accordingly to minimize off-site removal of surplus material. Issuance of permits. Issuance of private and development excavation permits. The development services director may administratively approve and issue private and deve~. opment excavation permits where all of the applicable standards of division have been met. ~"hen, in his opinion, the standards have not been met, the application shall be submitted to the environmental advisory board for recommendation ~4~h ukimate approval or denial required of the board. Issuance of commercial excavation permits. Applications for commercial exca- vation permits shall be readewed by the community development and environ- mental set'does adminiswator, or his desig'nee, and by the environmental advisory board for recommendation and approved by the board. When a request is made to remove surplus fill material from a previously approved developmen~ excavation, the requirement for review by the environmental ad~dsory board shall be waived. Notice of meeting. The development services director shall ~ve prior written notice of the environmental advisory bt2ard meeting, by first class mail, as noted in section 3~5.6.1.3.4, to all adjacent prsper~' owners as determined reference to the latest ofi-~cial tax rolls. Excav,~tion permit criteria. Approval by the site development review direc,,or and the board shall be ~anted only upon competent and substantial evidence submitted bv the applicator, that: DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.5.5.6 3.5.5.4.]. 3.5.5.4.2. 3.5.5.4.3. 3.5.5.4.4. 3.5.5.4.5. 3.5.5.4.6. 3.5.5.4.7. 3.5.5.4.8. 3.5.5.5. 3.5.5.6. Supp. No. 4 The excavation will not interfere with the natural function of any sanitary, storm or drainage system, or natural flowage way, whether public or private, so as to create flooding or public health hazards or jeopardize the functions of the natural resources and environment of Collier County. Dust or noise generated by the excavation will not cause a violation of any applicable provisions of article 2 of this code. Rock crushing operations or material stockpiles that will be adjacent to any existing residential area may require separate county approval. The excavation will not adversely affect groundwater levels, water quality, hydroperiod or surface water flowways. The development services director may require the applicant to monitor the quality of the water in the excavation and adjacent ground and surface waters. Under no circumstances shall the excavation be conducted in such a manner as to violate Collier County or applicable State of Florida water quality standards. The excavation will be constructed so as not to cause an apparent safety hazard to persons or property. The excavation does not conflict with the growth management plan or land development regulations adopted pursuant thereto, nor does it conflict with existing zoning regulations. Special criteria and approval procedures may be necessary for projects within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. In cases where a wetland is no longer capable of performing environmental functions or providing environmental functions or providing environmental values or in cases where it is determined that no reasonable alternative exists other than disrupting a wetland, certain alterations may be allowed, except as otherwise authorized through previous county review processes. Flow of water within and through preserved wetlands shall not be impeded. Appropriate sediment control devices (hay bales, silt screens, etc.) shall be employed to prevent sedimentation within the wetland pursuant to the design requirements of division 3.7. Any building site adjacent to a wetland and elevated by filling, must employ the same erosion control devices. Fill must be stabilized using sod, or seed and mulch if an acceptable growth provides for stabilization. Other permits required. All appropriate state and federal permits or approvals for work in jurisdictional areas shall be provided the development services director prior to issuance of an excavation permit. Fees and guarantees. Upon community development and environmental ser- vices administrator, or his designee, approval on behalf of the board of county commissioners, the applicant will, within 60 days of written notification from the community development and environmental administrator, pay the re- quired permit fee, road impact fee if required and post, if required, the appropriate performance guarantee, in a format approved by the county attorney. In addition, the applicant shall provide written proof of t a~gag~ ~l~_~_, road impact fees in accordance with section 3.5.9.3, if required. AGEI~A ITEM LDC3:93 JAN 2 3 2001 § 3.5.5.6 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.5.5.6.1. 3.5.5.6.2. 3.5.5.7. 3.5.5.7.1. 3.5.5.7.2. Failure to pay the fees and post the guarantee, within this time period shall constitute abandonment of the excavation permit application and will require complete reapplication and review in accordance with all requirements in effect at the time of reapplication, with the following exceptions: Upon receipt of an applicant's written request with sufficient justification, as determined by the development services director, and payment of a time extension fee, the development services director may, one time only, authorize the extension of the permit issuance time for up to an additional 60 days. All previously approved excavation permits that have yet to be issued by the development services director become eligible for the above time extensions upon the effective date of this division. Duration of excavation permits. Private excavation permits shall be valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance. If the work is not completed in that time, a second application, with a reapplication fee must be submitted to the development services director, requesting up to an additional 12 months to complete the excavation. If the development services director finds sufficient good cause to grant the request, a permit extension will be issued. Commercial and development excavation permits will be of indefinite duration or until the excavation reaches the limits of the permitted size, provided the excavating operation remains active in accordance with the requirements of this division. (Ord. No. 93-89, § 3; Ord. No. 96-21, § 3) Sec. 3.5.6. Application requirements for excavation permits. 3.5.6.1.1. 3.5.6.1.2. 3.5.6.1.3. Supp. No. 4 Unless otherwise directed, one copy of all required application documents shall be submitted to the development services director on a form to be supplied by Collier County. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: The name, address and telephone number of the applicant or his agent, and, if known, the excavator. Proof of ownership, legal description and location of the property involved. A small location map, drawn on 8Y2-inch by 11-inch paper, shall accompany the application, clearly showing the location of the proposed excavation(s) in relation to commonly recognized landmarks. A signed statement by the applicant or his agent which includes: 1. A statement that he has read this division and agrees to conduct the excavation in accordance with this division, this code and other county and state codes and laws. 2. A statement of purpose of excavation and intended use of the excavated matehal. 3. Exhibits prepared and sealed by the project's surveyor/engineer showing: a. The boundaries of the property. b. Existing grades on the property. AC~rqDA ~T~ LDC3:94 J.~N 2 3 200] 3.5.6.1. DE'~!LOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.5.6.1.3 S~_~pp. No. 4 o o c. The level of the mean annual high and low water table. d. The grades which will exist following the completion of the excava- tion. e. The volume of the excavation as measured from the natural grade. f. Easements, existing utilities, roads and setbacks, and zoning. g. Drainage and flowways. h. Aerial limits of any special site vegetation such as mangrove, cypress or other wetland species. i. Logs of soil auger borings with field classification shall be provided, unless existing recent data is available and provided to the devel- opment services director, for use in determining minimum and maximum depths and appropriate side slope configurations and evidence of any confining layers, this latter to determine if on-site or adjacent ~wetlands are "perched." The depth of the soil auger borings shall extend to a point at least one foot below the proposed bottom elevation of the excavation, and shall be of at least the following density according to size of each excavation: zero to 4.9 acres/two locations; 5 to 9.9 acres/three locations; 10 acres or more/three locations plus one for each additional 20 acres or fractional part thereof. If the project is to be submitted to the environmental advisory board, a list of the names and addresses, obtained from the latest official tax rolls, of all owners or owner associations of property within one-fourth mile of the excavation or on-site vehicle access route or within 300 feet of the property lines of the property on which the excavation is to be performed, whichever is less. The applicant shall also furnish the development services director with said owners' names and addresses on preaddressed four-inch by 9¥2-inch envelopes with first class, plus an additional ounce, postage ready for mailing. Water management plan detailing methods for the conservation of existing on-site and off-site surface drainage systems and groundwater resources. Copies of an appropriate surface water management permit and/or water use permit (dewatering) as required and issued by the South Florida Water Management District shall be provided to the development services director prior to commencing the excavation operation. If excavated material will be removed from the property, and unless, due to site-specific circumstances, the requirement is waived by transporta- tion services director, a traffic and road impact analysis will be made by the county transportation department to address the following: a. Identifying the project's zone of influence, that is, the distance from the site that traffic is either generated from or attracted to. b. The existing condition of the road system within the excavation project's zone of' .influence. c. The capacity of the road system within the zone of influence to handle existing traffic, normal growth in the traffic, and additional traffic generated from the excavation project in consideration of the time frame of the traffic generation and the wheel loadings of such traffic. A~A I TE..I~ I,DC3:95 2 2001 § 3.5.6.1.3 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE d. The site-specific road work within the zone of influence which are necessary prior to the start of the project and which are necessary during the project so as to assure that premature road failure and/or severe road damage will not occur. e. Road work to be undertaken by the county and road work to be undertaken by the applicant to mitigate adverse road impacts along with confirmation of the security, if applicable, to be provided by the applicant to assure completion of the identified road work. Any and all security and/or performance guarantee required in excess of $100,000.00 as set forth in the road impact analysis shall be secured or guaranteed in accordance with section 3.5.10. Should there not be concurrence by transportation services director and the applicant of the improvements, maintenance, performance guarantee and/or other requirements on the part of both parties based on the road impact analysis, the permit application along with applicable information shall be subject to review and recommenda- tion by the environmental advisory board followed by review and action by the board. 7. The permittee may provide a phasing plan whereby the required perfor- mance guarantee may be reduced provided that security requirements are met in the first phase. No excavation shall take place in future phases until either the first phase is completed and approved by Collier County or additional security requirements are provided for the future phase(s) of work. Performance guarantees for platted lakes shall be in an amount equal to the engineeFs certified construction estimate. 3.5.6.2. Should blasting be necessary in conjunction with the excavation, all blasting shall be done under an approved Collier County user/blaster permit with no overburden removed prior to blasting from the area planned for excavation unless otherwise approved by the development services director. Said permits shall be obtained from the Collier County development services department. Should approval for blasting not be granted to the applicant, the applicant shall remain responsible to meet any and all requirements of an approved excavation permit unless the subject excavation permit is modified in accor- dance with this division. 3.5.6.3. If trees are to be removed as a result of the excavating operation, a vegetation removal permit shall be obtained from the site development review director before work shall commence. 3.5.6.4. If the application is made by any person or firm other than the owner of the property involved, a written and notarized approval from the property owner shall be submitted prior to processing of the application. (Ord. No. 93-89, § 3; Ord. No. 96-21, § 3) Sec. 3.5.7. Construction requirements for the constrx~ction of excavations. All requirements of the South Florida Water Management District, Permit Information Volume IV, along with the following requirements, shall apply to all excavations. 3.5.7.1. Setbacks. Excavations shall be located so that the top-of-bank of the excavation shall adhere to the following minimum setback requirements: .... ~ Supp. No. 4 LDC3:96 AGENDA ITEM DEdTLOPMENT REQI IREMENT~ § 3.0., 3.5.7.1.1. 3.5.7.1.2. 3.5.7.1.3. 3.5.7.2. 3.5.7.2.1. 3.5.7.2.2. 3.5.7.2.3. o.o.i.2.4. Fifty feet from the right-oLway line or easement line of any existing or proposed, private or public, street, road, highway or access easement. Excep- tions to the above-referenced setbacks may be developed and shall be subject to final approval by the development set,rices administrator or his desig-nee. Said exceptions shall be based upon recogrdzed standards for traffic engineer- ing and road desi=~n (.h ASHTO and/or Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways, State of Florida) and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross section, and need for barners. However, lakes immedi- ately adjacent to "T intersections" shall be located based on a specific design analysis by the applicant's en~neer which provides for safety and traffic considerations at the intersection. Fifty feet from side, rear or abutting property lines, except where the excavation is located in agMculturally or industrially zoned districts abutting a residentially zoned district, the setback shall be 100 feet from the residen- tially zoned property. From jurisdictional wetlands using standards set by SF~,~LMD. Side slopes. The finished side slopes of the excavated area, expressed as the ratio of the horizontal distance in feet to one foot of vertical drop, shall be as follows: A 4.0 to one Mope shM1 be graded from the top-of-bank to a breakpoint at least three feet below the mean annual low water level. Below this breakpoint, slopes shall be no steeper than 2.0 to one. All governing side slopes shall be considered from the top-of-bank of the resulting excavation, whether said top-of-bank is at the surface of adjacent fill material or at e.,dsting ground level. If rock, homogenous to the bottom of the excavation, is encountered at any elevation above the breakpoint, then the remaining slope below the breakpoint shall be no steeper than 0.5 to one. If said homogenous rock is encountered below the breakpoint, then the slope below the breakpoint shall be no steeper than 2.0 to one to the rock elevation, and no steeper than 0.5 to one from the rock elevation to the bottom of the excavation. However, in no case shall the 0.5 to one slope orionate less than six feet below the mean annual low water level. In the event that property where a commercial or exempt agricultural excavation was prex-iousty excavated is rezoned/developed for uses other than agadculture, the excavation shall be modified to the standards for development excavations in accordance with the requirements of section 3.5.7.2 proper, or other criter/a as rnay be more stringent. Exceptions to the side slope requirements that may be jnstified by suck alternatives as artificial Mope protection or vertical bulkheads shall be approved in advance by the site development rexdew director, where justifica- tion shall be documented in a desig-n analysis prepared by a professional eng4neer re~stered in the State of Florida. Bulkheads may be allowed for no mvre than 40 percent of the sh,3reline length, but compensating littoral zone must be provided. A GIEt4DA ITEJ~I JAN 2 3 2001 § 2.5.7.2.5 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEkrELOPMENT CODE 3.5.7.2.5. Ten percent of the Finished lake banks shall be planted with native aquatic vegetation on a littoral shelf located three feet vertically, with two-thirds below and one-third above the control elevation, except for dry detention, dry retention ponds, wet swales and ditches used only for conveyance of surface water. Littoral planting zones should be adjacent to and waterward of control structures when possible. The following criteria shall be minimum standards in the creation of the littoral zone: Eighty percent vegetative coverage of the planted littoral shelf is required over a three-year period to ensure establishment. Beyond three years the littorM shelf shall be maintained as functional component of the lake system. The function shall be defined as mimicking a natural system to improve water quality, biologically cleanse runoff prior to discharge into water, buffer against shoreline erosion, naturally control exotics and/or to mimic other natural functions such as the utilization by wildlife. The littoral zone shall be planted with at least three different species of native, nursery grown or otherwise legally obtained vegetation tolerant of the different zones within the littoral shelf where no single species shall account for greater than 50 percent of coverage. Copies of receipts for vegetation purchase shall be provided upon request by the site develop- ment review, director. All Collier County listed prohibited exotics shall be removed as they occur manually or with U.S. En~"ironmental Protection Agency approved her- bicides. Cattails shall be removed manually or with U.S, Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicides when they exceed ten percent coverage. At the time of planting: minimum tree height shall be eight feet; minimum shrub height shall be 24 inches; minimum herbaceous height shall be 12 inches. The height requirement may be administratively waived where the required height of tree, shrub or herbaceous plants are not available. An annual monitoring report shall be forwarded to compliance services en~dronmental staff, until such time as criteria set forth in section 3.5.7.2.5(1) have been satisfied. In order to ensure a minimum eight percent coverage of littoral zone plantincg areas, a performance g7uarantee pursuant to the provisions of section 3.5.10 will be required upon completion and acceptance of each excavation permitted by the counW. The value of the guarantee shall be based on a cost estimate to replace the ori~nal installed littoral zone plants. The guarantee must be submitted in a format approved by the county attorney and approved by the community development and environmental services administrator, or his designee. on behalf of the board of county commissioners prior to 3reliminary acceptance of the permitted excavation(s) and shall be held for a 7eriod of a minimum ~ 4 o~m ye :.,r to permit the plantings to bec,~me estab!ishec .,"v'h~c,k_~,~3;.~im'--'-~ J,~N 2 3 200~ ~ 3.5.7.26 REQUIREMENTS z 3.5.7.2.6. lake. The ~aar.antee may only be released by the county upon the o=mpletion of a final h]spection which confirms that at least 80 percent coverage has been obtained. No building construction permits will be issued for any proposed construction aromnd the perimeter of any excavation where the minimum clearance A'C~N,DA A D'~?[5[.~{)['MENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.5.7.5 3.5.7.3. 3.5.7.3.1. 3.5.7.3.2. 3.5.7.3.3. 3.5.7.4. 3.5.7.5. Supp ,X;o. 4 between the excavation top-oLbank and the proposed building foundation is less than 30 feet, unless and until all side slopes adjacent to the proposed construction have been completed and approved by the development services director. Exceptions to this requirement will be made in those instances where the perimeter of the excavation will be bulkheaded in accordance with the provisions of section 3.5.7.2.4. Depths. Unless site conditions, water quality or soil information indicates otherwise, the excavation depths as measured from the permitted control elevation shall be as follows: Maximum. Private and development excavations shall not exceed 12 feet in depth unless computations using the "fetch formula" of maximum depth = 5 feet + (0.015) x (mean fetch in feet) indicate that deeper depths are feasible. The mean fetch shall be computed as follows: (A + B)/2 where "A" is the average length parallel to the.long axis of the excavation and "B" is the average width of the excavation as measured at right angles to the long axis. Commercial excavations shall not exceed 20 feet in depth unless otherwise supported by the "fetch formula," or if it can be shown from a comparative water quality study that depths in excess of 20 feet will not, because of aquifer conditions or relative location to coastal saline waters, have a detrimental effect on the groundwater resources in the surrounding area. Minimum. In order to assure that unsightly conditions or undesirable aquatic growth will not occur in wet retention areas during the dry season of the year, the bottom elevation of these excavations shall be at least six feet below the mean annual low water level. Over-excavation. In those instances where the excavator over-excavates the depth of the excavation by more than an average of ten percent, written justification shall be submitted to the development services director by the project's surveyor/engineer providing an assessment of the impact of the over-excavation on the water quality of the excavation. If, upon review of the assessment statement by the development services director and advisory board, the increased depth is found to be unacceptable, the permittee shall be required to fill the excavation to the permitted depth with materials and methods approved by the development services director. If the inch depth is deemed acceptable by the development services director and approved by the environmental advisory board, a penalty will be against the permittee for the volume of the over-excavated material. The penalty shall be set by resolution for each additional cubic yard of excavated material. Fencing. If, at any time, the development services director finds that the location and conditions of an excavation are not in, or able to be brought into, compliance with all requirements of this division, the excavation shall be buffered with a minimum of a four-foot-high fence with "No Trespassing" signs as deemed appropriate by the development services director to deter passage of persons. Hours of operation. Hours of equipment and blasting operations shall be regulated by appropriate county ordinances and state laws. Unless otherwise approved by the development services director, all excavation operations, with the exception of dewatering pumps, which are within 1,000 feet of developed ~ AG~.N~A ITE.Nt LDC3:99 jAN 2 3 2001 § 3.5.7.5 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.5.7.6. 3.5.7.7. 3.5.7.8. 3.5.7.9. $upp. No. i residential property, shall be limited to operating hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Additionally, such excavation operations shall be in compliance with any and all county ordinances which establish operating controls by hours, days, noise level, or other parameters relating to public health, safety and welfare. Restoration. Upon completion of the excavation operation, the subject property shall be restored as required by the 1986 State of Florida Resource Extraction Reclamation Act (F.S. ch. 378, pt. IV). Reclamation shall mean the reasonable rehabilitation of the total disturbed area where the resource extraction has occurred, and shall meet the reclamation performance standards established by the state. All disturbed areas, including the excavation side slopes above the water line and a 20-foot wide area around the entire perimeter of the excavation, shall be sodded or fertilized and seeded with a quick-catch seed variety approved by the development services director within 60 days of the final side slope shaping in order to minimize the potential for erosion. Discontinuance of operations. If the excavating operation is inactive for a period of 90 consecutive days, except due to strikes or acts of God, all side slopes, including the working face, shall conform with this division and a report so stating, prepared and sealed by the project's surveyor/engineer shall be submitted to the development services director. Recommencement shall also be reported to the development services director. If the excavating operation is never started or if discontinued for a period of one year, that permit is void unless a written request is made by the permittee with sulTlcient justification for a time extension in which case the development services director may authorize a permit extension for up to 180 days. A new permit must be approved prior to commencement. Non-water management system lakes. Non-water management system lakes of a surface area of one acre or less, may be riprapped along their entire shoreline under the following conditions: a. Side slopes shall be at a minimum ratio of two to one. b. The required littoral zone may be created at a water management lake in the system, but at least ten percent of the required littoral areas shall be created at the lake discharge facility. c. Riprapping must extend down to the slope breakpoint required by section 3.5.7.2, LDC. d. The lake shall have protective barriers to prevent vehicular access where necessary. e. The lake shall meet all of the design requirements of section 3.5, LDC. Amendments to approved excavations. Substantial changes to any approved excavation permit must be submitted to project plan review for review and approval, with such approval granted in writing prior to commencement of any proposed change. Failure to comply with the permit requirements shall be cause for the development services director to issue stop work orders on all excavation related activities taking place or planned for the subject property. Insubstantial changes shall not require prior written approval and shall include reductions in surface area not affecting water management desk_ LDC3:100 2001 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS §'"5 o...8.1 1 quantities of material to be removed. A written description of proposed insubstantial change, including an iljustrated as-built as per the excava- tion permit, to any approved excavation shall be submitted in writing to project plan rexdew and to the development compliance department. (Ord. No. 92-73, § 2; Ord. No. 93-89, § 3; Ord. No. 95-58, § 3, 11-1-95; Ord. No. 96-21, § S; Ord. No. 97-26, § 3.H, 6-4-97) Sec. 3.5.8. Inspection and reporting requirements. 3.5.8.1. Inspection. 3.5.8.1.1. Collier County personnel, having given reasonable advance notice, shall have the right to enter the property permitted for excavation and may from time to AGE.~A II,,~ i 200! DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.5.8.2. 3.5.8.1.2. a.o.8.1.3. 3.5.8.2. 3,5.8.2.]. time carry out inspections of the excavation site including the collection of water samples to determine compliance with the provisions of this division and any special conditions attached to the excavation permit as issued by Collier County. Upon reasonable notice from Collier County personnel that an inspection is to be conducted which requires the assistance and/or presence of the permittee or his representative, the permittee or his representative shall be available to assist and/or accompany county personnel in the inspection of the excavation site. Collier County personnel is not obligated to carry out a detailed topographic survey to determine compliance with this division. Upon a finding [off viola- tion of this division or the special conditions of the excavation permit, the development services director shall advise the permittee in writing by certified letter. The permittee shall, within 15 days of receipt of such notice, have either the violation corrected or submit in writing why such correction cannot be accomplished within the 15-day period. Such written communication shall Mso state when the violation is to be corrected. If, in the opinion of the development services director, the delay in correcting the violation is excessive, he may recommend to the board that the excavation permit be temporarily suspended or permanently revoked. Upon correction of the violation, the permittee may be required by the development services director to have an appropriate report, letter and/or survey, whichever is applicable, prepared, sealed and submitted to Collier County by the project's engineer/surveyor. Failure to do so shall be cause for revoking the permit. Reporting. Status reports. The permittee shall pro,~qde the development services director with an excavation activities status report as follows: 1. Private excavations. A final status report within 30 days after the final completion of the excavation. ?. Development and comrnerc~c~l excavations. An annual status report every 12 months over the duration of the permit and a final status report wkhin 30 days after the final completion of each phase of the excavation. If a final status report will be filed within four months of the required annuaJ status report, then the need for the preceding annual status report. shal! be waived. The final or annual statm; report shall consist of no less than the fid- ],~wing information, and s~]ch other information as may be deemed nec. essary by the development services director, to accurately determim~ the status of the excavation, it~ compliance with this division and the special conditions of the excavation permit: a. A se~ed ,~opographi, survey p~'epared by the project's surveyor' endneet. containing the A ba~e line along the top of the perimeter of' the excavation, ct~'ariv referenced to known points and a~acent pro tract 1Shes. if apc, ropriate with right angAe cross sectio] JAN 2 3 2001 :,.: Ik;f:, !)['NTY I.,AND I-~F;'VI!;.LO'PMi:..';T v:hidi eleariy show the as-built ~;ide :],,~,e and dept!: of the ,,xca?ation :)t each station. l~nless otl~cr,.;/se approred by th, development se~ices &rector, cross s~:elicms sha([~ bo taken eve~ 100 feet on excavations less than fiw~ acres, and every 300 feet on excavations over five acres. Partial cross sections sbo~ng the as-built side slopes will be neceasaw on the ends of the excavation and around the perimcter of the excavat.ir, n where due to its irre~lar shape, the base line right angle cross sections do not accurately depict the actual constructed slopes. The cross section su~ey data shall be plotted at an appropriate sc~e and the as-built side slope ratio computed for each of the se~ents between the sum, ey data points. The approved desi~ cross section, including the breakpoints, shM1 be superimposed on each as-built cross section to facilitate visual verification of substantiM compliance with provisions of this division. Side slopes sh~l be ~aded to within a reasonable tolerance as will be detersned by the development services director, depending upon lo~ site conditions. On M1 plyned unit development or subdivision projects, the outhne of the exmvations top-of-b~k sh~l be accurately plotted ~d referenced to ~oxvn control points in order that: m) The surface ~ea can be verified as meeting size and re- tentiondetention storage needs. The computed surface ~ea at control elevation sh~l be shown to the newest tenth of ~ acre. It ~ be determined that the excavation w~ constructed ~thin e~ements dedicated for that pu~ose. (3) The location of ~1 excavated materi~s stockpiled on the prop- e~. (4) CMculation of volume of excavated materi~ as follows: Cubic y~ds used on site + Cubic y~ds removed from site + Cubic y~ds rem~ng on site in stockpiles = TotM cubic yards ex- cavated during reposing period. A cemification from the project's su~eyoffen~neer stating that they have visuMly inspected M1 dikes around any dewatering storage m'eas, if any, ~d have ale~ed the permittee of any app~ent we~ spots or f~lures which sh~l be promptly corrected by the permittee to assure that there x~11 be no potential for dike rupture that would cause off-site flooding. A certification from the project's su~eyor/en~neer shM1 accompany M1 finM completion status reports stating that, based on their ob- servations and surveys, M1 work on the excavation(s~ was completed within reasonably acceptable standards of this division and any special stipulations placed upon the excavali,~,n permit. If' the excavation is incomplete, a written ~t:,ten,ent by the per. mitre. :-~ating the mtticipated date of fin~l ~'~:~,p'letic, n of' l}le exc3 ~[ . 3.1 ~.~ JAN 2 3 200 D/~;¥'ELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS § 3.5.10.1.1 Sec. 3.5.9. Fees. 3.5.9.1. 3.5.9.2. 3.5.9.3. 3.5.9.4. 3.5.9.5. 3.5.9.6. Application fee. A nonrefundable and nontransferable application fee shall be paid at the time of application for private, commercial or development excavation permits to cover the costs of processing the application. Should a road impact analysis be required in accordance with section 3.5.6.1.3.6 of this division, the application fee shall be increased to cover the cost of the road impact analysis. Permit fee. Within 60 days after approval notification and prior to its issuance, an additional nonrefundable and nontransferable permit fee to cover the cost of excavation monitoring shall be paid. Road impact fee. If excavated material is to be removed from the subject property, appropriate road impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 85-55 [Code ch. 74, art. VIII, as succeeded or amended, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a permit~iinder this division. A site specific traffic impact statement may be required to determine the lane mile impacts and the appropriate fee in accordance with Ordinance [No.] 85-55 [Code ch. 74, art. VII], as succeeded or amended. Upon completion of off-site removal of material, the amount of any impact fees paid will be credited to the future site development activities in accordance with applicable agreement(s) which may be agreed upon by the county and the developer (property owner). Time extension fee. Each written request for the extension of permit issuance time shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable time extension fee to cover the costs of processing the request and the development services director shall not consider the request received until this extension fee is paid in full. Reapplication fee. If a private excavation is not completed within a 12-month period, a second application and a nonrefundable reapplication fee must be submitted to the development services director. Annual renewal fee. Annual status reports filed on development or commercial excavations shall be accompanied by an annual nonrefundable renewal fee to cover the cost of reviewing the annual status report. Sec. 3.5.10. Performance guarantee requirements. 3.5.10.1. 3.5.10.1.1. Upon approval of any commercial or development excavation permit, but prior to the issuance thereof, the applicant shall, after notification that the permit has been approved, execute an excavation performance security agreement stating that the applicant will comply with the provisions of this division and the permit. Governmental entities shall be exempt from this requirement except for independent special-purpose government such as a community development district (CDD). Excavation performance security shall be re- quired of an independent special-purpose government in accordance with section 3.5.10.1.3. The excavation performance security agreement shall be guaranteed by one of the following three methods: S~p?. [No. 4 Excavations performed in conjunction with a planned unit development or subdivision development where excavated materials are not removed from the boundary of the development and the plan for revised topography has been AG~J',~A LDC3:103 JAN 2 3 2001 § 3.5.10.1.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.5.10.1.2. 3.5.10.1.3. 3.5.10.2. approved by the development services director may be guaranteed by a subdivision completion bond in accordance with division 3.2 governing the final platting of a subdivision. All other excavations shall, within 60 days after approval notification, have their performance guaranteed by: (a) a cash deposit or certificate of deposit assigned to the board, (b) an irrevocable letter of credit or s surety bond. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Services Director, certificate assignments or letters of credit shall be documented on forms to be provided by Collier County. The performance guarantee posted for on-site excavation activities shall be in an amount of no less than $25,000.00 nor more than $500,000.00 computed at the rate of $0.25 per cubic yard to be excavated to ensure compliance with the provisions of this division but such performance guaran- tee shall not act to limit any guarantees required for off-site road impacts that may be necessary in accordance with section 3.5.6.1.3.6. The excavation performance security for an independent special-purpose government such as a community development district (CDD) shall be in the following form: 1. Funds held by the bond trustee for a community development district which are designated for excavation improvements. The CDD shall enter into an excavation performance security agreement with the county in a form acceptable to the county attorney. The excavation performance security agreement shall provide that (a) all permits required for the construction of the excavations(s) shall be obtained by the CDD prior to excavation permit issuance by Collier County, (b) the project as defined in the CDD's bond documents must include the excavation improvements and cannot be amended or changed without the consent of the county, and (c) the developer shall be required to complete the excavation improve- ments should the CDD fail to complete same. The performance guarantee shall be executed by a person or entity with a legal or financial interest in the property and shall remain in effect until the excavation is completed in accordance with this division. Performance guar- antees may be recorded in the official records of the county and title to the property shall not be transferred until the performance guarantee is released by the development services director. 3.5.10.3. All performance guarantees shall be kept in continuous effect and shall not be allowed to terminate without the written consent of the development services director. 3.5.10.4. Should the county find it necessary to utilize the performance guarantee to undertake any corrective work on the excavation, or to complete the excavation under the terms of this division, or to correct any off-site impacts of the excavation, the permittee shall be financially responsible for all legal fees and associated costs incurred by Collier County in recovering its expenses from the firm, corporation or institution that provided the performance guarantee. (Ord. No. 93-89, § 3; Ord. No. 96-21, § 3) Sec. 3.5.11. Appeals. All actions of the development services director shall, if at all, be appealed to the board. Any applicant who is aggrieved by the action of the board relative to the issuance of a )ermit, or Supp. No. 4 LDC3:104 AGF..3NDA JAN 2 3 2001 DEVEI,OPMENT REQL'IREMENTS § 3.6.2 any person adverseIv affected by the issuance of a permit may challenge said action or issu- ance by appropriate action in a tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days from the date of said issuance or action. Failure to file an appropriate action within the prescribed time limit shall operate as a bar to, and waiver of, any claim for relief. Sec. 3.5.12. Penalties and enforcement. In addition to the over-excavation penalty provided in section 3.5.7.3.3, any person who vio- lates any section of this division shall be prosecuted and punished as provided by F.S. § 125.69. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense. The board or any persons whose interests are adversely affected may bring suit, in the circuit court of Collier County, for damages or to restrain, enjoin or otherwise prevent the violation of this division. The devel- opment services director is vested with the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of this division and is authorized to take adtion to ensure compliance with, or prevent violation of, the provisions of this division, ~d shall have authority to issue administrative stay orders. Failure to file timely status reports with accompanying permit renewal fees, or failure to keep the performance guarantee in continuous effect shall be cause for the development services director to issue stop work orders on all excavation-related activities taking place or planned for the subject property. Sec. 3.5.13. Severability. It is the intention of the board that each separate provision of this division shall be deemed independent of all other provisions herein, and it is further the intention of the board that if any provisions of this division be declared to be invalid, all other provisions thereof shali remain valid and enforceable. Sec. 3.5.14. Compliance with state and federal permits. The issuance of a permit in accordance with the provisions of this division is not intended to preclude the right or authority of m~y other federal or state agency from requiring separate permits in accordance ~dth rules ~d regulations of that agency. In a case where multiple permits are required, the most stringent stipulations and requirements of each permit shall govern the work permitted under this division. DIVISION 3.6. WEI,L CONSTRUCTION* Sec. 3.6.1. Title and citation. This division shall be known and may be cited as the "Collier County Well Construction Code." Sec. 3.6.2. Purpose. The board does hereby ma~e the f, Alowing findb~gs: that it, is necessary and in the pubF, c interest to reg-ulate the ioca~ion, construction, alteration, repair, equipment, maintenance, and pluguing of wells in (',oilier' Comity and is in the int. ere:_-t of the public health, safety anti welfare. It is therefore th~ p,~rpo~,e ,f this divisi~n to bring about p~blic awareness of prope~' v:e]l construction meth,~d~ a~d to) initiate and enfbrce re~fiation relatb~g to well construction State law refererme-R,.?~b_~ti,-,~ (~f wells, F.S..~ 3~3.302 et seq. !05 2001 RESOLUTION 01- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EARTHMINING, CONDITIONAL USE "1" IN THE A- MHO ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.2.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said cegulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use "1" of Section 2.2.2.3 in an A-MHO Zone for earthmining on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida that: The petition filed by Jeff L. Davidson, P.E. of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing Big Island Excavating, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use "1" of Section 2.2.2.3 of the A-MHO Zoning District for earthmining in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C") and subject to the following conditions: Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. JAN 2 3 2001 t BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of ,2001. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: . DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BY: CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjori~ M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/CU-2000-1 I/RESOLUTION/FPU~ -2- JAN 2 3 200~, FINDING OF FAC~ BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2000-11 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes / No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes /// No~ C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: k//' No affect or ~ Affect mitigated by __ __ Affect cannot be mitigated Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within ~strict Yes ~/ No Based on the above findings, this c~o~clitio~l use should, with stipulati9ns, (copy attached) (s~ be recommended fog.approval '5 · // DATE: /,/'-/'~' -~V CHAIRMAN: EXHIBIT "A*r JAN 2 3 2001 CU-2000-11 1. Blasting is not permitted. 2. A required lake littoral zone planting area of 10% of the perimeter of the shoreline is required prior to final acceptance of the excavation by the Planning Services Director. 3. Prior to final acceptance of the excavation by the Planning Services Director, a 20-foot maintenance easement around the perimeter of the lake shall be dedicated to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. 4. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other construction related activity, an historic or archeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped, and the Collier County Code Enforcement Director shall be contacted. 5. Access to the site shall be via Immokalee Road only. 6. Hours of operation are restricted to weekdays from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM and Saturday from 7:00 AM until 12:00 PM. The petitioner is exempt from these hours of operation when the Board of County Commissioners approves an emergency government contract. 7. This Conditional Use shall expire 5 years after the date of approval unless extended by the Board of Zoning Appeals. EXHIBIT "D" JAN 2 3 2001 7-7¸: ' - Davidson Engineering, Inc. SITE DEVELOPMENT · UTILITIES o WATER MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING ,,, FEASIBILITY STUDIES Mr. Charam Badamtchain, Phd. Collier County Development Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FI 34104 CUO0 Re: Longan Lakes II Conditional Use Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East June 28, 2000 Dear Fred, Attached please find our applications for the Conditional Use for the Longan Lakes II eroject. The following items are enclosed: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CONDITIONAL USE Conditional Use application fee check it 1368 for $750.00. Conditional Use application (11 copies). Request for waiver of Archeological Assessment (11 copies). Sales Contract (11 copies). Conditional use plan exhibit 24" x 36" (11 copies). Conditional use plan reduced 8.5" x 11" (11 copies). Utility form ( 11 copies ) Aerial ( 4 copies ) Meeting Notes (11 copies). Please contact me if you require additional information. JeffL. Davidson, P.E. Cc Glenn Simpson Bill McDaniel 1720 J & C BOULEVARD, SUITE 3, NAPLES, FL 34109 o PH 941-597-3916 · FAX ~ -597-51 ~5~ JAN/J 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION A 2000-02, ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION BD-2000-23, APPROVED ON 19 OCTOBER 2000 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9207 VANDERBILT DRIVE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES UNIT 2, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: The appellant requests that the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the Collier County Planning Commission has the ability to render a decision "as to a boat dock facility extension facility (sic)", and, further, whether the extension requested in Petition BD 2000-23 should have been approved by the CCPC. CONSIDERATIONS: The decision of the Board to uphold, modify, or reverse the CCPC approval of this petition must be based solely on the information of record presented at the original public hearing, and the Board must decide if competent and substantial evidence was presented at this hearing which warranted the CCPC decision to approve. The subject property is located at 9207 Vanderbilt Beach Drive, legally described as Lots 5 and 6, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Unit 2, and is the site of a 5-unit, multi-family dwelling under construction. A 5-slip dock protruding 52 feet into the waterway was approved by the CCPC on 19 October 2000 by a vote of 6 to 1. The proposed facility met all LDC criteria, and staff recommended approval. The LDC allows construction of a residential dock protruding up to 20 feet into the waterway, but also acknowledges that, under certain circumstances, a boat dock protruding further into the waterway than 20 feet may be appropriate. The petition requesting the extension is evaluated by staff in relation to 10 criteria specified in the LDC, and a recommendation is made to the CCPC, which approves or denies the request based on these criteria. The extension petition is not a variance, and is not reviewed by the BCC; the petitioner need not establish the existence of a land-related hardship as a condition of approval. In his appeal, the appellant alleges that the CCPC does not have "the authority and/or jurisdiction" to hear ann make a "final decision" regarding dock extension petitions. The appellant also alleges that Planning staff improperly applied certain LDC criteria, and that staff "speculated" as to the achievement of other criteria. The County Attorney is of the opinion that the allegation that the CCPC does not have the authority to render a final decision regarding boat dock extension )etitions is AGENDA groundless, and will address the issue at the public hearing. ,o. /~ ~TEM .~;) JAN 2 3 2001 F'g. / The following addresses the allegations regarding staff evaluation of the boat dock extension petition. LDC Sections 2.6.21.3.7. and 2.6.21.3.8. refer to the impact of the proposed dock on "the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners." The appellant alleges that staff improperly applied the criteria addressing the impact of the proposed dock on the waterfront view, by limiting their analysis to the impact on "neighboring" and "adjacent" property owners, when the language in the LDC refers to "surrounding" property owners. Staff consider that it is the intent of the LDC to address the impact on nearby property owners - those most directly affected by the project - and that, for all practical purposes, the words "neighboring", "adjacent", and "surrounding" are synonymous in meeting this intent. Staff further consider that "view", while of concern, is, by nature, subjective, and that the appearance of any new structure visible to any nearby property owner may draw a critical response. In evaluating such petitions, staff attempts to put these subjective criteria in perspective relative to other, more substantive, criteria, when making a recommendation for approval or denial. Section 2.6.21.3.2 addresses whether the water depth at the site "is sufficient to allow safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request." The appellant alleges that staff speculated as to whether this criterion was achieved. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that analysis of this criterion is not possible without knowing the specific "type, make and model" of the vessel, in order to determine the draft of the vessel. Staff consider that the reference to "the vessel" does not require that a specific vessel be identified, and that the intent of the LDC is to consider the approximate draft of a typical privately-owned pleasure craft able to be accommodated by the proposed facility. Staff further consider that any attempt to restrict the applicant to a specific type, make, and model of vessel would be impractical and unenforceable, and that the language in the LDC recognizes this. FISCAL IMPACT: The CCPC's approval of petition BD 2000-23 as such had no fiscal impact on the County; however, it is possible that the Board's decision in the matter of this appeal might have some fiscal impact in the form of litigation on behalf of either the petitioner or the appellant. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The approved facility, if built, would have no impact on the Growth Management Plan, nor would the Board's reversal of the CCPC decision have any impact on the GMP. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Relevant environmental concerns, as described in LDC Section 2.6.21 (that part relating to seagrass beds), and 2.6.22 (Manatee protection) were addressed by staff, and it was determined that the proposed facility was exempt from the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan, and that no seagrasses were located within 200 feet of the proposed faci~,ity. AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 Z001 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None: no historical/archaeological survey is required for docking facilities PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval of the extension, determining that the proposed facility, as finally accepted, met all LDC criteria. EAC RECOMMENDATION: None: the EAC does not review boat dock extension petitions. PLAN~ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 1, with Commissioner Rautio voting for denial without elaboration. AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY: ROSS G(~HENAUR, PLANNER II CURRENT PLANNING SECTION i?~WED BY: R'~I~LD (=. NINC~, AicP, MANAGER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION DATE ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MARJ~UDENT ' ASSISTANT COUNTY A]-FORNEY / --/0 --ol DATE APPROVED BY - ~' '~ ~%'~'~v JOHN M. DUNNUCK, III, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR C©MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE executive summary/A 2000-02 AGENDA STEM JAN 2, 3 2001 ATr ORNEYS-AT-LAW November 1, 2000 Via Hand Delivery Mr. James Carter, Phd Chariman Board of Zoning Apeals, Collie' County, Florida Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 BURT L. SAUNDERS OF COUNSEL *Board Certified Real Estate ARorney **Board Certified City, County and Local Government Attorney *** Al~o admitted in Indiana ~nd Geor~a **** Also admired tn Pennsylvania Thomas Oliff, County Manager Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 John Dunnuck, Acting/Interim Development Services Director Collier County, Florida 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Robert Mulhere, Planning Services Director Collier County, Florida 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE:APPEAL OF ACTION/DECISION OF COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF OCTOBER 19, 2000 APPROVING PETITION BD-2000-23 Dear Chairman Carter, Mssrs. Oilif, Dunnuck and Mulhere: This law firm represents Clarence Griffith and Mary Griffith, David and Linda Rogers, B.J. Savard-Boyer and Joan Ferro individually and collectively ("Appellants"). Clarence and Mary Griffith reside at and own 474 Palm Court, Naples, Florida (Lot 2, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach, Unit 2, Block H) F:~U S ER S'~,PP~BOYE R\BD23^ P P.WP D Please Respond to: Pelican Bay Pelican Bay 801 Laurel Oak Dr., Suite 710, Naples, FL 34108 (941) 56(;-3131 Fax (941) 566-3161 M ;~rco Island 606 Bald Eagle Dr., Suite 500, P.O. Box 1, Marco Island, FL 34146 (941) 394-5161 Fax (9~ B.J. Savard-Boyer resides at and owns 479 Palm Court, Naples, Florida (Lots 8 and 9, Conher's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block H). Joan Ferro, resides at and owns 490 Palm Coud, Naples, Florida (Lot 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block H). Linda Rogers resides at and owns 428 Palm Court, Naples, Florida (Lot 4, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block H). On October 19, 2000 the Collier County Planning Commission [CCPC] heard and considered Petition BD-2000-23 filed by Liberty Ventures of Naples, Inc. (the Petition) requesting a dock facility extension to allow a total protrusion of a 60 foot dock facility into waters commonly known as Vanderbilt Lagoon. The requested docking facility would consist of a 60 foot dock with five boat dock facilities. The vote by the CCPC approved a 52 foot dock facility. (see Exhibit G, p. 29) At the October 19, 2000 CCPC hearing, the Appellants herein appeared and objected to said Petition and the request contained therein. The Appellants herein are adversely affected, aggrieved parties, and/or property owners who are qualified to appeal the CCPC decision to the BZA/BCC. The Appellants herein either qualify as adversely affected property owners; persons aggrieved; aggrieved parties; and/or parties who have the right to appeal the decision of the CCPC to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)/Board of County Commission (BCC). This right of appeal is by virtue of the provisions of the Land Development Code (the "LDC"), including but not limited to Sections 2.6.21.3 and 5.2.11 of the LDC and Ch. 67-1246, Laws of Florida. Further, some of the Appellants are members of the class of parties who are entitled to receive, and who are required to be provided, written notice, from the County, of CCPC hearings on boat dock.facility extension requests. This letter (and its attachments and Exhibits) and accompanying Notice of Appeal are notice of and constitute the appeal to the BZA/BCC of the CCPC's decision. The bases for this appeal, although not exhaustive, are listed below and in the attached materials. All items introduced, utilized, referenced, referred to or commented upon at the hearing are incorporated herein, and we hereby incorporate herein all of the photographs, exhibits, etc. (including those not capable of being reproduced or copied, except at great expense, due to their large size) utilized at the hearing. We request that all of said materials be made available at the hearing before the BZA/BCC to assist the BZAJBCC in its review, in addressing the question as to whether or not the F:~USER 5'~p p~OYER~,BD23APP.WPD. 2 .JAN 2 3 2001 extension requested in the Petition should have been approved by the CCPC. This Appeal is being filed without conceding that the CCPC has the authority and/or jurisdiction to hear and make a "final" decision as to a dock facility extension request such as the one outlined in the Petition. This Appeal, specifically as one of its bases, disputes that the CCPC has been properly assigned or delegated such authority. The bases for this appeal, although not exhaus ,ve, are listed below. The Appellants specifically reserve the right to supplement these materials and to amend this Appeal and Notice of Appeal as: the decision of the CCPC was made on October 19, 2000 and the verbatim transcript of said hearing was only received on October 30, 2OOO. 2. there is yet no written decision of the CCPC. There are thus severe time constraints imposed on the Appellants. These time constraints are not caused by the Appellants. As a result, Appellants specifically reserve the right to supplement this Appeal and/or amend/modify same prior to the consideration of this matter by the BZA/BCC, including items used at the hearing and not yet provided to the Appellants; and including matters within the County's file not yet provided to the Appellants, including but not limited to the colored sketch referenced by Ross Gochenauer at the hearing (Exhibit G, p. 3). References to the attachments will be denoted by the Exhibit letter followed by the page number, as appropriate, i.e. "Exhibit "A", p. ". Check number 102, in the amount of $200.00, representing the filing fee (an amount confirmed by Robed Mulhere) made payable to Collier County, accompanies this Appeal and Notice of Appeal. STATEMENT OFFACTS Liberty Ventures' property is located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive, Naples, Florida. By virtue of the operation of the LDC, Liberty Ventures is limited to placing boat dock facilities no more than twenty (20) feet into the waterway known as Vanderbilt Lagoon. On or about July 7, 2000, Liberty Ventures filed its Petition, assigned BD-2000- 23. [Exhibit A] I ~,GEI~ A ITEM. .:,USERS~P~'eOYE.,.D~3^~...W.D 3 JAN 2 3 2001 Said Petition outlined the following: the total requested protrusion is 60 feet, i.e. 40 feet beyond the distance allowed by the LDC. 2. five (5) different vessels lengths were referenced. While the Petition referenced various five (5) vessels of varying lengths [i.e., one (1) 40' vessel; two (2) 30' vessels and one (1) 35' vessel], what the Petition did not provide was a description or indication as to the type(s), make(s), model(s) of vessel or draft(s) of any vessel proposed to be moored at the requested dock facility; nor did the Petition state what amount of water depth was necessary or required for any of said vessel(s). Nor was such detailed information presented or provided to the CCPC at the October 19, 2000 hearing. After review of said Petition, County staff prepared a memorandum to the CCPC ostensibly analyzing the Petition utilizing the criteria and requirements of Section 2.6.21.3 of the LDC. [Exhibit "D"] County staff improperly accepted the Petition and scheduled it for consideration before the CCPC. Further, County staff improperly applied the criteria and in other areas speculated as to whether the criteria was achieved. The Petition and its Exhibits show that the bases articulated by the Petitioners for the requested additional length were self created, in that the Petitioner argued as one of the bases for granting the request the fact that it installed rip-rap in the Vanderbilt Lagoon to prevent the seawall from failing. Any such condition, i.e. placing rip-rap resulted in a self-created condition now being used by the Petitioner to justify extending its dock facilities further into the Vanderbilt Lagoon. THE "HYPOTHETICAL VESSELS" As stated above, no specific vessel make, model or type was identified. The Petition, without more, merely states lengths of the vessels. No information was submitted as to the draft of such hypothetical "vessels". As a result, County staff and the CCPC had to speculate as to the vessels' drafts. Speculation as to drafts does not constitute competent evidence or evidence at all. F:~USERS~APP~BOYERXBD23APP WPD 4 JAN 2 3 2001 As noted by Mr. Abernathy as to Lot I (Ms. Ferro's lot): "Commissioner Abemathy: Well it's hard to say that ~roperty wouldn't be .... that their view wouldn't be impacted by extending these docks out there, isn't it?" (Exhibit G, p. 5) CCPC JURISDICTION The powers of the CCPC are as outlined within Section 250-34 of the Collier County code of Laws and Ordinances, Ch 67-1246, Laws of Florida, Section 6, and Section 5.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and other areas of the LDC not pertinent to this matter. The CCPC has only those functions, powers and duties as provided in said Section 250-34, which includes the ability "to perform any other duties which may be lawfully assigned to it." There is no language within either the Special Act or the LDC that states that the CCPC has the authority, power or ability to consider and take final action regarding dock facility extension requests. There is no language that clearly assigns to the CCPC the ability, power, function or duty to take final action concerning dock facility extension requests. The County s~aff or the petitioner may try to argue that Section 2.6.21.3 of the LDC provides such power or ability. The pertinent portion of Section 2.6.21.3. reads as follows: "Additional lengthlprotrusion beyond said respective distances ....... shall require public notice and a hearing by the Collier County Planning Commission. As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Planning Commission takes action, pursuant to Section 5.2.11 of this code, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals." and "The Planning Commission shall base its decision for approval, approval with conditions, or denial, on the following criteria: .... " F:\U SER S~APP'~,OYE R\B D23APP .WPD '7 JAN 2 3 2001 However, no where does the language clearly provide that the CCPC has the ability or has been granted or assigned the ability to take final action. This is in marked contrast to the clear and unequivocal language contained within Section 5.2.2.10. of the LDC that states that the CCPC has the ability to consider and take final action regarding preliminary subdivision plats. CONCLUSION The staff's evaluation did not properly utilize the criteria contained within the LDC. The credible evidence, the competent evidence does not support an approval of the requested extension. The boat docks materially interfere with the riparian right of unobstructed view of surrounding property owners. The Petition is further deficient for failure to identify with specificity the make, model and type of vessels proposed. There was no credible evidence as to what depth would be required by an unknown make, model or type of vessel. For all of the foregoing the Appellants respectfully request that the BZAJBCC reverse and set aside t~Se "decision" by the CCPC as to Petition '""' "'~'""' '~'" ~h~P. Pi. s, Jr. LOMBARDO, P.A. F:~USERS~AP F~BOYERIBD23APP WPD JAN 2 3 2001 ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW NOTICE OF APPEAL (Petition BD-2000-23) Date: November 1, 2000 TO' Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 CRAIG R. WOODWARD* MARK Jo WOODWARD ANTHONY P. P[RES, JR.** CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO S~VEN V. BLOUNT JOHN A. GARNER*** CARRI~ E. LADEMAN PAUL L. KUTCHER**** BURT L. SAUNDERS OF COUNSEL *Board Cert'~ied R~I E~--tBte Attorney **Board Certified City, County ~nd Local Government Attorney *** Also admitted in Indlana anti Georgia **** Also admltted in Pennsylvania TO: Board of Zoning Appeals, Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 TO: Thomas Olliff, County Manager Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 TO: John Dunnuck, Acting/Interim Development Services Director, Collier County, Florida 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 TO: Robert J. Mulhere, Planning Services Director, Collier County, Florida 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ACTION/DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PETITION BD-2000-23 Pelican Bay 5Tarco Island Page 1 of 3 Please Respond to: Pelican Bay 801 Laurel Oak Dr., Suite 710, Naples, FL 34108 (941) 566-3131 Fax (941) 566-3161 J/AN2 3 200I 606 Bald Eagle Dr., Suite 500, P.O. Box 1, Marco Island, FL 34146 (941) 394-5161 Fax (9, 1) 642-6402 ITEM Clarence Griffith and Mary Griffith, David and Linda Rogers, B.J. Savard-Boyer and Joan Ferro, individually and collectively ("Appellants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Appeal and Notice of Appeal of the October 19, 2000 decision of the Collier County Planning Commission [CCPC] ostensibly approving Petition BD-2000-23, to allow a 52 foot length dock facility on property known as Lots 5 and 6, Block G, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, a/k/a 9207 Vanderbilt Beach Drive, Naples, Florida. The purpose of this Appeal is to review the October 19, 2000 decision of the CCPC ostensibly approving Petition BD-2000-23, which Appeal further takes issue with and asks the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners to determine whether in fact the CCPC has the ability to render or make a "final" decision as to a boat dock facility extension facility. No written decision or determination has yet been made by the CCPC, but if made will be attached hereto and made a part hereof and part of this Appeal. A copy of a draft CCPC Resolution is attached to this Notice of Appeal. This Appeal is being taken for the purpose of requesting that the Board of Zoning Appeals reverse the decision and determination of the CCPC as it relates to Petition BD-2000-23; and to further have this Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners determine that the CCPC does not have any decision making authority concerning Petition BD-2000-23; that no boat dock facility extension petition can be applied for or processed when there does not exist an identified vessel make, model or type; that the Petitioners created the conditions that they used as a basis for the extension; and for the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners to deny Petition B D-2000-23. The jurisdictional bases for the Appeal include, but are not limited to Division 1.6~ Section 2.6.21.; and Division 5.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code and Sections 250-33 through 250-60, inclusive, of the Codes of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida (Ch. 67-1246, Laws of Florida), and other applicable provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code; and the Florida Statutes. This Notice of Appeal and Appeal and accompanying correspondence, attachments and Exhibits articulate and form the bases for said Appeal. Additionally, one copy of a videotape of said hearing of the CCPC is being filed with this Notice of Appeal and Appeal, which videotape is being submitted with the appeal package to the Development Services Director. The requisite Appeal filing fee in the amount of $200.00, which amount was provided by County Planning Services Division staff, accompanies this Appeal. As the verbatim transcript of the October 19, 2000 CCPC hearing was just Page 2 of 3 AGENDA ITEM /3 JAN 2 3 200I FROM : WOODWARd, P I RES & LOM~PtR TO I/We, the undersigned, authorize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. to act as our agent in all matters dealing with our Appeal of Petition BD-2000-23 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Collier County Board of Commissioners. W'~tness Date (address) _ F]:om 941-594-1 Lhe Collie- C~ 5:53 AGENDA ITEM .-~ .... JAN 2 3 200~ W~x~C JAN 2 3 2001 pg.__~ lAVe, the undersigned, author'~ze Anthony p. Pires, Jr. and the law finn of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. to act as our agent [n a.[I matters dealing with our Appea~ of Petition BD-2000~23 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the CoJlier County Board of Commissioners. (address) ' :-/'- ~- , JAN 2 3 200I VWe, the undersigned, authorize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. tc act as our agent in all maffers dealing with our Appeal of Petition BD-2000-23 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Date (address) i JAN 2 3 2001 .}~q 2 3 200~ ,FROM : DYI,,11:~IC SALES OF N~ Dvngmlc SALES g ~-'~rd St. Burlington, MA 01803 TO: FROM: of now england, inc. Pitione'S81.) 272-5676:"~ ~ Fax (781) 273-4856 PAGE ,/ OF ~ FAX# : 'DATE: OOMPANY E-Mail: dsne @erols.corr ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PHONE NAME: EXT, NAME: EXT. / / / . To M.L SEND BY: ~ FAX 13 MAIL FtROI'"l : DYIq~IlC ~ OF Iq~ Carl y. Kntm~ 34 Elmbrook Rd Bedford, MA 01730 -275-7624/781-910-5 $84C 7ttl-273-4556Fnx atr~oLeom 7-1~-00 Rose Gochenair Planning Services Dept 2800 North Hors~ho¢ Drive Naples, F134104 Ref: Collier County, Pi~tition No. BD-2000-23 Liberty Ventures of Napi~ Fax 941-643-6968 Ref: Petition to ir~reose dook length from 20-~ to 60-tL Dear Ms Gochenair, Once again someone is trying to put huge docks on Vanderbilt Lagnon. We strongly object to granting this partition to extend the docks by 40 ft to 60 i~, We aT Vanderbilt Chateau were otfly allowed 20-25Ft and that is plenty for the lagoon (we have lived at 9101 Vanderbilt Dr. Chateau Vanderbilt for 1 ! years.). The lagoon is too rimHow for large boats and so sixty-ft docks will encourage two or three boats p~r dock inoludillg Jet Skis. The large number of boats this otmld lead to will affect the Mannlees, the Water Quality and the Peacefulness? How do we protect this lovely lagoon? TI~ Army Corp. of Engineers in th~r. wisdom limited how many docks are permilled per r~idcut of,¢w construction; this petition is misuses the intent of this rule. Please deny the petition. Thank You, Carl M. Kramer, VP of Chateau VanderbiR Condo Assooiation JAN 2 3 2001 October 11, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ATT; ROSS GOCHENAUR RE; Petition No.BD2000-23, Liberty Ventures of Naples, Inc.'" The following points are being made in opposition to the requested 40' extension to the 20' dock protruding into the waterway from the property located at 9207 Vanderbilt Dr. First I'd like to point out that the petition notice dated September 29, 2000 was delivered by US mail on October 5, 2000. This being the case, the 3 weeks required to present written or graphic materials to be included in the CCPC packet is impossible to meet. The Connors Vanderbilt Association will presem a signed Petition by homeowners at the October 19~ Planning Board heating, which we'd like to be considered as evidence of our disapproval. Also, you have in your possession a number of letters opposing Petition No. BD-2000-20 which is a similar request, we ask that these be considered. According toSEC.2.6.21.1 of the current code .... Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and proved safe access by users for romine maintenance and use while MINIMALLY impacting the navigability of the waterway, native marine habitat, manatees, and the use and VIEW of the waterway by the surrounding property owners!!! Attached are photos of the neighbors property looking south directly into the proposed 60 foot dock (which will have a lift) from the entire width of their lot. This unquestionably will impair their entire view of the lagoon- Thi.q home has been here since the early 70's. This dock intrusion also impairs the navigability of all the boats in this immediate area because the water in the center of the lagoon is shallow .and at low tide impossible to cross with a larger boat. Therefore the navigation is around the perimeter. Nat[,:¢ marine habitat and manatees have been. seen here often- Manatces have been seen with their babies (note enclosed photo). I do not have a copy of Section 2.6.22 referring to manatee protection requirements, in order to state violations. As I stated a 20' dock would sufficiently serve the purpose of Liberty Ventures as it does the other homeowners in the immediate area thereby keeping the water safe for all boaters. In closing, I suggest that codes dealing with dock extensions, boathouses and the like are sensitive to the different bodies of water in different geographical locations. There should not be a basic code for all. Comparing the Isle of Capri with its open water to the small Vanderbilt Lagoon (as was done by your staff member) is ludicrous. I view this as a negligent act'on their part. AC~NDA ITEI~ JAN 2 3 2001 Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion. Respectfully, 4~9'l;a~mVarc;u~-tyet Naples, Florida 34108 941-594-1977 Eraall: Palm47~msn.com RECEIVED CC: J Cart~ K Mohair OCT '2 z,~lO AC-~.NDA ITE~ JAN 2 3 2001 FROM =. DYNAM I C .¸% SIqLES OF NE 0~_ PHONE P l/1 Car] M. Kramer 34 Elmbrook P,.d Bedford, MA 0]730 781-275-7624/7g !-910-$884C 78 l=273-4856Fnx eartmk~aol.com 10-10-00 ?la~g Servic~ Dopt 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FI 34104 Fax 941-643-6968 ReF. Collier County, Peritim No. BD-2000-23 Liberty Venxtur~ of Naples Ret~ Petition to increase dock length from 20-ft to 60-IL We strongly object to granting tl~ petition to extend lite slips by 40 R to 60 it. As we previously have written the lagoon is too ~hallow for large bo~ts end so ~ixty-foot slips wiU encourage two or three boa~ per slips including ~et Skis. 1.Therefore, ira petition is granted it should incJude language that ];~;~ the pet/timer to vessel ~ slip nnd no, m,.c~, ,e,,tban fiv~ vessels t0~! for aU sJ, ips" and "the size of the veaseh re~rJ~ t9 ,no ~ore than 20-fi". The language should be clear and unequivocal. The pet/timer apparently has submitted plans that he says will only acoommodate one ve~ael so this will only pu~ bx writing what he already agreed to. Because the petitioaer says he wants the longer docks to give access to deeper water than he should have no objection to 1/miffng the s/ze of the beam to the appropriate to a twenty-foot sl~p. 2.The sixty-foot extension of the slips negatively affects the views of the lag0on. The lagoon is ~nall and sixty feet protrudes too far in the main lagoon. Please rejeot the petition on this basis. 3.Takc into account ~he large number of large vessels permitted to the Regatta; eighty-eight ~ps were recently allowed up to 40-fl. What ~ this all do to the manatees and other wildlife that habitate the lagoon? Somewhere your criteria must address the _eon~e~_ ences,,~o~rcrow~l'_m~_. The Army Corp. of Eng/neers in their wisdom limited how many docks are permitted per reslde~ of new construction; ~his pet/tion misuses.._&e intent ofth/s rule. Please de~ the petitic~ Carl M. Kramer, VP of Chateau Vanderbilt Condo Ass~iation 9101 Vanderbilt ~r Oct 10, 2000 Rossi Gochemur Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 Reft Petition No.. BD-2000-23, Liberty Vemures of Naples, ~c. ";TED f I 2.2000 Dear Mr. Gochenaur, As a resident of Chateau V~mderbilt I strongly object to the proposal requesting a 40-foot extension allowing a multi-slip boat dock facility to protrude 60 feet into the waterway for property located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive. There are many reasons for my objection to this proposal. The "need" for deeper water cannot be construed as a hardship. Six 20-foot boat slips have already been approved. We at Chateau Vanderbilt have lived successfully with 20-foot slips for over eleven years without a problem. We are right next door. Will the boats be limited to twenty feet as currently approved? This extension is inappropriate in scale to the neighborhood properties and will have a negative impact on the waterway and the use of the existing slips of abutting properties. Boats entering and leaving our slips, already compromised by the approved fifty-six Regatta slips, will be forced to weave around the 60 foot docks. A navigational hazard will be created. Our slips will have a "stuck in the comer" affect. Moreover, the views from our property at Chateau Vanderbilt will be harmed significantly. The vessels will be located 60 feet out into the lagoon but, also, the owners will elevate their 35-foot vessels high in the air via boatlifts. The serene view of the Lagoon will be damaged for us and for all the homes along thi.q shoreline. Furthermore, there are serious environmental concerns. The negative impact on marine life must be addressed. LONGER DEEP WATER DOCKS ATTRACT LARGER BOATS WHICH CREATE MORE POLLUTION!Ill! Fifty-six new forty-foot slips have been recently approved for the Regatta development. The environmental impact must be clearly presemed by evidence. This whole area is fast becoming one big marina for oversized vessels. The Naples Planning Board's vision should be one of protecting the marine life, limiting recreational boating as to be safe and pleasurable to all and preserving the integrity and ambience thi.q area represents. The residents of North Naples deserve no less. I am unable to attend this hearing on October 19~, however, I am requesting this letter be submitted as a serious consideration by the CCPC. JAN 2 3 2001 Bedford, Ma. 01730 9101 Vanderbilt Drive Naples, FL cc: Robert Mollmir, County Planning Board Army Corp of Engineers JAN 2 3 2001 MR. & MRS. GLEN COLLIER Octobe~ 10, 20O0 Mr. Ross Gochenaur: Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE"' Clt/ED OCT ', 2 2000 Dear Mr. Oochenaur: This letter is in response to the notice we received regarding Petition No. BD-2000-23, Liberty Ventures of Naples, Inc. Liberty Ventures of Naples, Inc. is requesting an extension for their six boat docks. Our understanding is that the project was approved with six boat docks extending into the lagoon 20 feet. Now that they were approved for that, they are back asking to go out into the lagoon a total of 60 feet! We are definitely against this extension. No~ only is it an invasion on the Lagoon, but sevenl of the prOl~-ty owners to the north of the project will be adversely affected. Their ability to navigate from their docks into the lagoon and on ou~ to the gulf will be severely affected. We respeetfixlly request the planning commission to VOTE NO for this extension. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Glen Collier ~,EC",Z IV ED OCl 1 2 2000 RECEIVED ]AN 2 3 2001 · JAN23 200l ! DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION il Petition number: BD-]] ]) 0 0 ' 2 3 Date Received: Planner: ~,0:>5, ~-O C.~3 J/L_ TITION AUG 04, 2~0 ~tl IL.~~U g LD~Jd Property owner: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Liberty Ventures of Naples, Inc. Owners Address: 5051 Castello Dr., Suite 224 Naples, FL 34103 Telephone: (941) 403-8255 Fax: Agents Name: Turrell & Associates, Inc. (941) 403-9265 Miles Scofield Agents Address: 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FL 34104 Telephone: (941) 643-0166 Fax: Legal Description of Subject Property: Conner's Vanderbilt Subdivision: Beach Estates (941) 643-6632 Unit 2 Lot (s) 5./~ Block (s) G · Section 32 Twp. 48 s Range 25 E PropertyI.D.# 27580360007 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941~ 403-24fifi/I*~nZ tOal~ ~-tiot;8 pa~PLICATION FOi~ DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/98 PAGE 1 OF JAN 2 3 2001 Metes & Bounds Description: Address of Subject Property: 9207 Vanderbilt Dr., Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: RMF-6 5 Apartments Under 1 Roof Naples, FL 34108 Adjacent Zoning & Land use: Zoning Land use Length of existing dock facility N RSF-3 Single ~amily Housing 20' E Vanderbilt Drive S RMF-16 Condominium 25' W Vanderbilt Lagoon A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to mean high/low water and shoreline (bank, seawall or rep-rap revetment) should be submitted with this application. Site Information: Width of waterway: 1,52011.; measurement from [] plat [] survey [] visual estimate Total property water frontage: 295 ft. Setbacks: provided25+52.8ft. required 15 . Total protmsion of proposed facility into water6011. Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1.( 1 ) 40ft., 2..{ 2 ) 30 fL, 3. (2) 35 11. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Condominium docking facility to the South protrudes 25' sinqle family homes to the North protrude 20' + 25' APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/98 PAGE 2 OF JAN 2 3 2(101 The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 2.6.21.3 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in detemfining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission, and by the Planning Commission in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. 1. What are the number of dock facilities or slips to be located on the subject property in relation to the length of waterfront property available (include required setbacks) for the location of the proposed dock facilities? We are proposing to install five slips on two docking structures. The waterfrontage is- 295 ft. and we are maintaining 25 ft. and 52.8 ft. setbacks with required setbacks of 15 ft. We are requesting a 40 ft. extension. 2. Is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without the use of a dock facility extension request? No. ~tp-rap was placed against the seawall during construction activites to prevent failure. This coupled with shallow water depths dictates the need for the extension to avoid dredging Se~ water depths on cross-section. 3. Will the proposed dock facility and moored vessel(s) in combination have an adverse impact to navigation within an adjacent navigable channel? No, Vanderbilt Lagoon is avery The proposed docks and vessels navigation within the lagoon large, wide waterbody. will not adversely impact APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/98 PAGE 3 OF JAN 2 3 2001 4. Does the proposed dock design and moored vessel protrude greater than 25 percent of the width of the navigable canal or greater than 20 feet for boathouses, and is a minimum of 50 percent of the platted canal width between dock structures/moored vessel(s) on the opposite side of the canal maintained in order to ensure reasonable waterway width for navigability? No, the docks will protrude 56 ft. from the seawall and the waterway is over 1,500 ft. wide. This will not hinder naviqability in the waterway for any vessels. 5. Are there special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the subject dock? Yes, the shallow water depths and position of the upland building justify the proposed locat~nn and d~m~n~nn~ of the dock. 6. Is the proposed dock of minimal dimensions necessary in order to adequately secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area? Yes, the docks are floating concrete structures and the dimension shown are the minimum necessary to provid~ safe access and usage. APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/9g PAGE 4 OF - A~NDA IT~M~" JAN 2 3 2001 7. Is the proposed structure of minimal dimensions to minimize the impact of the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners? We believe it is. The structures are located towards the center of the property and the ~gi~hbors both north and south will still have views of the lagoon. 8. Is the moored vessel in excess of fifty (50) percent of the length of the waterfrontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact on or negatively impact the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners7 No, the proposed vessels range from 30 to 40 ft. and will not impact the view of the waterway by surrounding_ ~operty owners. The water frontage is 295 f~ 9. Will the proposed location and design of the dock/vessel combination be such that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring properties, including any existing dock structures? No, both neighbors have existing d~k~ng facilities and we have designed the app]i~n~'~ ~_ock for maximum setbacks on both sides. APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/98 PAGE 5 C A ~GENDA 2 3 200I 9 10. Regarding existing benthic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed extension: (a) Are seagrasses located within 200 feet of the proposed dock? No, ponar grab samples were done in the project vicinity and no seagrasses were observed. ~)Istheproposed dockissubjecttothe manateeprotectionrequiremen~ ofthiscode(Sec. 2.6.22)? No, the manatee protection plan allows for 10 slips per 100' of shoreline and this project is well within these boundaries. In addition to the above, the following criteria shall apply to Boathouses. Please indicate whether or not the following listed criteria have been met: Criteria ~aaRO. ar.4 Complies Minimum side setback requirement 15 feet YESF-1 NO [] Maximum protmsion into waterway 25 percent of canal width or 20 feet, whichever is less YEso NO [] APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/98 PAGE 6 OF -- A~)A ITEM ~ JAN 2 3 2001 pg.~/-/~, _ Criteria Maximum height 15 feet as measured from top of seawall or bank, whichever is more restrictive YES [-I NO[-] Max. number of boathouses per site One (1) YES[:] NO[:] All boathouse structures shall be completely open on all four (4) sides Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on the principal structure or may be of palm frond "chickee" style YES [--I NO[-] YES[:] NO [--] I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. ignature o~~' ~ or Agent APPLICATION FOR. DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5/98 PAGE 7 OF AGENDA I1 JAN 2 3 2001 9 Pg.~ /7 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION/BOA THO USE ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET! REQ UIR EMENTS # OF COPIES I~QmRED 1. Completed Application 14 2. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 1 3. Pre-application notes/minutes 14 4. Site Plan iljustrating all of the following: 14 a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigable channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five (5) feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. f. Iljustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed g. The dock facility should be iljustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. 5. Application Fee, Check shall be made payable to Collier County- Board of Commissioners As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of process this petition. Agent/AppOint Signature Date APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITYIEXTENSION PETITION- 5/98 PAGE 8 OF ~ JAN 2 3 2001 3~) 25 O0 10:45a Turrel! & Rssoctates, Inc (941) 643-6632 We~ Ll£gr~Tg't/~ldTo~¢~ OF/o~i>t~S:lM{..being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/l am/are the owners of the property described he~ ~'in and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this applicaaon, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief We/I understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete. and all required information has been submitted. ~s property owner We/I further authorize Turrell & Associates, Inc. ax our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of ~er Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner to acl The forcgabn~in~trum~t was acknowledged before me th~s (~)~ i'_:) day /i¢~j~( ~A~ ~/~W~ ~ who ~ ~ersonallv ~wn to me o~a~ p~duced / //7 ,/ __j- State of Florida ( (Si~ ¢N~ P/blic/ Coun~ of Collier " Flori~ ~ ~ Name ¢ Nota~ Pubha) ~T~¢;(~.~¢~.,¢ Commission No CC 774832 ' ~ Co~m~ssio~p 09/13/2002 A~L!CATION ~ ~K ~ClL~ ~SlON P~I~O~ - S~ ~Ag~ A '~._~iDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 STATE OF FLORIDA ISLE NAP / KEY WEST EVERGLADES ~ CITY COLLIER COUNTY N LEE COUNTY PROJECT )MMOKALEE ROAD SITE NAPLES: DAVIS BLVD. LOCATION MAP JAN 2 3 2001 T T A A T TI I~ F~ ~ T T rl? T GENERAL NO. !~me7 I LOCATION MAP APPROX, RIPARIAN LINE ~/A TER k/A Y HANDRAIL TO PREVENT WOODEN PLATFDRM FF~R MOORING JCTURAL INTEGRITY, (For overhang)-- 56' 3G PRDPERTY LINE - 36-- 4 · 1 !- 56' -~.Srd'{for overhon · i APPRDX, RIPARIAN LINE TLiiAL DVER-WATER STRUCTURE SQUARE FEET N iTFU~ I~qA~INGS tm~R£ FOR P£R, INA1 I,UdG ~P~E.S ONLY ~ ARE NI:)T FDR CDNSTRUCTH]N PRDPERTY LINE ~.- (~) .4.~maa ~ (~) VANDERBILT LAGOON RE~'¥SED ~OCK g '---~~ ," h.~.~.im ~ ~~ ]-- ~ JAN 2 3 ~001 O~3Z JAN 2 3 2001 = = -.- = -e ---. Sec. 2.6.21. Dock facilities. Individual or multiple private docks, including mooring pilings, davits, lifts and the like are permitted to serve the residents c£a ~.~'.'c!oF.m..~n: on ca.-.a] cr ;':a:e~.'.'a)' lot': having waterfronl properly as described in division 6.3, definitions, provided they do not protrude more than the respective distances specified in sections 2.6.21.2, and 2.6.21.3, for such ce~al c~r waterway. Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access by users for routine maintenance and use while minimally impacting the navigability of the water'way, the native marine habitat, manatees, and the use and view of the water-way by surrounding property owners. Permitted dock facility protrusions as well as extension of dock facilities are measured from the property lir~e, bulkhead line, shoreline, seawall, rip-rap line, or Mean High Water line, wFAchever is more restrictive. On unbridged barrier islands, a boat dock shall be Words ~,'r~c.k '.F,c.~'.:gF, are deleted, words underlined are added. JAN 2 3 2001 considered a permitled principal use; however, a dock shall not, in any way, constitute a use or structure which permits, requires, and/or provides for any accessory uses and or structures. Boathouses and dock facilities proposed on residenttally zoned properties as defined in section 2.1.4 of this Code, shall be considered an accessory use or structure. Boathouses shall be required to be approved through the procedure and criteria in section 2.6.21.3 and 2.6.21.4. In addition, any covered structure erected on a private boat dock shall also be considered an accessory use, and shall also be required to be approved through the procedures and criteria of section 2.6.21.3. and 2.6.21.4. of this code. 2.6.21.2. Dock facility requirements and restrictions. The following criteria apply to dock facilities and boathouses. Platted waterway width, where available, shall be considered true waterway width for the purposes of this section. 2.6,21.2.1. For lots on a waterway that is 100 feet or greater in width, no boathouse, dock facility/boat combination shall protrude more than 20 feet into the waterway (i.e. the total protrusion of the dock facility plus the total protrusion of the moored vessel), A dock extension in accordance with section 2.6.21.3. may be granted to allow a protrusion of more than 20 feet. 2.6.21.2.2. For lots on a waterway that is less than 100 feet in width, dock facilities may ...... ~ ...... .~= -~' greater ,t,~, occupy no more than 25 percent of the width of the Waterway or protrude greater than 20 feet into the waterway, whichever is be .... s. ...... ~ ,,a.:~. ..... i: mot: .~,,4.,:,,~ A dock extension in accordance with section 2.6.213. may be granted to allow a protrusion of more than 20 feet, but at no time shall such extension allow more than 25 percepl of the waterway width to be occupied· 2.6.21.2.~3~ All dock facilities on lots with water frontage of 60 feet or greater shall have a side setback requirement of 15 feet, except as provided in section 2.6.21.2.4.1 or as exempted below. All dock facilities (except boathouses) on lots with less ,hah 60 feet of water frontage shall have a side setback requirement of';' 1/2 feet. All dock facttitles (except boathouses) on lots at the end or side end of a waterway having regular (linear) water frontage shall have a side setback requirement of 7 1/2 feet as measared from the side lot line or riparian line, whichever is appropriate. 2.6.21.2.4-,4, 3A. Riparian lines (see division 6.3, definitions, riparian line) for lots at the end or side end of a waterway with a regular shoreline are established by a line extending from the comer of an end lot and side end !or into the waterway bisecting equidistantly the angle created by the two intersecting lots (see Exhibit A). Riparian lines for all other lots should be established by generally accepted methods, taking into consideration the configuration of the shoreline, and allowing for the equitable apportionment ofriparian rights. Such methods include, but are not limited to, lines drawn perpendicular to the shoreline for regular (linear) shorelines, or lines drawn perpendicular to the centerline (thread) o f the waterway, or perpendicular to the line of deep water (line of navigability or edge of navigable channel), as appropriate, for irregular shorelines. * * * * * * * * * * * [ AGEM)A I'lr'v ~ ' All dock facilities, regardless of length/protrusion, shall have reflectors and house ' ' ' numbers four inches minimum size installed at the outermost end, on both sides. For multifamily develooments, the house number requirement is waived. JAN 2 3 2001 , , ~/'.:' -J\,, , w~a~ ~.-~,:-.~ ~!:~=::ob, are deleted. words underline_d_ are added ~ 2.6.21.2.6. All dock facilities are subjec! to, and shall comply with, all federal and state requirements and permits, including but not limited to the requirements and permits of the Florida department of environmental protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protection ofseagrass beds. Where new docking facilities are proposed or boat dock extensions, the location and presence of seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch to 200 feet when available from the county, or a scale of one inch to 400 feet when such photographs are not available from the county. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by a site visit by the site development review director or his designee prior to issuance of any project approval or permit. 2.6.21 '~" __ .,.7-~.6 1 All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten feet from any existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the properly, and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation and hard bottom communities. 2.6~.21.2.:;z~. 62 Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrasses, or a docking facility within ten feet of seagrasses. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: 1. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD. 2. The terminal platform of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. The access dock shall not exceed a width of four feet. 4 The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area ofseagrasses possible. 2.6 21 2 :~:& ~ 3___.~ The pe:ifioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to any project approval or permit issuance. Dock facdio, attension; boathouse establishment criteria. Addilional lengttu'protmsion beyond said respective distances specified in section 2.6.21.2.1 lLqd 2.6.2I .2.2 for dock facilities; and all boathouses, regardless of the extent of tke protmsion into the waterway or the width of the water'way, shall_.__.._requi er.~ublic notice and a hearing by the~Colli~er County Plannin~..ss!on: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the planning commission takes action, pursuant to section 5.2.11 of this Code, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final aclion to the board of zoning appeals, except that such appeal shall be filed with the development sen'ices director within 14 days of the date of the final action by the planning commission. The board of zoning appeals may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse, or reverse with conditions the action of the planning commission. Such appeal shall be filed with the community development and environmental seN'ices administrator, or his designee and shall be noticed for hearing with the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the procedures and applicable fee set forth in section 1.6.6 of this Code. The planning commission shall base its decision for approval, approval '.vid; conditions, or denial, on the foliovYing criteria: AGEND~ ~-L~_.~ JAN 2 3 200t ..6...: ! _" 2.6,21.3.4. 2.6.2 ~ ._'..5. _,.6.2! .'. 5. _.6.~, 3 7 2.62I .'. ~o. .J '.L'he:her or not the numbe,, of dock ISacliities or .qic~. ro :e ~ocate'" on the sueteat 7regen.',' is approprtate ~n reiauon to the len~tn of '.,arete'font FroF~ny a~afiabi¢ ;'or the toearran ofthe proposed dock thciiities. '~."M:her or not the water deplh where {he pro.sin ~oc~ facility is to be located is _:u{T~cien{ Io ailo~' for sa[~ moorin~ of d",¢ v~zse!. me:ray nc::ssnatm~ the extension r:qu=zt. '.Vhe:her or not the proposed dock facility and moor:d '~'esse!fs~ in combination may have an adverse impact to naylea:ion v. ithin a.n adiac:nt na,.ig=ble cha.rmei. Who:her or not, for lots on ~ wate.'--~av lhat is m'.eater than I00 fee', in widlhj the proposed dock design --~ ...... ~ '.'~..~el facility occupies mort than 25 pa.'cent of the widlh of the wate.-','ay, or, for boathouses only, ~rotr~des greater than 20 feet for boa:hc~soc, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent z ..... ,.,'ala:-.,:au is maintained in order to ensure re~onable ,.v area-way navigability. %i~e:her or not there ar: special condition': reiated to the sub,e:: ~rope."ty or ,.,,ate.-~ a;' ',*,'hich jus:lfy the proposed dimensions a.r.d 1oc:ttan of the subice: dock. ',V'r.::her or not the .:roposed dock is of minimal dime.qsmns nes:'~.sa.~.,' in order to ad:c'.'~eiv se:ure the moored vezse! ,.,.bile prov,ding r:",~onaaie 2c:::s :o me boat Far eau'dab m~nten. a.nce. v. qthOUt the use 0£ exc.m. st;e '~e:~ are=. 'O,'r.e:ne.- or not :be 7rocosed structure {s o(mm~ma~ aime."'.smns to mm~m~z: :he ir::.gac: of the ;'~e'.~ oi' the '.,.ate:-v, av by sun',ounmng 7raper':.', o,.,. r.e."s ~at:r ['rantnee zucn that me acditlon ol a docx s::-.:c:'.'r,- ',,.~il ;n,:re"'_~e :no :meat: on or ne~ati,,'e:? ira:ace the ,..,ew of the v.'ate.-'.,,a', _':? su:"roun,~ln_~ 7rorx:.'xy ',',.'n.-.:h:: or nol :he ;'togcab: lecauon :~r,d d:s~tan ,:~ :r.e 3eck. ,.case! comb,nat:on .z:n.s ex:stin_~ dock sm:c:ures. race. ors'me e.x:s::n~ Nathie organisms in the ,.,c:n~t,. of the pro12ose5 extension. (2.. ";V'he:he: ,r not seagr-z.sse: are loc",ted ,.,. nh,n 200 re.-: of the proposed dock: "":. d ~b \L'he:ke: or not the pro~_~osed dacx is sueje':: :c, the manate'e- prolect~or, r:quirem:nts ofth~s Code (seeaton camm~ssmn m2> im~se such conditions upon the 2:~ro',al rmues~ n deems ~ ncrrs~D. to accomplish ~e ¢m~sc: of this code and ;h,e s;~e:v and ~:!f=e of the public, Suc~ candiucn~ ma~ mctud:, but shall [imtt:d ~o. g~mer side sc:~ck~sl. prov~smn of I~r,:; re:lee:ors l~cc: th~ l~ur mcncs. ~d prombmn~ ~r ~:ttmc moormu on our:de of Lb: d~k 2.6.21.4. 2.6.21.4.1. 2.6.21.4.2. 2.6.21.4.3. Boathouse requirements: In addition to the criteria in section 2.6.21.3, the following criteria shall apply to boathouses: 1%{inimum side setback requirement: 15 feet. Ma~mum protrusion into waterway: 25 percent of canal width or 20 feet, whichever is less. Maximum height: 15 feet as measured from top of seawall or bank whichever is more restrictive. AGENDA IT~EI~ JAN, _.2001 COLIJER COlo~ LAi~ID DEVELOP,X[ENT CODE EPCHIBIT A LOT ~ LOT 2 80' 60' OR TYPtCAL I~ORE 100' ~¥A'I'ERWAY - 15' LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 6 I,OT 5 TYPICAL SE'I'I~ACK I~1~OUII~EMENTS FOI'~ DOCK FACILITII~.S R.I,.=IlI!~ARIAN I ,I N t'.', LDC2:192 . JAN 2 3 2001 Boat aock: AwalKway protrucang into a waterway wmcn prov~c~es access to a mooreel boat. section 2.6.21.) Boat yard and ways: A premises or Site used as a commercial establishment for the provision of all such facilities as are customary and necessary to the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or sale of boats, marine engines or marine equipment and supplies of all kinds including, but not limited to, rentM of covered or uncovered boat slips or dock space or enclosed dry storage space or marine railways or lifting or launching services, and for dredge or barge dockage aud storage. Boatel: A facility offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a dally rate for boat travelers. These accommodations include wet boat slips, where guests may or may not sleep on their boat, that are normally combined with a hotel/motel and its accessory uses, such as a restaurant. Boathouse, commercial: A building where boats are housed, launched, hauled, repaired, serviced, maintained or stored. Boathouse, private: A :', ~ofed, accessor ~ use to a residential structure(s) adjacent to a waterway, open on all sides and providing covered protection to a boat and accessories customary thereto. A private boathouse may not be used for the purpose of human habitation. (See section 2.6.21.) Dock facility.' Any structure constructed in or over a waterway for the primary purpose of mooring a boat, or any combination of such structure and the vessel it accommodates. This includes docks, walkways, piers, mooring pilings, boathouses and the like. Marina: A boating facility, chiefly for recreational boating, located on navigable water frontage, and providing all or any combination of the following:. boat slips or dockage, dry boat storage, small boat hauling or launcbinE facilities, marine fuel and lubricants, marine supplies, bait and fi~hlng equipment, restaurants, boat and boat motor sales, and rentals. Minor boat, rigging and motor repair which is incidental to the principal marina use is generally allowed as an accessory use. However, no dredge, barge or other work-d~k%oe or service is permitted, and no boat construction or reconstruction is permitted. A boat sales lot is not a marina. Riparian line: An imaginary line beginning at the point at which property lines intersect the mean high water line of a waterway and continuing into the ~at¢~vav indefinitely. The purpose of the riparian line, as employed by this Code, is to provide a point of reference from which to measure setbacks for docking facilities. Waterfront.' Property where any or all of its lot lines abut on or axe contiguous to any body of water at its normal level, including creek, canal, bay, gulf and river, natural or artificial, not including a swimming pool, where water is present, yearround under normal conditions. (See division 3.2.) Yar_~d, waterfront: The required open space extending along the entire waterfront property with depth measured from property line, bulkhead, shoreline, seawall, mean high water mark, access easement, whichever is the most restrictive. Waterfront property is hereby deft property abutting on the Gulf of Mexico, bays, bayous, navigable streams, and on man-c canals, lakes, or impounded reservoirs. For the purpose of this ordinance, the setback for any principal or accessory structure adjacent to the water shall be the same setback specified for the side or rear yard, as the case may be, in the particular zoning d However, these setbacks shall never be less than 10 feet for any structure unless spe~ provided for in section 2.6.2.2 of the Land Development Code. kea a .~C.~r. ND A AGENDA ITEM 7-A TO: MEMORANDUM COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: 23 AUGUST 2000 RE: BD 2000-20 AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Owner: John D. & Olga M. Iandimarino 231 Tradewinds Avenue Naples, FL 34108 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 41-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which would allow for a boat docking facility protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 372 Oak Avenue, further described as Conner's Vanderbilt Beach, Unit 2, Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to create a boat docking facility which would protrude a total of 61 feet into the waterway and consist of a U-shaped dock and boat lift. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing: Single-family residence, zoned RSF-3 Surrounding: North - Oak Avenue ROW South - Vanderbilt Lagoon East - Single-family residence, zoned RS West 3-3 - Single-family residence, zoned RS '-3 -1- .JAN 2 3 2001 AGENDA JAN 2 3 View from site looking south across waterway, mangrove growth in foreground View from site looking southeast, showing dock on adjacent Lot 8 A~_t~A IT~r ~ l 3/~ ~,~ JAN 2 3 2001 EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTALr TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Planning Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. According to Section 3.2.4.1 of the Collier County Manatee Protection Ordinance, this boat docking facility will be considered a "Moderate Development Site", which allows up to 10 boat slips for every 100 feet of shore line. Therefore, the proposed boat docking facility is consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Ordinance. Staff Comments: Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 2.6.21 of the Collier County Land Development Code and finds the following: a. Whether or not the proposed docking facility and moored vessels in combination may have an adverse navigation within an adjacent navigable channel b o C · ~m~act to According to the petitioner, the proposed facility would have no impact on navigation. Whether or not the proposed dock design and moored vessel protrude greater than 25 percent of the width of the navigable canal or greater than 20 feet for boathousesr and will a minimum of 50 percent of the canal width between dock structures/moored vessel(s) on the opposite side of the canal be maintained in order to ensure reasonable waterway width for navigability. The waterway is about 900 feet wide at the site and the proposed facility would occupy only about 7 percent of the width of the waterway. Whether or not there are special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which will justify the proposed dimension and location of the subject dock. The property lines of this and the adjacent lots extend from 15 to 20 f.:-et into the waterway, and the LDC requires measurement Irom the most restrictive point, which in this case is the seawall. The water depth is shallow along the seawall, with mangrove growth extending into the waterway. A viable facility could not be built without the extension. Docks on the adjacent lots protrude about 38-40 feet beyond the seawall. AGE~A -2- JAN 2 3 2001 e o fo Whether or not the proposed dock is of minimal dimensions necessar~ in order to adequately secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routir, e maintenancer without the use of excessive deck area. The proposed facility, while not the minimum needed to accommodate the vessel and access the lift, is not excessive in terms of deck area. Whether or not the proposed structure is of minimal dimensions to minimize the impact on the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners. The proposed structure is centered on the lot, and set back 27 feet from the property/riparian lines on each side, well in excess of the required 15 feet. The impact on the view of neighboring property owners would be minimal. Whether or not the moored vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the length of the waterfrontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact onr or negatively impact the view off the propert~ owners. The proposed facility would accommodate one 30-foot vessel, which would occupy 40 percent of the properry's 75 feet of waterfrontage. The impact on the view of adjacent property owners would be minimal. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock/vessel combination is such' that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring propettiest including any dock structures. The proposed facility would be situated perpendicular to the shoreline and, as mentioned above, would be well set back from the property/riparian lines. There would be no interference with the use of existing docks on either side. Regarding benthic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed extension: (A) Whether or not seagrasses are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock. (B) Whether the proposed dock protection rec~uirements of this code (Sec. 2.6.22). is subject to the manatee Planning Services staff has reviewed this petition an no objection to the granting of this request. No seagr are located within 200 feet of the proposed facility -3- At: JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ?~.'~ least one "Manatee Area" construction. sign shall be posted during Appeal of Boat Dock Extension to Board of Zoning Appeals As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Collier County Planning Commission takes action, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator within 14 days of the action by the Planning Commission. In the event that the petition has been approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her risk during this period. Staff Recommendation: Based upon the above findings, staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission approve Petition BD 2000-20 subject to the stipulations listed in the resolution. -4- A C~F_.~ A I'r'E.~4 ....) JAN 2 3 2001 ,.._ PREPARED BY: 'ROSS GQCHENAUR PLANNER I I ~/~AL D F .~ ~q~f N OT-'AI C P, (I~RRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE R~LHERE, AICP, PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APP~ BY: ~ VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE Petition Number: BD 2000-20 Staff Report for 5 October 2000 for CCPC meeting. COLLIER~ '~Y PLANNING COMMISSION: , C~-AI RMAN -5- JAN 2 3 2001 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-20 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enfome zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 41-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 61-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier Count,:', Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing John D. and Olga M, landimarino, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 17, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 41-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow' for a 61-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever pronudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. -1- JAN 2 3 2001 Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-20 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done tkis __ day of ,2000. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN JO~?( M. DUNNUCK, III Executive Secretary !n:-~'r im Community Development and Environmental $ e~'ices Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: MaOofie M. Student ~;~!s:ari: Cc, anty A~orney ! , -, r. ?';:;-2(~r0-20 R(5'im -2- jAN 2 3 2001 ~October 19, 2000 EXCERPT OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted 'business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Gary Wrage Russell A. Priddy Kenneth Abernathy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Michael Pedone Russell A. Budd ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Ron Nino, Planning Services Page 1 J::XFJl B IT October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Next i~em, boat dock 2000-23. Ross, prior, you handed me during the meeting some photos. Is this from you or from the petitioner? MR. GOCHENAUR: Those are from the people in the neighborhood who are objecting to the petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. So, we'll talk about these later then. MR. GOCHENAUR: Y._~s, sir. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: i'm sorry, let's try that again. I was waiting for them to clear. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise and be sworn in by the reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. First, I'd like to correct something in the staff report under staff comments, Item F, which addresses whether or not the moored vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the length of the water frontage. I indicated that the vessels in combination were, and according to the petitioner, they have one 40 foot, two 35 foot, two 30 foot vessels. That's actually not in excess of the 50 percent. It's about 36 percent, so it does meet that criteria. I've had quite a few phone calls. We have eight letters of objection to this petition, and for the record, I'd just like to briefly go over the nature of a boat dock petition and also for the people here from the public who are probably going to be speaking. A boat dock extension is not a variance. The land development code recognizes that there are circumstances under which a longer boat dock than the 20 feet that's allowed by the code would be acceptable. We judge -- the staff judges the petition on certain criteria in the !and development code, and from this, we make a recommendation. This goes to the planning commission which decides the petition. It does not go to the Board of County- Commissioners. .~~. JAN 2 3 2001 Pa~e 2 p~..~~ October 19, 2000 The planning commission is not bound, of course, by the staff recommendation. However, the land development code says that the planning commission shall base its decision on the code criteria. So, that's what we'll be addressing here today, code criteria. The petitioner is requesting a 40 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 60 feet into the waterway. The actual dock is going to protrude 56 feet. The petitioner was asking for the four additional feet to account for possible vessel overhang, since the land development code states that a dock facility comprises the dock and vessel in combination. The property is located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive, site of a five unit multifamily residence. The water frontage of the property is about 295 feet. The project consists of the construction of two floating concrete docks accommodating a total of five slips which would result in one slip per 59 feet of water frontage. The dock extension to 40 feet has been approved for a residential lot to the north, here, and I've indicated the people who are objecting to the petition in blue, the site is in yellow. So, we have a 40 foot dock to the north, here, and we have a 25 foot extension for the Chateau Vanderbilt multifamily condos to the south. The Chateau Vanderbilt facility has a dock that accommodates ten slips, and that works out to approximately one slip per 35 feet of water frontage, whereas the petitioner is asking for one slip per 59 feet. We've received eight letters of objection from local property owners. These cite obstruction to navigation and access to neighboring docks, obstruction of the view of neighboring property owners, environmental issues, including mariatees and pollution and boat traffic in the waterway. With regard to the obstruction to access to the neighboring docks, I've indicated here that the facility is going to be set back 50 feet from the actual dock at Vanderbilt Chateau and about 60 feet from the 40 foot extension, which is to the north. The hatched areas are the building envelope and do not reflect the entire facility for either of these projects. We've also got questions about obstructing the view · neighboring property owners, and one of the folk= objecti; Page 3 ~f JA, N 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 sent some very clear panoramic views taken from the residential docks to the north. The view is subjective. In any case, staff still feels that the impact o.~ the view of property owners is going to be minimal here. The questions about manatees and water pollution are outside the scope of this petition since they are not asking for ten slips, which is the cutoff for review under the manatee protection plan, that doesn't apply. Water pollution is addressed by the Department of Environmental Protection by the state. Staff believes that the petitioner has successfully addressed all of the criteria. We feel that the remaining issues are basically outside the scope of this petition, and we, therefore, recommend approval of this extension. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY; I have questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ross, Item F talks about the word vessel being in excess of 50 percent of the length of the water frontage. If it is, is there some sort of presumption that it would interfere with the views of adjoining property owners? Why do we go into that? MR. GOCHENAUR: That was included originally when this section of the code was drafted. I inherited this, and it was mainly to address a vessel moored parallel to the waterfront on a single family lot so that if you had a one hundred foot lot, theoretically you could have a 70 foot vessel. This, we thought, would have an impact on the view of the neighboring property owners. In this case, I don't think that really applies with the vessels that are going to be moored perpendicular to the shoreline and also a multifamily facility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But the combined lengths of those vessels by my reckoning is 170 feet, which is more than half of the 295, is it not? MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay. What I came up with here was a 40 foot vessel -- let's see. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Two 30s is 60, that makes a hundred, and two 35s is 70 makes 170. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, you're correct. That wa originally did the math. Page AGENDA JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 As I explained earlier, I did flunk math. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The other question I had is, if you could put that schematic up there again that showed the neighboring properties, who is the owner of that 100 feet immediately adjacent, that little hundred feet down there in the corner? It's hard to say that -- MR. GOCHENAUR: The name of the property owner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it's hard to say that that property wouldn't be -- that their view wouldn't be impacted by extending these docks out there, isn't it? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm the owner of the one -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, please. You'll get your opportunity to testify, okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, well, the owner is here, so she can speak for herself. MR. GOCHENAUR: That's basically what we're looking at here. You can see the end of the seawall here, the docks would extend out there, and basically-- again, this is subjective, and the property owner is going to have a different idea of what impacts the view, but from our standpoint, this impacts the property owner's view of a ten story condominium across the waterway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's also a statement in here somewhere that side yard setbacks have been -- or setbacks from the property line have been observed, but it looks to me like, from the information we have, that the dock goes right to the property line on one side, doesn't it? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. If you look at lot six, you can see that their property line actually extends to the center line of that 100 foot canal, so the riparian line -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, I hadn't seen that little notch down there. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yeah, it's a little bit -- a little bit hard to see unless you get up close, but the riparian lies approximately where I drew that line vertically, and the measurement from the dock to that riparian line is about 50 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said that the issue c Page 5 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 manatee safety does not apply in this case because of a particular criteria? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan kicks in when you have ten slips or more. This project is only for five slips. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So in the resolution, they are going to, at least, put in one manatee area sign during construction, that's what it says? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. This is a standard stipulation for boat dock construction. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's only during construction? It doesn't stay permanently? MR. GOCHENAUR: It could stay permanently if we added a stipulation to that effect, which I can certainly do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's why I was trying to make sure I understood what you had said and what was in the resolution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? We'd be glad to hear from the petitioner. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner, Liberty Ventures, with Turrell & Associates. Pretty much everything that Ross said here is -- we are in agreement with. First of all, these are concrete floating docks that we are putting in. How do you get that to zoom out? Okay. You know, obviously, view is an issue, and I'm sure you'll he.~r from that, but these are concrete floating docks which are low profile. i'm sure most of you are familiar with the concrete f';oating docks. They have a freeboard of a couple of feet off of the water. So, the dock structures are not fixed docks sticking up with high pilings, with high lift beams up. The docks are down low. We are currently -- we are only permitted for five slips here. There are five upland units, and we are permitted for five slips, and the slips are -- you're starting over here. You have one, two, three, four, five. This area on the north side has to have a railing up. Now, these are all DEP stipulations. On the end of this dock is where the mariatee sign is going to be. Page 6 We are -- you c ~^ !'-",?~_ October 19, 2000 have to worry about that. That's stipulated in the DEP permit. That's -- that's part of their permit. We have to do that. This, we'll have railing along this side and a boat will be able to moor here, and on the inside here, it's very shallow, but also, this has to be railed according to DEP, so we can't pull any type of boat or jet skis or anything inside there. So, it's only five slips. These two are 36 foot slips. This is a 36 foot slip. These two are 30 foot slips here. The reason they are separated is because of the way that these apartments are built. You have a wall coming out right along here, right up to the seawall and also over here. These have access out through their wall onto this one. These people have to walk around down to here. Now, the reason that this dock is sticking out a little bit further than this one is because this one is made handicap accessible. The ramp has to -- the gangway to the dock -- the dock had to be a little wider here to handle the handicap. Also, the angle of the ramp had to be a little bit further out, therefore, the distance out. So -- which puts the total distance out here at 56 feet, and then the submerged land lease that we had to get from the state extends out -- they always make you extend out four feet further, so we included that into our boat dock extension of what we're asking for, a total of 60 feet. This is the Chateau Vanderbilt apartments here. This is the -- this is the canal here. It was brought -- we are 52 feet away from our property line over here, which runs down the center line of this canal. The canal is -- excuse me, the canal is a hundred feet wide right here, so we're away from there. Originally, the plans we were -- we were going to put the ~Jocks inside along here extending out and over here. We submitted a dredge plan to the DEP. The DEP rejected our dredging plan when they saw the entire area with our depths, and they would not allow the dredging inside the canal here, and they said the least impact would be to move the docks out front and into a little bit Peeper water. We have the objection. DEP gave us papers saying that we will not approve the dredge plan. So, this is -- they said to move them out here, and this is your least impact, so this is where the docks are now. We are 25 feet away from the property line of Chateau .Vanderbilt. What we did for the -- this grid pattern, I don't kn~ you can see it very well there, but we hired surveyors to JAN 2 3 2001 Page 7 October 19, 2000 and do the whole lagoon. The entire lagoon, we had a bathymetric survey done. There's no impact to navigation, which we have here. The depths for the boats -- let's see. Can you go out further, out the other way? MR. NINO: Can't read it though. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yeah. Your light is off. These are where the -- this is the applicant's property right here, the Chateau Vanderbilt and the canal over here. The docks are extending out in this area right to where these first set of numbers are. We have about four feet of water. These measurements are pretty consistent over the entire lagoon out here. The depths you see here or NGVD, to get to mean low water, you subtract four-tenths of a foot, so we have four to four and a half to five feet to almost five -- it's about four and a half to four over the entire area. So, there is no particular method of navigation through where we're putting these docks. This entire area out here is all the same depth. So, we don't believe there's any impact to navigation, and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm chairman, I'll go first, okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When you look at this drawing, if I'm standing over here on the platform or .the deck, how tall are the pilings? Is it like four foot? MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, the concrete pilings extend up about ten feet. Are they ten feet, Tim, six feet? MR. HALL: For the floating dock? MR. SCOFIELD: For the floating. MR. HALL: It can be anywhere from six to ten feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Six to ten feet. Normally, if -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: ! guess what I'm saying, if I stand here, am I looking over the top of them or right along the top of them probably? MR. SCOFIELD: If you're standing on top, the concrete pilings that anchor the floats will probably be right above your head, right at your head height. What they do on the design of floating docks, they design for storm surge so the docks don't float off of the Pa~e 8 October 19, 2000 and go hit into someone's house, and usually they like about six to eight feet above the high water line for these docks to allow for that much surge if we get a -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What I was getting at is I'll be looking at the boat probably and not some pilings? You'll be able to see them, but the boats are going to be taller than the pilings at high water. MR, SCOFIELD: On high water, it would probably be close. It depends on what the profile of the boat is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My question was, and, Rocky, you can answer it or someone else, but the property is in blue on Ross' diagram that would -- that were complaining or saying that their view would be blocked. Do they got docks in front of their house? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, most of these properties have docks. As I pointed out, one of the properties has a 40 foot dock that was approved for a 40 foot extension. The others have approximately 20 foot docks that are permitted. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, if you're standing on their seawall, you have to look across their boats before you get a view of these proposed docks; is that safe to -- is that fair to say? MR. GOCHENAUR: In some cases, I think that would be correct. Again~ this picture sort of shows a dock that's slung from davits on -- let's see, this is on lot one. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And the proposed docks would be to the right of the boat we're looking at? MR, GOCHENAUR: The proposed dock -- actually, this is on the north. The proposed dock would be to the south here. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question for Rocky. The gangways that you have from the shore to the floating docks, do they ride in tracks of some sort on the dock? MR. SCOFIELD: No~ they don't. They -- they're on coasters. They're on wheels, and then they just roll back and forth when the -- on the tide. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What sort of a tide range do you have in there? MR. SCOFIELD: Normal tide range is about two feet. ~the normal. You get extreme tides, you know, full moo;: whatever, and you're going to get three feet of -- Page 9 That's JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And your gangways are going to be placed far enough out onto the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's one of the reasons we had to go out a little further out with the docks, one was the handicap ramp and the other one was to allow for the tracking back and forth. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you're expecting a storm surge, you just pull those things in or -- MR. SCOFIELD: They should. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Members of the public who wish to speak on this, if you would line up, please. MR. NINO: Joan Ferro, Linda Rogers, B.J. Savard-Boyer, Mary Griffith. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name is B.J. Savard-Boyer, S-A-V-A-R-D, hyphen, B-O-Y-E-R. I live at 479 Palm Court. I'm the one that took the pictures, and there's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are these the pictures that you're referring to? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, sir, the ones -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll pass them down to Mr. Priddy, who will start them. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay, but I have an additional one that Ross did not put up, and if I could -- can I talk over there? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I'm kind of starting backwards here. I had a lot to say before I showed you that picture. Can ! say it before we get into the picture? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sure. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can we raise that a little bit? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Raise -- oh. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: There you go. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Maybe we have to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There we go. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay. Well, looking at this picture right now, you see the piling there and the dock to the left, this is the dock that is -- belongs to lot two of the owner on Palm Court, Mary Griffith and Clarence Griffith. The dock, the prop ~~ I j~ 23 20Ol Page 10 I October 19, 2000 goes from the seawall, which you can't see, but it goes complete coverage of their property into ten feet of lot three, which is 442 Palm Court. It's hard to explain it because you're not getting this whole picture here. See this dock over here, this is the 40 foot dock that they are talking about, all right. This is on lot three, 442 Palm Court. This is on 474 Palm Court. If we measure the seawall here across the Griffith property, you'll -- the sea -- well, let me go back here. The seawall on Liberty Ventures is into lot one. So, when you go and do 60 feet, you're going ten feet beyond the third lot. So, this lot here is looking, right now, directly across, has a wide open water view. Yes, we do have high-rises here but we couldn't help it. Over here you will see the 25 foot docks for Chateau Vanderbilt. They have a boat that extends past their 25 foot dock, so maybe it's a 30 foot boat, I don't know. I couldn't get in there to measure. Anyhow, this waterway is -- Rocky is right, it's -- it's deeper around the edge, shallower in the middle. If you were on a boat and you got out there, you would know about that. The people that used to own this land over here where we got it is -- ! believe their names were Garland. Alex Garland, Sr., I spoke to personally. He told me that when his father owned this property, there was high land under the water here. He said to navigate this, you have to go around. Okay, that's one of our concerns; the view. When this dock goes 60 feet out, these people are going to have one heck of a time getting in and out and so are the Ferros on the corner. When I read the code, Section 2.6.21.1 of the current code, docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access by users for routine maintenance and use while minimally, and I stress that, impacting the navigability of the waterway, native marine ha~. itat, mariatees and the use and view, view of the waterway by ~e surrounding property owners. I dare say there will be no view from lot one or lot two, and yes, the one in lot three, they can look out to the west. They will be able to see water, but these people cannot see water. These people have lived there for 25 years and enjoyed the view, and now you're going Go Page 11 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 60 feet of floating dock, 45 foot boats -- it's awful. It's awful. I did call the mariatee organization, and I'm waiting for them to get back to me, because ! do feel -- and I took the pictures of Mamma Manatee having her baby, and I do feel, yes -- I mean, we're getting so impacted with things back there that you're ruining our -- you're ruining our waterways. We have 56 boats proposed into the Regatta, 56. We have this guy going out -- I don't understand -- I guess my point is, why can't he go out 20 feet and have five individual docks like the rest of us? Why does it have to be a monument? I don't understand that. The other thing is, the docks are at either end of their property, leaving the middle open so that they have a nice view of the waterway. I don't know whether that's fair. I mean, they are ruining the view of the homeowners that have been there forever, but they're maintaining their view. I can't say whether this will impact their property value or not. I can't say that. Nobody knows what property is going to be worth on the water, whether you can see anything or not. I can't say that, but the thing is, these people have lived there for 25 years, and they have enjoyed this pristine water, and I just am sick to death of everything that's going on around us. I also talked to Mark Miller. He personally sent me everything that Rocky talked about, but he also told me that, yes, ,,,=_~ could dredge. Now I find that very interesting that we have a conflict of the story here, so I guess I'll have to get back to Mr. Miller. He sent me all the things that Rocky had up here with the d~?pth. It does look fairly simple. It does look like three feet and four feet are just as close to the seawall as anybody else has to tile seawall. In talking to -- after talking -- after this thing -- let me back up a little bit. Our petition arrived in the mail on October 5th. The date on the petition said September 29th. The sign went in on the property probably close to September 29th, and ri9ht after that was when I called Mr. Gochenaur, and following that we got the letter in the mail. Funny that it was October 5th, the day that we were here before, but anyhow, we started with asking the neighbors -- I do have here a petition from other neighbors that we went around and collected. We have property owners in Vanderbilt, Connor's Vanderbilt that do not want 60 fool docks. We don't want to start with 60 foot docks because then^c~a~^~ jAN 2 3 2001 Page 12 Pg..:~-D~.. _.~ October t9, 2000 everybody on these open waterways are going to want 60 foot docks. So, I have a petition here, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Thank you. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: We didn't have time to get the 300 signatures that Golden Gate got, but we got enough that we could, you know, have some support here. In closing, I found out -- and what I would like to say here, the codes dealing with the dock extension, when this code was put through either sometime in '99 or early 2000, it was put through because they needed dock extensions in the Isle of Capri, and I said, how can you compare the Isle of Capri to the Connor's Vanderbilt waterways? Well, it's a Collier County code, and we're in Collier County, but I think that it's time that codes were sensitive to the different bodies of water and different geographical locations, and I also feel that if you compare the two, it's -- it's like apples and oranges, they don't compare. So, in closing, I would like to say thank you for giving me the time to say this. I know my neighbors have something to say, so thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, a~d please, your predecessor eloquently put it. If you've got anything to add or simply to reaffirm what she said, please. MS. GRIFFITH: I'm Mary Griffith, and I'm the one who has lived 25 years at 474 Palm Court, and we will have no view, sir, no view. Would you buy a property with no view? I don't think so. I think our property value will go down. It shows clearly it will be right across -- well, you took -- it's down, but it will go right across our whole house. We won't -- we won't see anything but what; b=,and floating docks. It's sad. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question for her. Ma'am, if there were a 20 foot dock there, what would your view be? MS. GRIFFITH: Well, there's no picture, but the ones at Vanderbilt -- at Chateau Vanderbilt, they would come -- see, we 'have a boat, but we've kept it to the left side of our pro! ~'--' ...... ~. Page 13 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 because of the view. It would come out slightly in our view, but we still would have that open -- open water, you know, in between. I really think that what Chateau Vanderbilt has done is appropriate for our area. Sixty foot docks anywhere are too much. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I ask that question because you-all would be allowed to put a 20 foot dock without coming here today, and I wanted to see what the comparison of your view with a 20 foot docI< was -- I mean, if that 20 foot dock kept you from any view, then it's kind of a moot point whether it's 20, 30 or 40. MS. GRIFFITH: No, it would not. You see -- if you can see where that comes -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I've got that picture in my mind. MS. GRIFFITH: Okay. All right. It would go that far all the way across so that we have no -- because it even goes adjacent to our neighbor, number three, lot three, and if we wanted -- if we wanted to bring our boat in, we've got to go between that dock and his dock, maneuver in -- I mean, that's another point. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But that would be true if it were a 20 foot dock, you would still have to -- MS. GRIFFITH: No, it would not --no, it would not be as difficult, no. It's because -- because of those extra feet, it just covers our whole property and you know very well if you allow one 60 foot dock, that opens the door for many, many, and there's the group across from us who want docks, and they'll think, well, maybe we can make ours bigger, and, you know, once you okay one, it's difficult to say no, and I plead with you, consider this strongly. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. FERRO: Hi. My name is Joan Ferro. I'm sorry, i have iaryngitis, but it's important for me to come. We are building a million dollar home there, and I'm lot number one, which the view would be even more impeded as Mrs. Griffith said. So, lot number one puts me way in the corner .am opposite the property, and I just think I II definitely ha~ A ITE~ view, and here we are in the middle of building a home, ;~nd~^~ Page 14 l JAN 2 3 2001 October t 9, 2000 never thought that they would allow this, first of all. Sixty feet, isn't that for commercial? I mean, I don't understand why they couldn't dredge in front. They said they weren't allowed to dredge on the side, but what about the front, why didn't they go after that dredging so that they could only have 20 feet like everybody else, and once that starts a precedent, everyone else will want 60 feet. There's only -- there's only five families there. Why do they need 60 feet? That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. ROGERS: My name is Linda Rogers, R-O-G-E-R-S, and I live at 428 Palm Court, and don't worry, all this is not for you, but I do want to make one comment before I forget about the docks on the side. Before this property was sold, the people who owned it before had ~wo boat docks on the side in the side canal, and to my knowi~ ~ge, watching those two boats come and go -- and they varie~ in size~ during the length of the years as different people w~.~e tenan s in that building. Those boats came and went. The. property wasn't dredged, and when that property was sold, thos~ boat docks were there, and they were working, and they didn'~ ~mpede anybody's view. I don't understand why two of the docks can't be there, you know, just to replace those, but I would ask the commission to look into that before making a decision here, and i'm not here to oppose Liberty Ventures' right to have bo~t docks. My husband and I are boaters as well, and I believe in the right of every person who buys on gulf access waterway to have the right to build and use a boat dock that is compatible with w~'~ ~3tever neighborhood they buy in. That's why we didn't write to oppose when we were notified of their first plan for docks along the seawall, but when the second plan came along, I didn't write. I was going to be down here, and so my letter was not counted because I'm here in person. The second -- the plan that's before the commission now is not in any way or is not in any way compatible with the docks that are already in the neighborhood and the ones that outline ~,Vanderbilt lagoon. To my knowledge, there's not anotherl~!~.~t---~ 'dock, other than a commercial one. There is the/,~_~ dock Page 15 I JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 feet out, but it's not 20 feet from the seawall, and it most certainly can be handicap accessible. Being handicap assessable doesn't mean you need to move it out into the bay. It means you need to be level and have a ramp that is accessible by a wheelchair. !t doesn't have to be 20 feet long. It could be five feet long. There are boats next to this, boat docks lining the seawall at Chateau Vanderbilt, these would be concurrent with those if they lined the seawall and didn't extend out into the bay. They would be compatible with both the conc~ominium buildings that line the lagoon and the private residences that line the lagoon now. None of those go out that far. None of those float up and down, and none of them accommodate boats that large. Our waterway is shallow. It's also dead end, and I know that you are not the DEP, you're not the environmental people, but somewhere along the way, somebody has to take everything into consideration, that this waterway is a dead end, it has no through flow. That was blocked by development years ago, probably before you-all were involved, and certainly before I lived down here. So, that may in the future be corrected, but right now, it's not, and any dead-end waterway is a holding tank for contamination that flows in. It doesn't have anywhere to go. It takes longer to get out. Every boat and boat dock that you add in that space, every bit of water that you cover inhibits the ability of that water to have a better quality, and I know personally, we have worked as residents of Vanderbilt for years, not just in the area impacted by these docks, but the area between Vanderbilt Drive and Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road and Bluebill, to improve that water quality because we were fussed at, and we were fussed at, and we had to change lawn chemicals or use none at all, and we had to go by all these specifications and regulations, and I would like to think that our work didn't go for nothing, that we didn't try to better that environment so somebody else could come in and cover the waterway with more dock than is absolutely necessary for their pleasure and their view, and I would like to address the property values. My view is not affected by these docks. It's -- it's only affected by the sight when I go out to the side of my hous see whatever they put there, but I know, and I think you C Page 16 .JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 -~veil, that here in South Florida, the view has a considerable value to the property. One on a waterway and with a view of the water has a definite monetary value over and above a property that is sitting across the street and has no view or access to that water. So you cannot as a whole ignore what it would do to the properties that would be adversely affected by looking at 60 feet of dock and big boats rather than 20 or 25 feet and still have the partial view outside. That's all I have to say about that is~ue. I would ask that you would consider putting a parking garage here to help the people who need access to the government services. I think that's more important than having a 400 space parking garage so people can get to Vanderbilt Beach. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave at this time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let it show that Mr. Pedone is leaving. Yes, ma'am. MS. DORAZlO: Hi. My name-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE= Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. DORAZlO: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. MS. DORAZlO: My name is Dorothy Dorazio, and I live on Oak Avenue, which is adjacent to Palm Court. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you spell your last name, please? MS. DORAZlO: D-O-R-A-Z-I-O. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. DORAZlO: I've been spelling it for 30 years. Anyway, I'm here in support of the people who live on Palm Court, and I wanted to reiterate the fact that we all do feel that this is an important issue for our waterway. We not only have this dock under consideration, but we also have ones from Regatta and one on our own street of Oak Avenue that will be before you, and that was one thing I wanted to point out. I know that it's your -- it's your manner of operation to view each of these items individually, but on an overall basis, one by one, even this covered dock, which is a small issue to you taken in consideration with all of the other things that are cor~ing~f~/~ Page 17 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 Vanderbilt Beach are going to have a very large impact on what it's going to do to our community. My second point is that we all are boaters or a lot of us are, and any one of us would be happy to take any one of you or more than one of you out to view this site, because I don't think pictures or descriptions or graphs have any real bearing on what's going to happen in Vanderbilt Beach if this is allowed to go on. This is only the first step. You know the Regatta wants to do more. You know that other people are going to submit 60 foot docks and probably larger, and I think that the commiss;on, to be fair, really should get a firsthand look at what these people who are defending their properties are up against. That's all I really have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? If not, would the petitioner like to address, and while he's coming up, Ross, would you just reiterate the notice again, how notice goes out to the public? There seems to be some concern that it wasn't done adequately. MR. GOCHENAUR: Correctly -- correct. At least two weeks prior to the public hearing, letters are mailed to the public according to the addresses which they have recorded with the property appraiser's office. At the same time, a hearing notice is posted on the site stating what the petition is for and the date of the public hearing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Mr. Scofield. MR. SCOFIELD: Just a couple of things, on the navigation issues ! showed you the water depths, and !'11 be glad to -- we spent quite a lot of money having this whole lagoon surveyed. What she was -- what she was referring to, right in the center of this lagoon is the shallowest area. It's about a half a -- according to our -- it's 300 feet out from where we're putting these docks. It's point five to point eight feet shallower than the rest of it. Most of it is four to four and a half feet. This gets down to three and a half feet in the center here of this lagoon, and I have the water depths here from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, surveyors. A couple of other things, water quality is an issue. It's a big issue in these things. The DEP scrutinizes it very -- very carefully. One of the things is we're putting in a concrete Page lB JAN 2 3 2001 ,,.. October 19, 2000 'is not impeded by our proposed docks and the position th in, and if you have any questions on -- dock, which is the environmentally preferred thing to do. We're not putting in CCA treated wood piles, and the concrete is non-toxic to the environment. It~'s much preferred. You get a lot of growth on these of barnacles and everything else, and there's no -- there's no impact to the water quality due to the dock issue. I forgot to say, this site has ten feet wide of riprap all the way around it. So, the first ten feet of shoreline is basically precluded -- we had a failing seawall. When they went in to develop this project, the seawall was failin~ and falling out. One of the things to -- there was two things, the riprap was used as mitigation, which -- which we put in to fortify the seawall, and also for mitigation for DEP, which makes it a better environment around it rather than having a vertical seawall and dredging it out deep. So, the first ten feet of wall there is precluded from putting in docks. If we were to dredge there and get a dredging permit, we would have to start out another five to six feet to eight feet further from the riprap out and then dredge out. So, we're still back out to where we are now because you cannot dredge right up to a riprap or you lose your whole wall, and those -- if you want to know more about the dredging issue, I'm going to let Tim Hall, he's with our firm, he did the permitting on this with the DEP, spoke with them, the original dredge plans and spoke with them about the denials on the inside and their intent to deny outside, because we could go out further with the docks. Now, the last thing I just want to wrap up with, on this canal, the one lady said that the -- she -- excuse me. She's right -- these -- I don't know if you can see these blue ones. We superimposed the proposed docks over here. She's right up in here in this area. This is a hundred foot wide canal. Most of the canals in Vanderbilt Beach are a hundred feet wide. Boat docks come out 20 to 25 feet each side, leaving 50 feet or 60 feet in the middle to go. We are not going in that canal at all. We're outside. There's absolutely -- you know, if this canal were extended on out and there were boat docks to each side, it would be normal on the other ones, but we're not. We're staying in line with that canal -- with this -- with the end of the property here. So, the navigation JAN 2 Page 19 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your closer dock there runs parallel to her seawail; is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The property owner who says it comes completely across her view, it runs parallel to her seawall, right? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm not sure I follow what -- is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir, it is. MR. SCOFIELD: This is -- if I understand what you're saying, this is the canal end. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: The seawall runs out, and ours runs straight along with it. Is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, you maintain the hundred foot separation? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. We don't go in -- we tried to do that from the beginning. We tried to go inside the canal first -- there was an old dock there. There was an old dock there. There's only two feet of water -- well, I have the other dredge plans. There's two and a half to three and a half feet of water there. Our rock extends out ten feet also in there, and when we tried to do the dredge plan for the docks in there, the DEP said move them out to the outside. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Rocky,.the point was brought up by one of the ladies, why didn't you-all design all five docks, say, in the center of the property as opposed to two -- MR. SCOFIELD: I -- I covered that earlier. Because the apartments are built out to the seawall. They have -- I don't know -- I'll show you the plan again. Can you zoom out? There, okay. Right here, there's a wall going along the seawall. These two people will access through their wall onto this ramp. These people will have to come around their units and onto this -- onto this ramp right here. So, that's -- this is a fixed dock. This is a fixed dock a little over the riprap to attach -- to attach this gangway to, and this is a little fixed dock right here just to attach the gangway to get out to. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My question is, why didn't you put the dock of boat three next to four and so forth, put all of them together? Pa~e 20 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: That's just the way they designed that. That's the way they wanted it. Is there any reason, Tim? Excuse me, let Tim -- he's the one that permitted through the DEP. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Let me ask a question. You're saying there's a wall there. How high is that wall? Is that wall -- it's just a seawall? It's not a regular wall. MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no, no~ no, no, the wall comes -- MR. HALL: The plans, they're -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can you give your name, please? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry. MR. HALL: Tim Hall with Turreli & Associates. The architectural plans called for a six foot wall just on the inside of the seawall. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A privacy wall. MR. HALL: Yeah, a privacy wall, basically that extended up and around. If you see the way the -- each one of those apartments has a small p~ol in the back, and they had those pools walled off as well with a privacy wall. So~ in order to put the -- if we were to put all five boat docks together as quickly as we could, then the outside apartments, either one or the other would have had to have gone through one of the other apartments to get to the docks to minimize the amount of dock space, or we would have had to construct a boardwalk that went all the way along the seawall so that all of the apartments could access out onto it. So, the actual amount of impacts, the area that would have been impacted would have been greater. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Tim, what is that -- what are those diamond shaped structures or whatever they are just inside the privacy fences? MR. HALL: I believe those are maintenance -- I don't know if they are sheds or little maintenance boxes or buildings for the pool maintenance equipment. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So, going back to Mr. Priddy's question, it could have been doable had you had a walkway outside that wall so they all could have shared the boat docks, .but it was a preference not to? MR. HALL: it could have been doable -- no, it wasn't Pa~e 21 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 much a preference, but in the coordination with the Department of Environmental Protection, we had to come up with a plan that minimized the impacts to the waterway while still providing access to everybody, and this was the least impactive as far as water quality and as far as the amount of shading that would have incurred in the lagoon. The docks themselves create shade on the bottom, so you want to design a facility that minimizes the amount of area that's being covered or shaded, and this was the one that did it while still providing adequate access. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Had you developed a bigger shaded area -- being not a boater, I don't understand these issues that much. Had you designed a bigger shaded area, would DEP still have approved it? MR. HALL: The letter that we got originally that had the docks all together in one location would have required some dredging, and the letter we got back said that as it was proposed, they would recommend denial of it because it did not minimize the impacts, both dredging and the amount of coverage that was -- that was being proposed. The other thing that -- I notice everybody here keeps talking about 60 foot docks. These are only 36 foot docks. The extension is for 60 feet, and that's just to provide, as we said before, to get outside of the riprap and to get -- also allow for those ramps to get down to the boats to where the docks and the boats themselves would be in adequate water and not to cause prop dredging and disturbance of the bottom while going in and out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, even if you pulled in those privacy walls far enough to put a walkway along there and build five individual docks, it would still go out the same distance to accommodate your vessels; is that right? MR. HALL: No, if -- if they were to pull that in and could have the walkway in there, then you could probably pull them in four or five feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Four or five feet? MR. SCOFIELD: I'd like to add, the thing is, we would probably -- were we to put fixed docks in here -- I heard them say the Chateau Vanderbilt next door, they've got docks out 25 feet and some of the boats sticking out further and there's lift, Pa~e 22 JAN 2 October 19, 2000 there. Were we to go in and put in perpendicular docks like that, we would still have to be out about 40 feet. We have ten feet precluded from the riprap. If we started there and put in, let's say a 30 foot dock, which a lot -- out there with boat lifts, I guarantee you, that view would be much more impeded than what is proposed here as floating docks down low. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, our redesign of your project wouldn't make much difference? MR. SCOFIELD: Not that I see it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: And the other-- what Tim was alluding to, the environmental -- the rock was -- the rock all along the wall, all the way around here was part of the environmental mitigation. To build a boardwalk over that, you know, I guess that could be done, but the Department did not like that because, first of all, we put in the rock for environmental mitigation, and they don't want you to build a d~.ck over the whole thing, shading it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess the next question becomes then since we can't rearrange or move these things around is -- our next question is, why do we need to provide a dock for a boat that size? I mean, is there -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A middle ground, is that the word you're looking for? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, is there -- is there a shorter dock that can still provide these property owners with the right to have a dock, which I think most of these people have, and yet not get that big? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I don't think -- I mean, two of these -- i don't know what size boats are coming in there. I don't know what the people have bought, if they have bought them or not, but these are -- these are basically 30 and 30 -- 36 and 30 foot slips. The people that come in there, I don't know if they are going to buy a 20 foot boat or a 40 foot boat, but, you know, they are designed for 30 and 36 foot boats, to handle up to that much. There's a lot of boats in that area that are 30 feet and 35 feet boats in this area. There's a lot of them. I received some calls from Chateau Vanderbilt about the possibility of extending their docks out to incorporate larger dock -- larger boats there, but the trouble is, they've got to get into a submerged land lease, so they pulled back on thati Pa~e 23 JAN 2 3 2001 October 19, 2000 said, well, we don't want to get into that right now. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: the depth survey up again? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: that's -- don't pull it out too far because ! can't read it. read read MR. SCOFIELD: COMMISSIONER SAADEH: it for you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: it at all. I have a question. Could you put Can you point to the area, Rocky, Okay, I'm sorry. I just want to get it -- Just point to the area, and he'll Yeah, what's the -- now I can't I'm looking for the area that you said was so shallow. Sort Pa~e 24 The center of your p JAN 2 3 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: of like draw a little finger circle around it. MR. SCOFIELD: Here's -- excuse me, here's the property. Here's the building. Here's where the docks are sticking out, right in this area. The shallow area in the center of this is -- it's right here. Now, these are a hundred foot grids. This is one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, and the 300 foot area out right in here, this is where the shallowest area is in the center. Now, when -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What numbers? MR. SCOFIELD: Now, this is back over on the seawall over here. This is -- these are very -- over here on the seawall on Palm Court, it's extremely shallow right along where these docks are, and that's one of the reasons this gentleman with a 40 foot dock is out so far because he doesn't have hardly any water where his deck is, but that's the -- the shallow area is right here in the center where I'm pointing to right here. it's -- the shallowest part ~'i .'.j k t ... COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you repeat those numbers? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I need the numbers. I can't -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right here is the shallowest -- let's see. MR. NINO: Four point one. MR. SCOFIELD: Four point one~ you take four-tenths of a foot off of that, you're down to 3.7 feet. That is right in the center. That's the shallowest part at low water. The center of your property? October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No. MR. NINO: No, center of the lagoon. MR. SCOFIELD: No, center of the lagoon. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, and -- MR. SCOFIELD: On the big aerial, it's the center of the lagoon, 300 feet out from our prop -- from our docks. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And this was -- that wasn't the area that we were talking about on Oak Avenue before, right? We're not talking about that same shallow area? MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no, no, that's the next one over. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's farther over? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: do this survey? yOU, And you've done -- when did you MR. SCOFIELD: When was this survey done; Monday? MR. HALL: Last week. MR. SCOFIELD: Last week. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, it is really very new. Thank MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one last question. Your answer to item seven on their proposal says the structures are located towards the center of the property and the neighbors both north and south will still have views of the lagoon. Well, they aren't really located toward the center of the property. They're located toward the extremes, aren't they? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, if you take the 50 -- we own 50 -- we -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, you count that 50 over there. MR. SCOFIELD: Liberty Ventures owns 50 feet further over to the north. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That brings them towards the center. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess I'm still trying to find some other number. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I didn't hear any forthcoming. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Rocky, give us another ,u~^~u~ JAN 2 3 2001 Page 2 5 October 19, 2000 that we can live with. MR. SCOFIELD: You mean on the extension? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the submerged land lease goes out to 60 feet. The docks go out to 56. If you want to limit it to 56 where no boats can stick out further than that, then we can live with that. (Audience members speaking.) CHAIRMAN WRA~E: Please, I offered a lot of latitude here, but no comments fro~ the audience, please, okay, while they're giving testimony. MR. SCOFIELD: The other -- I know view is a sensitive issue. It always is in these cases whenever we do this. This project -- you know, I don't know too many people that argue or object to boats actually cruising on the water. These boats are on the water. They are not up on lifts, and, you know, it's -- we try to minimize that part of it. So, you know, if-- if you want to restrict it and take the 60 away back to the ends of the docks, I'm sure they can live with that. I don't believe there are 45 foot boats going in here like I heard. I believe they're going to be 30s and 32s, in that nature. I don't know that for a fact, but -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, 50,-- MR. SCOFIELD: -- if that is limited, then they cannot -- they cannot put in any larger boats. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So 56 is the number I heard? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that would limit you to a 32 foot boat o:~ the two slips and a 36 foot boat on the other slips. Now, that's overall length. That's bow pulpit to the engine, so you cut your boat down another five feet from that, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will allow one speaker, ma'am, and you've had -- no, the lady right behind you, the lady right behind you, okay. As long as it's something new, I will tolerate -- you've got one minute, okay. You need to come to the podium. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And restate your name. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And restate your name, please. MS. ROGERS: My name is Linda Rogers, R-O-G-E-R-S. I can speak directly to the riprap factor because my husband and I had to do that as well when we built the dl Page 26 JAN 7. 3 2001 October t9, 2000 when he's speaking of ten foot of riprap, it is not ten feet straight out. It is a diagonal line from where the riprap begins on the seawall to where it ends at the bottom of the waterway. So, although -- although he's giving the illusion or it seemed to me that he was, and I'm sorry if that's not true, they must go out ten feet to get over that, that's not true at all. You only have to go out maybe half that distance to get over it, and then you can have the dock, and I think if you look on that chart that you looked at, you'll see that the boat docks can be built in that water because that water is just as deep as the water 60 feet out, and so if you go five feet out from the seawall over the inclined riprap and you put 20 feet docks or 25 foot docks, you're up to 30 feet, not 60 as they have suggested, and that's the experience I had with the DEP, and that's the type dock we have. So, it's not true that you have to build those large things like that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Rocky, I'm going to allow you to respond to that, okay, and then we're going to closes the meeting, I'm afraid. MR. HALL: Tim Hall, aga~, from Turrell & Associates. As far as the riprap is concerned, what Rocky was saying is that we had to stay ten feet out if we were going to dredge at that point. The rock itself, the distance is based on -- it's all geometry. It's based on the height it has to come up the wall and the distance out from it. In the case of Vanderbilt lagoon, it worked out to where we're eight feet from the base of the wall to where the outside-most rocks are. Now, you won't see those because they are down under the water and they're in the mud on the bottom, but that's how far out the rock does go. Then the other, ! mean, issue is taking into account, if you had a boardwalk to access all of those, then you're out -- you're out ten feet. You've got your ramps down, and then you have another six feet for the boardwalk to get to all the other docks, and then you do that. (Audience member said something.) MR. HALL: No, but you can't .- No, nope, I'm sorry, no dialogue to the CHAIRMAN WRAGE: audience, okay. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. Anyway, that's Pa~e 27 -- that's -- JAN2i2001 ~ October 19, 2000 I am very sympathetic to the lady whose property is going to be crossed by this dock, but you are in a lagoon, waterway, and boats are the name of the game there, and it's not as if somebody is building a wall, an impenetrable wall that will block out your view of everything. You're still going to look across the lagoon through boats at some high-rise condos. So -- if it were not a hundred feet away, I might have a different view, but I'm persuaded by the hundred foot separation between the seawall and this dock, that that's a view that many people would cherish, so I'm in favor of the petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion? I didn't mean to cut you off. If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried, Commissioner Rautio in the dissension. Motion carried. Moving on. Let me just read, before you-all leave, just for your information as to any boat dock extension petition upon which Collier County Planning Commission takes action. An agreviated (sic) petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the community development and environmental services administrator within 14 days of the action by the planning commission. In the event that the petition has been approved by the planning commission, the applicant shall be advised that he or she proceeds with construction at his or her own risk during this period. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: is there a paper to fill out to appeal, a form? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Talk to Mr. -- MR. NINO: Get with Ross Gochenaur. (End of Excerpt of Transcript) Page 3 0 AC.-IE~ A ITL JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION A 2000-03, ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION BD-2000-20, APPROVED ON 2 NOVEMBER 2000 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 372 OAK AVENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK I, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES UNIT 2, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: The appellant requests that the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the Collier County Planning Commission has the ability to render a decision "as to a boat dock facility extension request", and, further, whether the extension requested in Petition BD 2000-20 should have been approved by the CCPC. CONSIDERATIONS: The decision of the Board to uphold, modify, or reverse the CCPC approval of this petition must be based solely on the information of record presented at the public hearing on 2 November, and the Board must decide if competent and substantial evidence was presented at this hearing which warranted the CCPC decision to approve. This petition was originally heard by the CCPC, and approved by a vote of 6 to 1, on 5 October 2000; however, the hearing had been improperly advertised, and was rs-heard for 2 November. It is on the evidence presented at the latter headng that the decision of the Board should be made The subject property is located at 372 Oak A~.,~enue, legally described as Lot 9, block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, and is an unimproved, single-family residential lot. A boat dock protruding a total of 54 feet into the waterway was approved by the CCPC on 2 November 2000 by a vote of 5 to 2, with Commissioners Abemathy and Young voting for denial. Commissioner Abemathy cited his concern over the lack of a principal structure on the property and that no specific vessel had been identified. Commissioner Young indicated Sat ~ large number of .~1 ,residents opposed to theproject obliged her to vote for de~al. ~i~:~ · The LDC allows ~7~on Of a residen0aJ dock protruding up tO 20 feet into the wa erwa~, b~aiso a~,_no.v~~ that, under ce~n cir~tances, a boat dock protruding *~r i ~nto'~,~'m w~t~f~e ~r~a~an 20.~ '~'~' ~ The petition requesting the extens~ is eva /~/~~ ' the LDC;~and a recomme~tion is '~e -the JAN 2 3 2001 request based on these criteria. The extension petition is not a variance, and is not reviewed by the BCC; the petitioner need not establish the existence of a land-related hardship as a condition of approval. In his appeal, the appellant alleges that the CCPC does not have "the authority and/or jurisdiction" to hear and make a "final decision" regarding dock extension petitions. The appellant also alleges that Planning staff improperly applied certain LDC criteria, and that staff "speculated" as to the achievement of other criteria. The County Attorney is of the opinion that the allegation that the CCPC does not have the authority to render a final decision regarding boat dock extension petitions is groundless, and will address the issue at the public hearing. The appellant also alleges that staff "improperly accepted the Petition and scheduled it for consideration before the CCPC." The basis for this allegation is the fact that there is no principal structure on the subject property, nor has a building permit been issued for such a structure: a dock is an accessory use in residential zoning districts, and Section 2.6.2.1. of the LDC states that accessory structures must be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure. This allegation is groundless. Approval of a boat dock extension does not constitute approval of a building permit for the dock. The Building Department will issue a permit for the dock only in conjunction with, or subsequent to, the issuance of a building permit for a principal structure on the same property. Once constructed, the dock can only legally be used upon issuance of a certificate of completion, and such certificate cannot be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the principal structure. A dock could not legally be built or used solely on the basis of the approval of a boat dock extension. The following addresses the allegations regarding staff evaluation of the boat dock extension petition. LDC Sections 2.6.21.3.7. and 2.6.21.3.8. refer to the impact of the proposed dock on "the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners." The appellant alleges that staff improperly applied the criteria addressing the impact of the proposed dock on the waterfront view, by limiting their analysis to the impact on "neighboring" and "adjacent" property owners, when the language in the LDC refers to "surrounding" property owners. Staff consider that it is the intent of the LDC to address the impact on nearby property owners - those most directly affected by the project - and that, for all practical purposes, the words "neighboring", "adjacent", and "surrounding" are synonymous in meeting this intent. Staff further consider that "view", while of concern, is, by nature, subjective, and that the appearance of any new structure visible to any nearby property owner may draw a critical response. In evaluating such petitions, staff attempt to put these subjective criteria in perspective relative to other, more substantive, criteria, when making a recommendation for approval or denial. JAN 2 3 2001 Section 2.6.21.3.2 addresses whether the water depth at the site "is sufficient to allow safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request." The appellant alleges that staff speculated as to whether this criterion was achieved. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that analysis of this criterion is not possible without knowing the specific "type, make and model" of the vessel, in order to determine the draft of the vessel. Staff consider that the reference to "the vessel' does not require that a specific vessel be identified, and that the intent of the LDC is to consider the approximate draft of a typical privately-owned pleasure craft able to be accommodated by the proposed facility. Staff further consider that any attempt to restrict the applicant to a specific type, make, and model of vessel would be impractical and unenforceable, and that the language in the LDC recognizes this. FISCAL IMPACT: The CCPC's approval of petition BD 2000-20 as such had no fiscal impact on the County; however, it is possible that the Board's decision in the matter of this appeal might have some fiscal impact in the form of litigation on behalf of either the petitioner or the appellant. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The approved facility, if built, would have no impact on the Growth Management Plan, nor would the Board's reversal of the CCPC decision have any impact on the GMP. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Relevant environmental concerns, as described in LDC Section 2.6.21 (that part relating to seagrass beds), and 2.6.22 (Manatee protection) were addressed by staff, and it was determined that the proposed facility was exempt from the provisions of the Mariatee Protection Plan, and that no seagrasses were located within 200 feet of the proposed facility. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None: no historical/archaeological survey is required for docking facilities, PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval of the extension, determining that the proposed facility met all LDC criteria. EAC RECOMMENDATION: None: the EAC does not review boat dock extension petitions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 2, with Commissioners Young and Abernathy voting for denial. Commissioner Abernathy cited the fact that there was no permitted principal structure on the property. Commissioner Young cited the large number of local citizens opposed to the extension. JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY: CURRENT PLANNING SECTION REVIEWED BY: RONA~'D ":- 'i ',Y\~, -,. F. NINe, AICP, MANAGER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION DATE PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE APPROVED BY JOHNj~.'!~UNNL,~K, [11, INTERIIV~DMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVK~ES DIVISION DATE executive summary/A 2000-03 JAN 2 3 2001 AGENDA ITEM 7-A TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROH: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: 23 AUGUST 2000 RE: BD 2000-20 AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Owner: John D. & Olga M. Iandimarino 231 Tradewinds Avenue Naples, FL 34108 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 41-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which would allow for a boat docking facility protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 372 Oak Avenue, further described as Conner's Vanderbilt Beach, Unit 2, Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to create a boat docking facility which would protrude a total of 61 feet into the waterway and consist of a U-shaped dock and boat lift. SURI~OUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing: Single-family residence, zoned RSF-3 Surrounding: North - Oak Avenue ROW South - Vanderbilt Lagoon East - Single-family residence, zoned RSF-3 West - Single-family residence, zoned RSF-3 AGENDA JAN 3 I! View from site looking south across waterway, mangrove growth in foreground View from site looking southeast, showing dock on adjacent Lot 8 ~A rt~l JAN 2 3 2001 EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Planning Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. According to Section 3.2.4.1 of the Collier County Manatee Protection Ordinance, this boat docking facility will be considered a "Moderate Development Site", which allows up to 10 boat slips for every 100 feet of shore line. Therefore, the proposed boat docking facility is consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Ordinance. Staff Comments: Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 2.6.21 of the Collier County Land Development Code and finds the following: a o Whether or not the pro osed docking facility and moored vessels in combination may have an adverse impact to navigation within an adjacent navigable channel According to the petitioner, the proposed facility would have no impact on navigation. b o Whether or not the proposed dock design and moored vessel protrude greater than 25 percent of the width of the navigable canal or greater than 20 feet for boathousest and will a minimum of 50 percent of the canal width between dock structures/moored vessel(s) on the o posite side of the canal be maintained in order to ensure reasonable waterwa~ width for navigability. The waterway is about 900 feet wide at the site and the proposed facility would occupy only about 7 percent of the width of the waterway. So Whether or not there are special conditions related to the subject propert~ or waterwa~ which will justify the proposed dimension and location of the subject dock. The property lines of this and the adjacent lots extend from 15 to 20 feet into the waterway, and the LDC requires measurement from the most restrictive point, which in this case is the seawall. The water depth is shallow along the seawall, with mangrove growth extending into the waterway. A viable facility could not be built without the extension. Docks on the adjacent lots protrude about 38-40 feet beyond the seawall. -2- JAN 2 3 2001 Whether or not the proposed dock is of min~al d~nensions necessar~ in order to ade~uatel~ secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routine maintenance~ without the use of excessive deck area. The proposed facility, while not the minimum needed to accommodate the vessel and access the lift, is not excessive in terms of deck area. ~rnether or not the proposed structure is of minimal dimensions to minimize the /~pact on the view of the' waterway by surrounding property owners. The proposed structure is centered on the lot, and set back 27 feet from the property/riparian lines on each side, well in excess of the required 15 feet. The impact on the view of neighboring property owners would be minimal. Whether or not the moored vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the length of the waterfrontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact on~ or negatively /~pact the view of, the property owners. The proposed facility would accommodate one 30-foot vessel, which would occupy 40 percent of the properry's 75 feet of waterfrontage. The impact on the view of adjacent property owners would be minimal. go ~nether or not the proposed location and design .of the dock/vessel co~ination is such that it may infringe.upon the use of neighboring properties, including any dock structures. The proposed facility would be situated perpendicular to the shoreline and, as mentioned above, would be well set back from the property/riparian lines. There would be no interference with the use of existing docks on either side. Regarding benthic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed extension: (A) ~Yhether or not sea~rasses are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock. (B) Whether the proposed dock is subject to the manatee protection requirements of this code (Sec. 2.6.22). Planning Services staff has reviewed this petition no objection to the granting of this request. No seal are located within 200 feet of the proposed facilit 3 ~nd has I'~a s~A I~ ~z. ~At [~ ~-~ JAN 2 3 2001 least one "Manatee construction. Area" sign shall be posted during A~eal of Boat Dock Extension to Board of Zoning Appeals As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Collier County Planning Commission takes action, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator within 14 days of the action by the Planning Commission. In the event that the petition has been approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her risk during this period. Staff Recommendation: Based upon the above findings, staff recommends the Collier Co.unty Planning Commission approve Petition BD 2000-20 subject to the stipulations listed in the resolution. -4- AGENDA I'rE~ 4 JAN 2 3 200! PREPARED BY: PLANNER I I ~L~D~WED ~: IRRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE AP P~ BY: ,~ VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE Petition Number: BD 2000-20 Staff Report for 5 October 2000 for CCPC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN -5- AGE~OA JAN 2 3 2001 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-20 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 41-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 61-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfacto~ provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section ~6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing John D. and Olga M. Iandimarino, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 17, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 41-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 61-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever pmmades the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the o.utermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection ofmanateesl at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. -1- AGENDA ITEM. JAN 2 3 200! Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance o£ a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FLIRTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-20 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this __ day of ,2000. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN JOHN M. DUNNUCK, Executive Secretary Interim Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:tadrnin/BD-2000-20/RGqm -2- JAN 2 3 2001 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION! PTETITION Petition number: BD- Date Received.i: Planner: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Property. owner: Owners Address: Telephone: Fax: Agents Name: Agents Address: Telephone: :, !~, lqc ¢. Fax: Legal Description of Subject ProperD': Subdivision: %~'r~5 V~q~,t~S.~L'r' t~e,hcg Unit Section ~;q' Twp. 2-]45 Range ~5'a Lot (s) Property I.D. Block (s) COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PL.~NNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968 APPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY I~XTENSION PETITIO__N - 5/08 PAGE JAN 2 3 2001 Metes & Bounds Description: Address of Subject ProperD': ,~'7~ Current Zoning and Land use of Subject ProperR: FL, ~djacent Zoning & Land use: Zoning Land use Length of existing dock facility A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to mean high/low water and shoreline (bank, seawall or rep-rap revetment) should be submitted with this application. Site Information: Width of waterway: ~cL. ft.; measurement from [] plat [] survey [] visual estimate Total property water frontage: -7 5' ft. Setbacks: provided 2'~ ft. required /.5- Total protrusion of proposed facility into water (¢D ft.~ c~,~e ~..t..~ ,,% Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1."~' ,~ ~ fl.,2. ft., 3. ft. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: _ A~LICAi[I_O__N FOR DOCJ~_[3.~7ILtTY }~XTI~_SION PETITION The tbllowing criteria, (pursuant to Section 2.6.21.3 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission, and by the Planning Commission in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria andYor questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. 1. What are the number of dock facilities or slips to be located on the subject properD' in relation to the length of waterfront properW available (include required setbacks) for the location of the proposed dock facilities? 2. Is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without the use of a dock facility. extension request? 3. Will the proposed dock faciliW and moored vessel(s) in combination have an adverse impact to navigation within an adjacent navigable channel? APPLICATiON_FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5t98 PAGE k;(.5 I ' - AGENDA I'FEJO . JAN 2 3 2001 4. Does the proposed dock design and moored vessel protrude greater than 25 percent of the width of the navigable canal or greater than 20 feet for boathouses. and is a minimum of 50 percent of the platted canal width between dock structures/moored vessel(s) on the opposite side of the canal maintained in order to ensure reasonable waterway width for navigability.? 5. Are there special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which justify' the proposed dimensions and location of the subject dock? 6. Is the proposed dock of minimal dimensions necessary in order to adequately secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area? qPPLICATIQN FOR DOCK FACILITY EXTENSIQN PETITION PAGE 4 AGENDA JAN 2 3 2001 OF I~. /7 J the view of the waterway by surrounding properW owners? Is the proposed structure of minimal dimensions to minimize the impact of 8. Is the moored vessel in excess of fifty (50) percent of the length of the waterfrontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact on or negatively impact the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners? 9. Will the proposed location and design of the dock/vessel combination be such that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring properties, including any existing dock structures? A~PP I__[!C.~AT_AION F_QOR D~O_q'K F x~CIL.____[ITY EXTE,.~NS[ON PETITION - 5/98 PAG} JAN 2 3 2001 _ 10. Regarding existing benthic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed extension: (a) Are seagrasses located within 200 feet of the proposed dock? (b) Is the proposed dock is subject to the manatee protection requirements of this code (Sec. 2.6.22)? In addition to the above. the following criteria shall apply to Boathouses. Please indicate whether or not the following listed criteria have been met: Criteria Standard Complies Minimum side setback requirement 15 feet YES[-] NO[~ Maximum protrusion into waterway 25 percent of canal width or 20 feet, whichever is less APPLICATLON FOR DOC_~K_EA~I_LIT~Y EX~FENSION PETITION - .q;98 vEs NO [] PAGE Criteria Standard Complies Maximum height 15 feet as measured from top of seawall or bank, whichever is more restrictive YES [] NO ~ Max. number of boathouses pe'. site One (1) YES[] NOC~ All boathouse structures shall be completely open on all four (4) sides Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on the principal structure or may be of palm frond "chickee" style YES [] NO [] YEs~ NO~ I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. ~ignature of Petitionfir or Agent .a I__EP..k!_C.A_T~ FOuR DQ_q_~._E_A.C!..LITY EXTENSION P_gTITION - 5/98 PAGE 7 ACtA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 o F DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION/BOA THO USE ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS CO,MPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET~ REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED 1. Completed Application 14 2. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 1 3. Pre-application notes/minutes 14 4. Site Plan iljustrating all of the following: 14 a. The !or and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All yard setbacks ¢. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock faciliW is to be located and the distance to the navigable channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five (5) feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. ~:. Iljustrate the !and contour of the properW on which the dock facility is proposed g. The dock facility should be iljustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. 5. Application Fee, Check shall be made payable to Collier County- Board of Commissioners As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary. submittal information may result in the delay of process this petition. / ' .' . it :'~4 ,,. ._ ~ (t~ t. Agent/Applicant Signature Date ~APPLICA~TLI~. F,O.R DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION - 5t98 AGENDA fr~. JAN 2 3 2001 PAGE 8 IF 1~I-~ :"(,".; i.;, t. I being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/I We/I, ~ . :.,' ,;: am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. ~Te/I understand that the b~ormation requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. Aspropertyowner We/Ifurther aud~orize /21/~,e'.5 .l., 5~l~z-U as our/my representative in any matte s regarding this Petition. to act Typed or Printed Name of Owner ~i .g~ature of Property Owner Tki~ed oj Printed Name of Owner Theforego~g instrument wad acknowledged before me this [,~/4, day of 5 t l. 1.. O~ , ~9 "~cv, by ~l,..[~q,i, .....,;,,/ twho is personally known to me or hail~roduced as identification. '-(Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) , /"/ / 3 (Print, Type/, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) 3PPLICATION FOR DOCK FACILITY..EXT~q~[ON PETlTlON- 5/98 PAGE 9 01 JAN 2 3 2001 9 AGENDA I~ JAN 2 3 2001 ~/ATER~/AY LDT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 OAK N o 1 o 20 40 SCALE 1'-20'-0' AVENUE M,~ofield Marine Conrailting Phone: (~1) ~l~ r~ (~1) ~ /AND/MAR/NO DOCK PROPOSED DOC [ ~~~' ~ J~l~ ~ O LUU RIP^RIAN LINE RIPARIAN LINE, ~J 13/. PROPn', LIF] EXISTING MANGR[IVES ~ 2 o 5 ~o ~ 1'=10'-0" 2o EXISTING SEAWALL Scofield )~az-ine s4.~-~oe Z t~ ~drl A. TRIGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR!/~YORS & PLANNERS ~2E3 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 LAND SURVE"/ING BUSIN~5"S ~ 3964 DESCRIPTION: AS FURNISHED BY CUENT LOT 3, BLOCK "I", CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES UNIT NO. 2 ~ ~ ~N Pt. AT BC)OK.d,T~_PAG~ 17 1) All distances ore in feet and decimals thereof, 2) Bearings ere based on the centedine of Oak Avenue, Being N. 88'24'40' E. 43/ Approximote Mean High Woter Elevation = t01 Approximote Meon Low Woter Elevotion= - ' (Approx. M.H,W. and M.L.W. EievQtions provided by the Fl. Dept. of Environmental Protection) 5) Except for Benchmark and Seowwoll Elevations, all other topographic information shown hereon is the depth of water below Mean Low Water. SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY FOR SAL IANDIMARINO TO SHOW WATER DEPTHS FOR FUTURE DOCK PERMIT DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2000 DRAWN BY: EDK SCALE: N.T.S. SHEET 1_ OF _1_ FILE NO. 00.068C ,~--~ RIPARIAN LINE 27' i IS 5' .2)' EXISTING MANGROVES 10' FROM SEA.ALL ~/ATER~/AY PRF1PDSEI) LIFT I I N LOT 9 RIPARIAN LINE 27' EXISTING MANGROVES 13' FROM SEAVALL I I I I I I I PO' .[]?FSET FROM PRFIP£RTYLINE I i i i HANGR[ilVE I~RIP LINE (LIMIT~ OF VEGETATION: I PRI]PER'TY LINE ANI~ SEA.ALL LINE EXISTING SEA~./ALL I i LFIT .10 Scofield Marine Consultb2f IANDIMARINO DOCK PROPOSED DOCK RECEIVEd JAN 2 3 200~ MEMORANDUM ~o PLEASE REPLY NO REPLY NECESSARY. Memorandum JAN 2 3 2001 Sut~: (no =Jbject) Date: 10/4/00 7:29:18 AM Pacific Daylight T~me From: PenBil@aol. com To: Eaglepride820 We are ,,ery much againet the 61 fi dock being built on Oak Str. Not only will it be an eye sore but it va31 set a precedent for others to follow. Our beautiful Vanderbilt Lagoon will be more like Vanderbilt Marina. We must start to Icx3k into the future and keep our waterways as natural as possible. Bill and Penny Benson 431 Palm Crt Naples, Fla AGENDA ITEM 'JAN Oc~ber 1st, 2000 OCT 0 ::: 2000 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to clearly and unequivocally express my absolute objection to petItion number BD - 2000 - 20, John D, and Olga M. landimarino. This is a request to build a 61 ft. boat dock arid boatlift facility at 372 Oak Avenue. I am currently a homeowner at 272 Oak Avenue and feel this facility would negatively impact the existing waterway and surrounding property values. It is completely inappropriate and exaggerated for the neighborhood and surrounding properties. I regret that I am unable to attend the county planning meeting regarding this petition and respectfully request that you accep~ this letler as a sincere expression of my families opinion and desires. If I could be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest conYeniertce. Sincerely, Colin L. Kanar M.D. 272 Oak Avenue Naples Florida, 34108 (941) 594 - 7551 JAN 2 3 2001 RECEIVE 288 Oak Avenue Naples, Florida 34108 October 3, 2O00 Collier County Government Community Development & Environmental Services Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding proposal #BD-2000-20, requesting an extension of a boat dock with a planned total of 61 feet extending into the bay, for the property owned by John & OIga M. !audimarino at 272 O-k Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Naples, we wish to state the following: We, the property owners of 288 Oak Avenue, located within 300 feet of this property currently being considered for this non-conforming dock, are absolutely opposed to construction of a dock and boat lift of this magnitude. The dimensions more closely resemble a PIER than a residential dock, AND, with that lot being vacant, leads us to believe that the motive for its construction is aimed at a lucrative future sale price. We further state: we did not receive any written notice of any kind regarding this hearing or the proposal, nor is there any official notice visibly displayed on or near the property in question denoting the owner's plans. As property owners on Oak Avenue, Vanderbilt Be_a_ch for over twelve years we have observed with increasing dismay, the escalating size and bulk of new residential construction being allowed to occupy our small plots, with no regard to proportion or the innate character of this waterfront community. Now it would seem, this same blatant disregard for our neighborhood is being carried over to our most prized asset .... the beautiful. unobstucted view of Vanderbilt Lagoon. Should this "excepton" be allowed, it is almost certainly going to be followed by similar requests to build bigger, better, more ostentatious docks in and about the Lagoon and the adjoining waterways. approval =~y fluanmtees future chatlefiges Of questionable natur/~2 Thin proposal dock is ai?bs~ to navigation, a dang~ous, ,nsidious precedent-settins ,;:, monstrosityand a~ affront to the reisden~ who Hve in and value this commun'~y. ~.:~ We~'t~rge you to DE7 this propo~ MR. ROSS GOCHENOUR COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 RECE,,¥E~d DEAR MR. G(X2HENOUR: We are writing in response to a notice received by our next door neighbors, Bill and Penny Benson, (currently in Wisconsin) regarding a request for a dock pc, smit extension born Mr. & Mrs. Iandimarino. Said request is for permission to extend out in the lagoon a total of 61 R. We are definitely against the 61 fl. extension permit. However, we do feel that Mr. & Mrs. Iandimarino should be able to build their dock out even with the existing docks on eithex side of his lot. Mr. & Mrs. landimarino stated "the reason for the extension is to enable them to g~t out at low tide". All boaters in the area have trouble at extreme low tide! We realize that each case is looked at individually;, however, we feel that if this permit is granted, a precedent will have been set for the entire area. Therefore, we request the Collier County Planning Commission to disapprove this request. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Glen Collier 447 Palm Court JAN 2 3 2001 5o & ~ D, tO i~a/Vl AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 JAN 2 3 2001 Mr. Ross Gochenaur Collier County Government Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Mr. Gochenaur: Re: Petition No. BD-2000-20, John D. & Olga M. Iandimarino As the owner of property at 402 Pine Avenue, Conner's Van- derbilt Beach I object to the request for a 41-foot exten- sion for a boat dock and boat lift facility protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway for property located at 372 Oak Avenue. A dock of this size is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and far exceeds any other in Vanderbilt Beach. Our canals are narrow, relatively shallow; subject to tides. I am concerned for the safety and maneuverability of neighborhood boat owners and boat visitors to our water- front properties. I urge denial of this petition. truly yours Herni~~ez September 28, 2000 AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 October 11, 2000 RE: PETITION NO. BD-2000-20, John D. & Olga M. landimarino 'L EC£1VED, 2000 Dear Ross Gochenaur: We are opposed to the approval of Petition No. BD-2000]20, John D & Olga M. Iandimarino. We are opposed to any petition by Vanderbilt Villa's, Regatta or any other property owners in Vanderbilt extending boat docks into the waterway further than current County Code. Over the past decade we have built numerous residences on the waterway in Vanderbilt. We have recently built a new very expensive boat dock at 464 Oak Ave. We are presently constructing a 3 story luxury residence at 464 Oak. Petition BD-2000-20's approval will impede our navigation and view of the waterway. We have built this and all previous residences and boat docks to Collier County Code. There is no reason for deviation by others to the current code. This particular waterway is already heavily congested with boat traffic; it is also heavily congested with Dolphin traffic thru om the year. It is a "natural feeding area" for these mammals that come in from Wiggins Pass and feed at the South end of the waterway directly in front of Oak Ave. and Palm Ave. in from of the "Seawitch Restaurant", the "Lighthouse Restaurant the Regatta and Vanderbilt Villa's. We have lived on this waterway for the past decade and at 256 Oak Ave. for the past 2 years. We have dated pictures of these mammals, sea turtles, eagles and manatee that also navigate this particular waterway. Approval of No. BD-2000-20 Boat dock will set a precedent for all other property owners who would compromise the waterway for their own gain. This at the expense of 99% of the other property owners, mammals and wildlife of Collier County and Vanderbilt Beach in particular, who have a right to navigate the waterway safely. Chris and Ann Sumr~erton 366 Seabee Ave. Naples, FL. 34108 CC: US Dept of Transportation, Boating Safety USGS Soil & Water Conservation Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission AGENOA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 We, the undersigned property owners of the Vanderbilt Beach Area, agree with and support these statements opposing Petition #BD-2000-20: Name Address Phone# ,v--?. 7 - '-/? ? v' -oz Z. JAN 2 3 2001 AGENDA !'t~..M JAN 2 3 2001 We, the undersigned property owners of the Vanderbilt Beach A, ,r~a. ~?ag~e~6 'with and support these statements opposing Petition #BD-2000-20: Name Address Phone# AC-~E~A ~T~ JAN 2 3 2001 NAME ~ ,' ADDRESS A~A ITF_J~ ]AN 2 3 ~,. ¥,./ PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENi ATT: ROSS GOCHENAUR RE: Petition No. BD2000-20, John and Olga Iandimarino The following points are being made in opposition to the above mentioned petition for a 41 foot extension and lift facility, a total of 61 feet into the waterway fi'om a VACANT LOT at 372 Oak Ave. This dock intrusion is not compatible with other docks in the Vanderbilt lagoons. At present there are no 61-foot docks. These waters and Wiggins Pass are not navigable by large boats. Most of us have the same depths at our seawall. The dock immediately next to the petitioners lot (photo attached) extends approximately 40' l~om the indented seawall, making it even with all of the other Oak Ave. docks. Native marine habitat and manatees have been seen here often. Manatees have been seen with their babies (photos sent off to the Manatee Organization seeking their help. The code states MINIMAL IMPACTING the view of surrounding property owners...this dock and lift would most certainly impact the view and clear navigability of the water. In closing I suggest an earlier notice be given to the public concerned with these petitions, similar to the amount of time the petitioner has to prepare. Also the code should address different geographical locations in the county with codes pertinent to their water. Granting this proposed dock facility could set a precedent that will adversely affect the value of our properties. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 'B.J. Savard-Boyer ' ' 479 Palm Court Naples, FL 34108 October 26, 2000 JAN 2 3 2001 ')'radexx~inds Avenue Florida 34108 R E C it:-. ~ "E d October 25, 2000 Collier County Government Community Development and Environmental Services Division PIanning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Petition No. BD-2000-20, John D. & O!ga M. Iandimarino This letter is in vehement protest against the above-referenced petition for an extension to an existing dock. Allowing a 61-foot dock in this area would establish a precedent that could have a strongly negative environmental impact, create serious safety issues, and erode the esthetics and character of the neighborhood. This Petition must not be approved. Very truly yours, William W. r~oufe AC~EI~A ITF_..Y JAN 2 3 2001 To: Collier County Planning Services Department Community Development and Environmental Services From: David and Linda Rogers 428 Palm Court Naples, FL 34108 RE: BD 2000-20 Petition for 61 Foot Dock on VACANT Lot Date: October 24, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: We have been notified that a request for a variance for a 6! foot protruding dock is now pending before the commission and will be discussed at the November 2nd meeting. Our schedule currently prohibits our attendance at that meeting, but it is our desire that our concerns be known and considered. Therefore we advise by this letter. There are three major issues we would like to address. They follow. I. The lot is vacant and has been on and off the sale market several times. There have been house plans available as well. ;If the current owners are not going to build immediately for themselves and not for the sale market, it would be unusual for such a request to be approved. Several years ago, we owned a house on Palm Court and bought a vacant lot next door. We applied for a dock permit. We could not obtain one until we could guarantee that we not only had a house plan, but also had a valid contract for construction of the house. We also had to guarantee that we were, because the lot was vacant, building for ourselves and not to put on the market. We fullfilled our obligations, but during the process we were told by county employees and officials that had our original property not abutted the vacant lot, permission to construct the dock before the house would not have been granted. My wife had occassion to experience this again within the last few months. She assisted a client in purchasing a lot on Channel Drive. He owns property in the vicinity but not abutting that particular lot. He had house plans drawn and was getting bids from contractors. During this process, he wanted to go ahead and construct the dock. He was not allowed to do so while the lot was vacant. ~[f one resident is refused permission, all should be. The owners of this lot have no extenuating circumstances, do not own abutting property and should not be granted favors that others were not. 2. The location of the lot in question is barely past the entrance to the canal between Palm Court and Oak Avenue. Anything extending sixty-one feet out JAN 2 3 201; from the edge of the land there would severely obstruct navigation into the canal. Aerial photographs in the Collier County Museum and the Offices of the federal land and watejr~anagement out Tmmokkale Road clearly show that a dock that size would cross and obstruct the original channel which follows the perimeter of the lagoon in front of this lot. That would adversely affect every boater who uses that channel. We have been counted among those for the last ten years. ]:f this dock is approved and we find that we are landlocked at any tide, even the lowest, because of its construction we will file for loss of right of way on a public waterway and loss of the value of the use of our vessel to us. 3. To my knowledge, there is no sixty-one foot dock protruding from the seawall of a private residence anywhere along the Vanderbilt waterways. Since a dock was built on the same seawall next door to this lot not three years ago and does not protrude into the lagoon over thirty feet, it is reasonable to assume that it is not necessary to do so. We respectfully request that you do not allow a dock to be built while the lot is vacant and that after construction of a house, you will permit only a docking facility which will not interfere with the navigatable public waterways and appear more commercial than residential. Thank you for your time and consideration. David and Linda Rogers JAN 2 3 2001 t T~me ing built on Oak Str. Not only will it be an eye so~ but it will S~lFecedent for loon wdl be more like Vanderbilt Marina. We must start to lcx3k ~ the future and .,nny Benson Crt :la AGF_-h~)A'ITF_~ N~ ~/~ JAN 2 3 2001 Planning Services Dept 2800 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Fl. 34104 Dear Madam and Sirs, UC1., .,.q, ZUUU Re: BD 2000-20~ BD200-23 My wife and I have owned a house on canal lot 31 at 467 Oak Ave. in Vanderbilt Beach for over 21 years. We selected Naples because of the Community philosophy of orderly growth so often mentioned in the Naples Daily News. And how often we read "Lets not make the same mistakes made in growth that is so visible on the East Coast" And now we find that petitions have been made not just to extend docks 5 or ten feet, but to extend 40 feet beyond the legal 20 feet ....which will protrude 60 FF~T out into the community waterway. This is not just excessive but beyond excessive ....and do I understand that one lot is vacant and up for sale? It is inconceivable to us that the Planning Commission would approve such a community degrading request. It is plain wrong... it is excessive and in our opinion an insult to this beautiful Community that there are those who simply do not grasp the impact of the erosion of standards .... It is understandable some will try .... and we urse each member of the Plannin8 Commission to reflect on the future requests that will surely come to expand dock boundaries should such requests be approved. These extensions must necessarily degrade the habitat of marine life. They definitely will create more navigational obstacles... and the lagoons... what will they look like.W? We owned a lake front house on a nice lake in Pennsylvania. No power boats were allowed... and lake from owners were advised not to clear the trees front the lakefront to preserve the beauty of the lake...and just not see houses around the lake. Well we visited communities that were not as Farsighted .... and all around the Lake were houses and lawns...just a few trees planted by owners. They literally raped the land of trees. My wife and I urge you to just say no...these extensions pollute our waters. AGENDA ITF.~ JAN 2 3 2001 October 23, 2000 Collier County Planning Services Department RE: Petition's BD2000-20 & BD2000-23 Please be advised that I (we) are opposed to the approval of the above two petitions. Although not directly effecting our property at this time, we are concerned that allowing this type of encroachment into our open waterways would be precedent setting. The obstruction caused by these two docking systems is certainly not in the best interest of neighboring homeowners. If allowed to pass, future requests for exceptions that could more directly effect our property would most certainly be requested and expected! Thank you for your consideration. Please do not support these petition requests. Since. rely, Address: JAN 2 3 2001 /- /' m._l :~ ' ..,,, JAN 2 3 2001 JOHN AND NANCY STEWART 435 BAYSIDE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34108 941-596-3863 E-MAIL johnandnancy~,?,gowebway.com October 23, 2000 Collier County Planning Services Department RE: Petition's BD2000-20 & BD2000-23 Please be advised that I (we) are opposed to the approval of the above two petitions. Although not directly effecting our property at this time, we are concerned that allowing this type of encroachment into our open waterways would be precedent setting. The obstruction caused by these two docking systems is certainly not in the best interest of neighboring homeowners. If allowed to pass, future requests for exceptions that could more directly effect our property would most certainly be requested and expected! Thank you for your consideration. Please do not support these petition requests. JAN 2 3 2001 October 23, 2000 Collier County Planning Services Department RE: Petition's BD2000-20 & BD2000-23 Please be advised that I (we) are opposed to the approval of the above two petitions. Although not directly effecting our property at this time, we are concerned that allowing this type of encroachment into our open waterways would be precedent setting. The obstruction caused by these two docking systems is certainly not in the best interest of neighboring homeowners. If allowed to pass, future requests for exceptions that could more directly effect our property would most certainly be requested and expected! Thank you for your consideration. Please do not support these petition requests. Sincerely, /TL~..~x'q'5OOt~a~g~ -/~5.A~-~ ~;~ Address: 404 BAYSIDE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34108 AGEI~A ITL JAN 2 3 2001 MR. ROSS GOCHENOUR COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 DEAR MR. GOCHENOUR: We are writing in response to a notice received by our next door neighbors, Bill and Penny Benson, (currently in Wisconsin) regarding a request for a dock permit extension fi'om Mr. & Mrs. Iandimarino. Said request is for permission to extend out in the lagoon a total of 61 fl. We are definitely against the 61 fl. extension permit. However, we do feel that Mr. & Mrs. Iandimarino should be able to build their dock out even with the existing docks on either side of his lot. Mr. & Mrs. landimarino stated "the reason for the extension is to enable them to get out at low tide". All boaters in the area have trouble at extreme low tide! We realize that each case is looked at individually; however, we feel that if this permit is granted, a precedent will have been set for the entire area. Therefore, we request the Collier County Planning Commission to disapprove this request. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Glen Collier 447 Palm Court JAN 2 3 2001 October 11, 2000 RE: PETITION NO. BD-2000-20, John D. & Olga M. landimarino Dear Ross Gochenaur: We are opposed to the approval of Petition No. BD-2000-20, John D & Olga M. Iandimarino. We are opposed to any petition by Vanderbilt Villa's, Regatta or any other property owners in Vanderbilt extending boat docks into the waterway further than current County Code. Over the past decade we have built numerous residences on the waterway in Vanderbilt. We have recently built a new very expensive boat dock at 464 Oak Ave. We are presently constructing a 3 story luxury residence at 464 Oak. Petition BD-2000-20's approval will impede our navigation and view of the waterway. We have built this and all previous residences and boat docks to Collier County Code. There is no reason for deviation by others to the current code. This particular waterway is already heavily congested with boat traffic; it is also heavily congested with Dolphin traffic thru out the year. It is a "natural feeding area" for these mammals that come in from Wiggins Pass and feed at the South end of the waterway directly in front of Oak Ave. and Palm Ave. in front of the "Seawitch Restaurant", the "Lighthouse Restaurant the Regatta and Vanderbilt Villa's. We have lived on this waterway for the past decade and at 256 Oak Ave. for the past 2 years. We have dated pictures of these mammals, sea turtles, eagles and manatee that also navigate this particular waterway. Approval of No. BD-2000-20 Boat dock will set a precedent for all other property owners who would compromise the waterway for their own gain. This at the expense of 99% of the other property owners, mammals and wildlife of Collier County and Vanderbilt Beach in particular, who have a right to naysg~e the waterway safely. Sinc~relv_~~'"'"'9 ,.55"" .-~ (m'~s tmd-;Xnn Sum~rton 366 Scabee Ave. Naples, FL. 34108 CC: US Dept of Transportation, Boating Safety USGS Soil & Water Conservation Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission AC~NOA I1[~' 2 3 200 288 Oak Avenue Naples, Florida 34108 October 3, 2000 Collier County Government Community Development & Environmental Services Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding proposal #BD-2000-20, requesting an extension of a boat dock with a planned total of 61 feet extending into the bay, for the property owned by John & O!ga M. Iandimarino at 272 Oak Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Naples, we wish to state the following: We, the property owners of 288 Oak Avenue, located within 300 feet of this property currently being considered for this non-conforming dock, are absolutely opposed to the construction of a dock and boat lift of this magnitude. The dimensions more closely resemble a PIER than a residential dock, AND, with that lot being vacant, leads us to believe that the motive for its construction is aimed at a lucrative future sale price. We further state: we did not receive any written notice of any kind regarding this hearing or the proposal, nor is there any official notice visibly displayed on or near the property in question denoting the owner's plans. As property owners on Oak Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach for over twelve years we have observed with increasing dismay, the escalating size and bulk of new residential construction being allowed to occupy our small plots, with no regard to proportion or the innate character of this waterfront community. Now it would seem, this same blatant disregard for our neighborhood is being carded over to our most prized asset .... the beautiful, unobstucted view of Vanderbilt Lagoon. Should this "excepton" be allowed, it is almost certainly going to be followed by similar requests to build bigger, better, more ostentatious docks in and about the Lagoon and the adjoining waterways. Not only does this proposal signify a very misguided departure from the norm, it approval virtually guarantees future challenges of questionable nature. This proposed dock is an obstacle to navigation, a dangerous, insidious precedent-setting monstrosity and an affront to the reisdents who live in and value this community. We urge you to DENY this proposal. Very. truly yours, JAN 2 3 2001 JAN 2 3 200! 283 Oak Avenue Naples,FL 34108 Home Phone (941) 596-3513 October 04, 2000 Collier Coun .ty Planning Commission 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples. Florida Dear Commissioners, I appreciate being given the oppommity to comment on Petition No. BD-2000-20, John and Olga M. Iandimanno My husband and I have reviewed the drawings by Scofield Marine Consulting and the Collier Co. Planning Commission (Ordinance 2000-43) regarding dock facilities. In reference to Ordinance 2000-43, Sec, 2.6,21, l--Docks and the like are primarily intended... for routine maintenance and use while MINIMALLY IMPACTING the navigability of the waterway-proposed dock would force other boats into the shallower part of the canal. Most canals have a deeper watem, ay down the middle of the canal. The proposed dock would stretch into the deeper channel part of the canal. Docks and the like.. ,MINIMALLY IMPACTING.. ,the view of the waterway by surrounding properrs' owners. Proposed dock would extend approximately 20 feet out into the canal area beyond the other docks in the area. The position of the boat lift at the end of the dock will certainly obstruct the view down the canal, Section 2.6.21.2.1 A dock extension... promion of more than 20 feet. Has there ex'er been a circumstance ~xhere canals required redredging to facilitate boat traffic--wouldn't the proposed dock make dred~ng a center channel more difficult because the proposed dock would be too close to or into the center of the channel. ? Section 2.6.21.3.Dock facility extension...The planrang commission shall base its decision for approval...on the following criteria: Section 2.6.21.3.2.Whether or not the water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located is sufficient. In speaking ~ith neighbors and observing water depths yesterday in the vicinity of the proposed dock. it was determined that the water depth 20 feet from the platted seawall line has been sufficient for reasonably large ~mcrcraft to na~4gate except in lo,a' tide. Most boaters in the Vanderbilt area are affected adxersely by low tides. The o~ hers of lot 9. Block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates i.e. the Iandimarino's will probably not be more adxcrsclx affected b) low tides than others whether their dock is 20 feet from the platted seawall hne or 35 feet 17c4~ t}~: phmed seawall line. Section 2(; 21.3.7 Whether or not the proposed structure is of minimal dimensions to MINIMIZE the impact of the \'IEW of the x. 2m'ay by surrounding properly owners. See earlier comments. Maybe xou could answer a question that has surfaced with regard to dock facilities. Is it true that a lot owner cannot have a dock built adjacent to his property unless he has at least filed a permit for a house to be built on that lot'? If .~ou grant the proposed dock facility I think you will be setting a precedent that will have an adverse affect on the Vanderbilt canal area. and Bruce Burkhard JAN ,e REC:IVED Mr. Ross Gochenaur Planner II Planning Services Department Collier County Government 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 RECEIVE October 25, 2000 Dear Mr. Gochenaur: RE: Petition No. BD-2000-20, John D. & Olga M. Iandimarino As owners of the property ~nown as 400 Oak Avenue, two lots east of the Petitioner's property, we object to the grant of the extension requested in the above-referenced Petition for the following reasons: 1. Approval of the extension request will set a pre- cedent respecting the length of docks in the entire Vanderbilt Estates area and particularly the lagoon involved and it is not necessary for the petitioners to fully enjoy boating in the waters involved. 2. The only valid reason given under the existing code for the extension is to allow reasonable use in low or shallow tides. However, use of a boat when the tides are low is dictated, not by the water in the lagoon, but by the water in Turkey Bay and Wiggins Pass. No reasonable boater will seek to go to the Gulf waters when the water is low in Turkey Bay and/or Wiggins Pass. Accordingly, all that Petitioners nee~ for customary and usual use of a vessel is the ability to move in and out of their dock at other than low tides. Therefor, the 60 foot extension request is unreasonable and a 40 foot extension will satisfy all their needs and avoid the precedent problem in the area. A 60 foot extension will allow the dock to protrude into the regular water channel that all of the boaters in the lagoon use and have used for more than 30 years. It is foolish to force a change in the flow of the channel water for the purpose involved. Patricia Schaetzel OCT 3 0 2OOO RECEIVED ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW Via Hand Delivery Mr. James Carter, Phd Chariman Board of Zoning Appeals, Collier County, Florida Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 Thomas Oliff, County Manager Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 John Dunnuck, Interim Development Services Director Collier County, Florida 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 CRAIG g. WOODWARD* MARK J. WOODWARD ANTHONY P. P]BtE$, JR.** J. CHRIS~P~R LOMBARDO STEVEN V. BLOUNT JOHN A. GARNER*** CARRIE E- LADEMAN PAUL L. KUTCHER**** BURT I.,. SAUNDERS OF COUNSEL *Board C~qJfitxl Real F_~t ate Attorney **Board Certff'led City, County and Local Government Attorney *** Also admitted in Indiana and Georgia **** Also admitted in Robert Mulhere, Planning Services Director Collier County, Florida 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: APPEAL OF ACTION/DECISION OF COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2000 APPROVING PETITION BD-2000-20 (AS MODIFIED) Dear Chairman Carter, Mssrs. Oilif, Dunnuck and Mulhere: This law firm represents Roy Schaetzel, B.J. Boyer, Susan Burkhard, Bruce Burkhard and Eleanor Strasser (Straesser) individually and collectively. Pelican Bay Marco Island Roy Schaetzel owns 400 Oak Avenue, Naples, Florida (Lot 7, Conner's Please Respond to: Pelican Bay 801 Laurel Oak Dr., ~;uite 710, Naples, FL 34108 (941) 566-3131 Fax (941) 566-3161 606 Bald Eagle Dr., Suite 500, P.O. Box 1, Marco Island, FL 34146 (941) 394-5161 Fax (941). AGENDA ITEJ~ 42.~J,~o~,~ 2 3 2001 Vanderbilt Beach, Unit 2, Block I) B.J. Boyer resides at and owns 479 Palm Court, Naples, Florida (Lots 8 and 9, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block H). Susan and Bruce Burkhard, Trustees, reside at and own 283 Oak Avenue, Naples, Florida (Lot 19, Conher's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block I). Eleanor Strasser resides at and owns 395 Oak Avenue, Naples, Florida (Lot 26, Conher's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block I). On October 5, 2000 and November 2, 2000 the Collier County Planning Commission [CCPC] heard and considered Petition BD-2000-20 filed by John and OIga landiamarino (the Petition) requesting a Dock Facility Extension to allow a total protrusion of a 60 foot dock facility into waters commonly known as Vanderbilt Lagoon. The requested docking facility would consist of a 60 foot dock facility with a boat lift. On October 5, 2000 the CCPC "approved" a 57 foot long dock facility, but no Resolution was executed by the CCPC. On November 2, 2000 another hearing was held. The Petitioners modified their request to 54 feet; and after the hearing, a 54 foot long dock facility was "approved" by the CCPC, via Resolution #2000-29. (Copy attached as Exhibit 1) The property for which the Petition was filed does not have any structures located thereon. Nor have any building permits been applied for other than a 1996 seawall permit. (Exhibit 2) Pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) a dock facility on a single-family site is an accessory use, an accessory structure and may not be constructed or used without the existing of a permitted principal structure and use. At the October 5, 2000 and November 2, 2000 CCPC hearings, the Petitioners herein appeared and objected to said Petition and the request contained therein either in person or through the undersigned counsel. The Appellants herein are adversely affected, aggrieved parties, and/or property owners who are qualified to appeal the CCPC decision to the BZNBCC. The Appellants herein either qualify as adversely affected property owners; persons aggrieved; aggrieved parties; and/or parties who have the right to appeal the decision of the CCPC to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)/Board of County Commission (BCC). This right of appeal is by virtue of the provisions of the Land Development Code (the "LDC"), including but not limited to Sections 2.6.21.3 and 5.2.11 of the LDC and ch. 67-1246, Laws of Florida. Further, some of the Appellants are members of the class of parties who are entitled to receive, and who are required to be provided, AGEN~A ~TEJ ~ JAN ? '~ 20~d~ written notice, from the County, of CCPC hearings on boat dock facility extensions requests. This letter (and its attachments and the Appendix) and accompanying Notice of Appeal are notice of and constitute the appeal to the BZA/BCC of the CCPC's decision. The bases for this appeal, although not exhaustive, are listed below and in the attached materials. All items introduced, utilized, referenced, referred to or commented upon at both hearings are incorporated herein, and we hereby incorporate herein all of the photographs, exhibits, etc. (including those not capable of being reproduced or copied, except at great expense, due to their large size) utilized at both hearings. We request that all of said materials be made available at the hearing before the BZA/BCC to assist BZA/BCC in its review, in addressing the question as to whether or not the extension requested in the Petition should have been approved by the CCPC. This Appeal is being filed without conceding that the CCPC has the authority and/or jurisdiction to hear and make a "final"decision as to a dock facility extension request such as the one outlined in the Petition. This Appeal, specifically as one of its bases, disputes that the CCPC has been properly assigned or delegated such authority. The bases for this appeal, although not exhaustive, are listed below. The Appellants specifically reserve the right to supplement these materials and to amend this Appeal and Notice of Appeal as appropriate. There are severe time constraints imposed on the Appellants. These time constraints are not caused by the Appellants or the actions or inexcusable inaction of the Appellants. As a result, Appellants specifically reserve the right to supplement this Appeal and/or amend/modify same prior to the consideration of this matter by the BZAJBCC, including items used at the hearings and not yet provided to the Appellants; and including matters within the County's file no,, yet provided to the Appellants. References to the attachments will be denoted by the letter followed by the page number, as appropriate. Check number 103, in the amount of $200.00, representing the filing fee (an amount confirmed by Robert Mulhere) made payable to Collier County, accompanies this Appeal and Notice of Appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS The landimarino's property is located at 372 Oak Avenue, Naples, Florida. By *&GENOA 1 T~...~ virtue of the operation of the LDC, the landimarino's are limited to placing boat dock facilities no more than twenty (20) feet into the watenw~y known as Vanderbilt Lagoon. On or about July 14, 2000, the landimarino's filed their Petition, assigned BD- 2000-20. [Exhibit 3-A] Said Petition outlined the following: the subject property is a vacant lot, i.e. no structures or uses exist on said lot. the total initial requested protrusion was 61 feet.~ While the initial Petition referenced a "30 foot vessel", what the Petition did not provide was a description or indication as to the type of vessel or draft of any vessel proposed to be moored at the requested dock facility; nor did the Petition state what amount of water depth was really necessary or required for this hypothetical 30 foot long vessel. After review of the Petition, County staff prepared a memorandum to the CCPC ostensibly analyzing the Petition utilizing the criteria and requirements of Section 2.6.21.3 of the LDC. [Exhibit "3-B"] No memorandum was ever prepared by County staff concerning the "revised" 54 foot request presented for the first time at the November 2, 2000 hearing. County staff improperly accepted the Petition and scheduled it for consideration before the CCPC. The subject property is zoned RSF-3 (single-family residential). A dock facility on a single-family residential parcel is an accessory use/structure (not a principal use/structure) and must be built simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure. No principal structure exists on said property; no principal structure is under construction on said property; no building permit exists or has been applied for for a principal structure on said property; no boat or vessel exists that is proposed to dock at this property. Further, County staff improperly applied the criteria and in other areas speculated as to whether the criteria was achieved. The Petition and its Exhibits are internally inconsistent. An "overhead" sketch/drawing of the proposed dock and boat lift that accompanied the Petition ~ As noted herein, on October 5, 2000 the CCPC "approved" a 57 foot protrusion. At the November 2, 2000 hearing with no advance notice, the Petitioners modified their request to 54 feet. This 54 foot length is depicted on the new materials provided to the CCPC on November 5. 2000. See Exhibits 4-A and 4-B) ....... AC,~LNO A ITF' 4 ~'~'-~"?~ ~ JAN 2 3 2001 depicted the mangroves extending out only 14 feet from the seawall. [Exhibit "3-A", page 11] However, a sketch/drawing labeled "Dock Cross Section" depicts the mangroves extending out a distance of approximately 30 feet. [Exhibit "3-A", page 12] At the CCPC hearing on October 5, 2000, Mr. Scofield testified that the mangroves extend out 24 feet from the seawall. [Ex."3-D", p.7] At the November 2, 2000 hearing Mr. Scofield produced a survey dated October 28, 2000 which depicts the mangroves extending at a distance of approximately 15 feet, with a mangrove "dripline" extending out yet further. (Ex 4-B) which may be trimmed back. Thus, the evidence has been shifting and conflicting from the Petitioner, as to how far out the mangroves extend into the water: 2. 3. 4. Mr. Scofield's sketch: 14 feet Mr. Scofield's cross section: 30 feet Mr. Scofield's testimony: 2,4 feet Mr. Trigo's survey: approximately 15 feet with a mangrove dripline thereafter (a "trimmable" mangrove dripline) Mr. Scofield was tendered and accepted over objection as an expert in "permitting and construction of docks" by the CCPC. Mr. Scofield was not tendered or accepted as an expert in any area other than "permitting and construction of docks". He was not tendered or accepted as an expert in navigation, boating, view, water depths or engineering. As stated above, no vessel was identified. The Petition, without more, merely states that the vessel is "30 feet". No information was submitted as to the draft of such hypothetical vessel. At the October 5, 2000 CCPC hearing, the Petitioners agent, Mr. Scofield, stated that the proposed vessel (again without more) would be 26 feet long. County staff and the CCPC can only speculate as to the vessel length and the vessel's draft. Adding to the premature and speculative nature of the Petition, the following exchange occurred at the November 2, 2000 hearing: "COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I would like to ask Rocky a couple. Is there a boat?, a particular boat owned by this owner who is going to build a house on this lot at this time? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He doesn't own a boat? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir..." JAN 2 3 200~ and "COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But there is no current boat in existence? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir .... " Section 2.6.21.31.2 of the LDC outlines the following as one of the criteria: Whether or not the water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located is sufficient to allow for safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request. An analysis of this criteria is not possible without knowing what type, make and model of vessel is involved. Section 2.6.21.3.5 of the LDC outlines the following as another of the criteria: Whether or not there are special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the subject dock. Again, an analysis of this criteria is not possible without knowing what type, make and model of vessel is involved. Sections 2.6.21.3.7 and 2.6.21.3.8 of the LDC outlines another of the criteria: Whether or not the proposed structure is of minimal dimensions to minimize the impact of the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners. Whether or not the proposed vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the length of the water frontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact on or negatively impact the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners. County staff improperly applied said criteria when they limited their analysis to "nei.qhborin.q" property owners' and "adjacent" property owners'. In addition, fact-based testimony and evidence was presented by adversely affected property owners, including the Appellants. Fact-based testimony o? adjacent AC-~A ~TF..~ and surrounding property owners is permissible and constitutes substantial competent testimony. The fact-based testimony and evidence showed the following: Mr. Schaetzel, who owns the property two lots east of the subject property testified at the October 5, 2000 hearing: "My dock goes out from that original seawall line 20 feet and that's all, 20 feet, and i have a 37 - a 27' foot boat docked in there on a lift. My water lines are exactly the same as he shows in the drawing." and "1 have had that - my dock in there for ten years. I have no problem with the water line or the water level and I've been using it, and I think I'm putting in a larger boat than he is. I mean, my boat is larger than the one he wants to dock there." (Ex. D, p.10) To the extent that Mr. Scofield provided credible testimony, he himself testified at the end of the October 5, 2000 hearing, as to the water depth needed:: "Mr. Scofield: ... by the waters there, the owners, would like to have like a 26 foot boat. Commissioner Abernathy: Which draws how much? Mr. Scofield: The 26 foot boat? Commissioner Abernathy: Yeah. Mr. Scofield: Probably on the stern end, two and a half feet to three, but it's brought bow in to get enough water. It's very shallow in there. Now, yeah, the bow doesn't draw hardly any water at all. We can slide the dock up three to four feet, but not much more than that because that area, it's very shallow, as you can see by the cross-section. That's why we're requesting what we are." (See Exhibit "3-D",page 23) Mrs. Burkhard provided credible fact based testimony at the November 5, 2000 hearing showing that there are sufficient water depths so as to not necessitate the requested extension. (Ex. "6", pages 69 to 72). Mrs. Burkhard testified that her boat, which draws three and a half feet of water, pulled right up into the mangroves, and that more than adequate water depth was available over the whole range of tides. The survey by Trigo shows that a depth of three feet is achieved approximately 35 feet from the seawall and over 4 feet of water exists approximately 40 feet out from the seawall. As the distance from the seawall to the platted property line i,' ? the proposed dock location, there is no need for any extension more than twenty (20) feet beyond the platted property line. At both of the hearings staff utilized a graphic depicting the existing neighboring dock facilities that show an established, consistent distance of 20 feet from the platted lot lines into the water. The only difference is that Exhibit 5-A shows a 61 foot extension while Exhibit 5-B shows a 54 foot extension. Extensions not warranted by the facts. CCPC JURISDICTION The powers of the CCPC are as outlined within Section 250-34 of the Collier County code of Laws and Ordinances, Ch 67-1246, Laws of Florida, Section 6, and Section 5.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and other areas of the LDC not pertinent to this matter. The CCPC has only those functions, powers and duties as provided in said Section 250-34, which includes the ability "to perform any other duties which may be lawfully assigned to it." There is no language within either the Special Act or the LDC that states that the CCPC has the authority, power or ability to consider and take final action regarding dock facility extension requests. There is no language that clearly assigns to the CCPC the ability, power, function or duty to take final action concerning dock facility extension requests. The County staff or the petitioner may try to argue that Section 2.6.21.3 of the LDC provides such power or ability. The pertinent portion of Section 2.6.21.3. reads as follows: "Additional length/protrusion beyond said respective distances ....... shall require public notice and a hearing by the Collier County Planning Commission. As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Planning Commission takes action, pursuant to Section 5.2.11 of this code, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals." and "The Planning Commission shall base its decision for approval, approval with conditions, or denial, on the following criteria: .... " However, no where does the language clearly provide that the CCPC has the ability or has been granted or assigned the ability to take final action. A '~A IT'r..:Nr This is in marked contrast to the clear and unequivocal language contained within Section 5.2.2.10. of the LDC that states that the CCPC has the ability to consider and take final action regarding preliminary subdivision plats. CONCLUSION The Petition in this case is inconsistent internally as noted above. The staff's evaluation did not properly utilize the criteria contained within the LDC. The credible evidence, the competent evidence does not support an approval of the requested extension. The Petition is further deficient for failure to identify any type of vessel proposed and the length of vessel proposed in the Petition and the length of vessel testified to by the Petitioner's representative are different. There was no credible evidence as to what depth would be required by an unknown make, model or type of vessel. Thereafter no necessity has been shown for the requested extension. Further, more than adequate water depths are met at a distance 20 feet from the platted property line. For all of the foregoing the Appellants respectfully request that the BZA/BCC reverse and set aside the "decision" by the CCPC and the CCPC Resolution No. 2000- 29 as to Petition BDo2000-20. Sincerely, WOODW..~~;.!R/ES & LOMBARDO, P.A. /'A~d~? ~r~"'~r '/~ s, Jr. .---- F:\USERS~PPkBOYERkAPPEAL1 .WPD 9 JAN 2 3 200! NOTICE OF APPEAL TO: TO: TO' TO' TO' Date: Novem be~'~~~,~ ~~ Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida ~ A'"0'~':'O'~"r'¥ .... 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34~ 12 Board of Zoning Appeals, Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 NOV 1 5 2000 RECEIVED Thomas Olliff, County Manager Collier County, Florida 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 John Dunnuck, Interim Development Services Director, Collier County, Florida 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 Robert J. Mulhere, Planning Services Director, Collier County, Florida 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ACTION/DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PETITION BD-2000-20 (AS MODIFIED) Page 1 of 3 AC-~_NI, D A ITEH Roy Schaetzel, B.J. Boyer, Susan Burkhard, Bruce Burkhard and Eleanor Strasser, individually and collectively, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Appeal and Notice of Appeal of the November 2, 2000 decision of the Collier County Planning Commission [CCPC] ostensibly approving Petition BD-2000- 20, to allow a 54 foot length dock facility. A true and correct copy of CCPC Resolution 2000-29 approving this 54 foot length dock facility is attached. The Appellants do not, by the filing of this Notice of Appeal and Appeal, concede the regularity of the proceedings of the CCPC held on October 5, 2000 and November 2, 2000; nor do they concede that proper legal notice was provided as to the October 5, 2000 CCPC hearing/consideration of Petition BD-2000-20. As part of this Notice of Appeal and Appeal the Appellants incorporate herein and make a part hereof that certain Notice of Appeal and Appeal filed on October 27, 2000 and the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on October 30, 2000, and all attachments thereto as they relate to Petition BD-2000-20. The purpose of this Appeal is to review the November 2, 2000 decision of the CCPC ostensibly approving Petition BD-2000-20, which Appeal further takes issue with and asks the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners to determine whether in fact the CCPC has the ability to render or make a decision as to a boat dock facility extension facility. This Appeal is being taken for the purpose of requesting that the Board of Zoning Appeals reverse the decision and determination of the CCPC as it relates to Petition BD-2000-20; and to further have this Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners determine that the CCPC does not have any decision making authority concerning Petition BD-2000-20; that no boat dock facility extension petition can be applied for or processed when there does not exist either a principal structure on the subject property, nor an identified vessel; and for the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners to deny Petition BD-2000-20. The jurisdictional bases for the Appeal include, but are not limited to Division 1.6, Section 2.6.21.; and Division 5.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code and Sections 250-26 through 250-60, inclusive, of the Codes of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida (Ch. 67-1246, Laws of Florida), and other applicable provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code; and the Florida Statutes. This Notice of Appeal and accompanying correspondence, attachments and Appendix articulate and form the bases for said Appeal. Additionally, one copy of a videotape of the November 2, 2000 hearing of the CCPC is being filed with this Notice of Appeal and Appeal, which videotape is being submitted with the appeal package to the Development Services Director. Page 2 of 3 ACE_N, DA IT,rcJd JAN 2 3 2001 The requisite Appeal filing fee in the amount of $200.00, which amount was provlded by County Planning Services Division staff, accompanies this Appeal. The Petitioners specifically reserve the right to supplement this Appeal upon the receipt of any documents and materials concerning the November 2, 2000 hearing. Woodward,~ardo, P.A Florida Bar No. 203671 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 710 Naples, Florida 34108 (941)-566-3131 (941)-566-3161 [fax] apires@wpl-legal.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal and its attachments, including the Appeal and the Exhibits and attachments thereto was furnished via hand delivery to: the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112; Board of Zoning and Appeals, Collier County, Florida, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112; Thomas Olliff, County Manager, Collier County, Florida, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112; John Dunnuck, Interim Development Services Director, Collier County, Florida, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida 34101; Robert J. Mulhere, Planning Services Director, Collier County, Florida, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida 34104; and Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, Collier County, Florida, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112; and Richard Yovanovic/l:k Esquire, Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, 4001 Tamiami Trail North ~_u~~0, Naples, Florida 34103 on this/2 ~,7/day of November, 2000. " nt~J~¢-P'.-P ires, Jr. F:\USER S~,P P~BOYER'~NOTAPP EA.WPD Page 3 of 3 2001 I/We, the undersigned, authorize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo to act as our agent in all matters dealing with our Appeal of Petition BD-2000-20 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Wit ss ' Date [prir~t,~me] .... [adc~ss] JAN 2 3 2001 I/We, the undersigned, authorize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo to act as our agent in all matters dealing with our Appeal of Petition BD-2000-20 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Daie JAN 2 3 2001 I/We, the undersigned, authorize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo to act as our agent in all matters dealing with our Appeal of Petition BD-2000-20 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Date [print name] [addressl AGENDA ITEI~ JAN 2 3 2001 I/We, the undersigned, authorize Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo to act as our agent in all matters dealing with our Appeal of Petition BD-2000-20 to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Witness Date [print name] [address] AGg. NOA ~ TF...~ JAN 2 3 2001 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-.j~ , ~, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-20 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HERESAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHERE,.S, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHE .I~AS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability ofa 34-foot extension of a boat dock fi'om the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 54-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and V~tEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Comnnssion of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing John D. and Olga M. Iandimarino, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Uni! 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 17, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 34-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 54-foot boat docking facility in the KSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or moorting pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection ofmartatees, at least one (1) "Manstee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. EXHI31T ACNENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 3. PermRs or letter~ of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance o£ a building permit. All exotic vegehtfion as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shE! be maintained exotic-free in perpetu/ty. BE'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that th/s Rmolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-20 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted al%r motion, second and majority vote. Done this 2rid day of tqove~ber ,2000. COLLIER COUNTY PLANN]3'qG COMMISSION COLLrER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: JOI-LN M! DUNNUCK, m ExecutiVe Secretary Interim Community Development and Environ.mental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjc~'ie M. Stud~n! Assistant County Attorney -2- JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 2, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Vice-Chairman: Gary Wrage Joyceanna J. Rautio Kenneth Abernathy Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Russell Budd Lora J. Young NOT PRESENT: Sam Saadeh Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's call the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, November 2rid, to order. And I'll start With the roll call. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Commissioner Padone? COMMISSIONER PADONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Worked that out just right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda today? MR. NINO: No, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. I have no minutes in my packet. Any planning commission absences? I need to remind those of you that were not here last night that our next LDC meeting is in 13 days, on the 15th, at 5:05. BCC report? MR. NINO: The only report I could make is, all of the items that were on the summary agenda stayed on the summary agenda, so that indicates concurrence. The items that were on the regular agenda, I believe, were all approved as well. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Under chairman's report, I have about five items I want to throw out here this morning. I have been asked -- and I'm going to pick on everybody. I've been asked that, to my fellow commissioners, from time to time, discussions have been held up here during the meeting. I will allow that between commissioners, but it needs to be through the microphone, please. One other thing that I've been asked, that should you vote in motion, if you would please give your reason. the minority, that either during the discussion, or even after the We owe Page 2 at^tr~ JAN 2 3_ 2001 November 2, 2000 county commissioners as well as to the petitioner and applicant. Not -- to keep picking on everybody, in light of last night's meeting, staff, please, direct all your comments and questions to the county, to the commissioners, and to the public. We will remain quiet while either the public or the petitioner or the commissioners are speaking. If you wish to hold a conversation, please go out in the hall. We're professionals here. We're here to take testimony. All testimony will be given through the microphone to the commission. Any questions you wish to ask of the petitioners, they need to be done in the hall privately or you ask us and we will ask the questions, and we will try to answer everybody's question. And finally, I have to be in a ]udge's chamber at 10:45. Regardless of the status, I will have to leave at 10:30 momentarily. And finally, to all my commissioners, I will not ask for disclosures. You've all been on this board long enough to know that anyone we bring up at petition, if you've got any disclosures, please lump right in. I know none of you are bashful. And with that, we will go to the first petition on the agenda, BD-2000-20. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a disclosure, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with Mr. Scofield on this. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I also spoke with Mr. Scofield and Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I spoke to Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to disclose that I spoke at length with Attorney Pires and I've spoken at length with Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I spoke with Mr. Pires and was unable to make connections with Mr. Scofield, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I also talked to Mr. Scofield and I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. I would also like to make one small comment on behalf of the commissioners. I got a letter that I would like to clear up. One, we are not elected. We are appointed by your respective county commissioners. We are not paid. I just wanted to clear that -- I have a couple of letters that were rather derogat, towards me personally and I think towards the planning Page 3 JAN 2 3 20(J1 November 2, 2000 commissioners and I want to point that out. And with that, I have a question, I guess, to Ron or the county attorney, why are we hearing this petition again? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student. We're hearing this again, and I spoke with the county attorney, David Weigel, because of a problem with posting of the property. There's a provision in the code that states that for a dock facility extension, it requires public notice and hearing by the Collier County Planning commission. And the county's interpretation of that has always been to include posting, as well as letters to the property owner, as well as a newspaper ad. And Mr. Weigel and I both feel that if we were to depart from that, that would be error, so that's why we're hearing it again, because it was not posted. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Staff concurs with that? MR. NINO: Certainly do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may?. I know you don't want to hear this -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A large path of latitude here, okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: My name is Rich Yovanovich and I represent the petitioner of boat dock petition 2000-20, and we're at the procedural point now of why we are here, and we do have some objections. Please tell me when it's appropriate for me to raise those objections, should it be now or should it be during the presentation of the petition? That's the question I have for the chair as to when you want me to make those comments. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And so noted. And I've had conversation with staff and I've had conversation with yourself. I guess I'm inclined, unless I hear something else from the rest of the commissioners, that we will proceed as if we were hearing this for the first time. You can raise your objection and it will be so noted when you give your presentation for the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay?. And with that, Ross? All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Morning, commissioners. For the Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. First I would like to Page 4 AGENOA JAN 2 3 200! November 2, 2000 apologize for the failure to post the hearing notice, which brings us back to this petition again, to you, commissioners, to the public and to the petitioner. The petition was originally heard on the 5th of October where an extension to 57 feet was approved by this commission. The petitioner originally requested an extension to create a dock protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway. This request is today being reduced to 54 feet, three feet less than that approved by the commission on the 5th of October. The property's located at 372 Oak Avenue in Conner's Vanderbilt Beach, and the lot's currently unimproved. I'd like to go into this a little bit because there has been some confusion about the nature of a boat dock extension petition and what its approval allows. The approval of this petition would allow construction of a dock only in conjunction with a valid building permit. The dock is an accessory structure. The land development code says that a principal structure has to be constructed before an accessory structure or concurrently with an accessory structure. The only way the building department will issue permits for a dock would be either after the house is built and CO'd or concurrently with the building permit for the house. Should the dock be constructed before the house, a certificate of completion cannot be issued, the dock cannot . legally be used until the certificate of occupancy for the house has been issued. So there isn't any circumstance under which a dock could be legally used on a piece of unimproved property. Does that pretty much clarify the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you need a building permit for the dock? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They would issue that and let you build it, but then wouldn't issue a certificate of completion; is that where we are? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. When they issue the building -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: In the absence of a house, I'm talking -- MR. GOCHENAUR: In the absence of a house, the only way a dock could legally be constructed on a piece of resideHt'i-a~~-~ - Page 5 .~,N 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 property is with an approved conditional use. There is no such use for this property, so the dock permit could not even be pulled unless the building permit for the house were pulled at the same time. Then, once that's done, even if the dock's completed first, it couldn't be legally used until they get the CO for the house. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Couldn't be legally initiated until you had a building permit for a house? MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY'- Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR'- The site is unusual in that the seawall is set well back from the property line. This is not a normal feature on these canals of this waterway. This is the same drawing that I used at the last hearing. I'd like you to please remember that the measurements on here are approximate. They were taken from a building permit application for one of the other three docks that have a similar situation. And again, the measurements are not exact. It's not a survey. The proposed dock protrusion would be measured from the property line and the facility would extend 34 feet into the waterway. An extension for a 40-foot dock has been approved o~ -- on a residential lot in the general vicinity of this property. By today's code, if we measured the extension of the three docks on there, they would amount to 35 to 46 feet. Prior to 1994, the county allowed dock -- docks to be built and permitted as measured from the property line, which is currently in the water line. As you can see, all three of these previously constructed docks are 20 feet out from the property line. An extension to go to 21 -- I'm sorry, 20 feet from the property line. An extension to go to 21 feet was approved for the dock on lot ten. We've received numerous objections to this petition from local property owners. We have received no objections from the property owners immediately adjacent to the subject property. A petition with 73 signatures was also received from local property owners. I believe you have copies of all of the letters and also the petition. The objections that we received relate to navigational, environmental and aesthetic issues. The petitioner's agent, Mr. Scofield, will address the navigational issues. Environmental issues centered mainly on the impact to mariatees ana re,aom~~ Page 6 JAN 2 3 200{ November 2, 2000 to water pollution. Water pollution is an issue addressed by the Department of Environmental Protection. It's outside the scope of this petition. The subject property is a single-family lot. Single-family lots, single family docks are not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. We've received some complaints that the dock will affect the view of surrounding neighboring adjacent property owners. Typically, the property owners most affected are those immediately on either side of the subject property. And again, we have received no objections to the project from either of these property owners. View is very subjective. Property owners are very sensitive to any potential impact on their property values, so it's a little bit hard to judge the exact nature of the complaints with regard to view. That notwithstanding, this project does meet all criteria as before, and also as before, staff recommends approval. Do we have any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. What would -- you have a number 54 there, which is what the petitioner's requesting? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What would that number be if you measured 20 feet from the property line, as these other two -- the one that's 46 and the one that's 38 have gone 20 feet beyond the property line. What would that magic number be for this piece? MR. GOCHENAUR: Is -- we're getting into math again, and you know rm shaky there. Is this what the extension would be if the measurement were taken from the property line today? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if it -- instead of -- yes. MR. GOCHENAUR: That would be a 34-foot dock, 20 from 54. The land development code allows a 20-foot dock to be built. That's measured from the most restrictive point with a building permit. Anything in excess of that 20 feet requires an extension. So if you were measuring the protrusion from the property line in the water, you'd have the 20 feet that you were given by the code, plus an additional 34 feet requested, for a total of 54. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross-- Page 7 November 2, 2000 MR. GOCHENAUR: Is my math getting bogged down again? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was going to ask the petitioners if they would take their conversation out in the hall. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Wrage. CHAIRMAN WRAGE'- Thank you. Continue, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's the 20 feet that's permitted, plus another 34 feet? That looks -- MR. GOCHENAUR-' I'm sorry. That would be measured from the current most restrictive point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All I want to do is measure it from the property line. What is the property line plus 20? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One of the problems looks to me like, that that is a slanting property line. MR. GOCHENAUR: It is a slanting property line, and what we would have to do would be take the measurement from the point of the dock that's furthest back onto the property. I think probably Mr. Scofield's drawings -- and I don't have a copy of the revised drawings -- would show you exactly where he's going to measure this from, how far that would be from the seawall to the property line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Whose drawing is this? MR. GOCHENAUR: This drawing was submitted with a building permit application for one of the other docks that's shown here. I'm using this only to give a general iljustration of how the seawall is set back onto the property and not a linear seawall like you have on virtually every other manmade canal in the county. This is a very unusual situation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that 54 may not be to scale at all? MR. GOCHENAUR'. No, sir. As I tried to explain, these measurements are approximate. I'm using this only for iljustration purposes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And so the big dark line is the seawall, and in between the seawall and the dotted line, which is the property line -- MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- there are mangroves? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's the big issue that we have a -- AGENDA ITE~ Page 8 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am. No one has raised the issue of mangroves. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. I mean, we have a distance -- a visual issue from the seawall to the property line. You have to get at least 20 feet before you start measuring. If that -- if the seawall was right at the property line, we would be talking about 34 feet; is that correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR.' That's -- given that that approximate distance was about 20 feet. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But then would -- if the -- if the dock started at the property line where the seawall would have been if the mangroves weren't in the way, let's say, then he would have been allowed a 20-foot dock, correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct, and his extension would be whatever he wanted beyond that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And it would have been another 14 feet at that point? MR. GOCHENAUR.' Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So in a normal circumstance, they'd probably be in here asking for a 14-foot extension and we wouldn't even be excited about it because -- MR. GOCHENAUR: That would be my conclusion, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess that was my conclusion too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff at this time? If not, we can hear from the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, for the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. I have with me Rocky Scofield who also represents the petitioner. I guess this is the appropriate time for me to raise procedural objections and I do have one, and it's regarding the fact that we, frankly, should not be here at all today to rehear this -- this petition. The -- the reason we're here is that a member of the public who was at the hearing on October 5th raised an issue regarding the posting of the property claiming that the notice provisions were not followed; therefore, the hearing -- there may be / ~ t_~/~'~ questions regarding the hearing. =1~'"' '~^~ JAN23 2001 Page 9 l November 2, 2000 I believe -- well, my interpretation of the law is, you're entitled to procedural due process and that process is what is established in the land development code. You also have the ability to waive notice objections, and one way you waive notice objections is by attending the hearing and participating in the hearing, and there were several members of the public who participated in that hearing, including the one person who raised the notice objection due to posting. So at least for those individuals who spoke at the hearing and who received mailed written notice - because there's no question that that happened -- they received notice and they should not be allowed to get a second bite at the apple, and that's exactly what you have today. They have gotten additional time through a technicality in the land development code that -- or an interpretation of the land development code that may give them a second bite at the apple. They were not happy with the result the first time. I don't know when they hired Mr. Pires, but I'm assuming he will -- it's after the first hearing, and you can ask him that question, but they want -- they want another opportunity to raise these issues. So it is my position that if you look at the land development code and you look at the very specific provisions regarding boat dock extension procedures and advertisement requirements, your county attorney did read to you what the requirements are, and that is a public hearing with public notice, and that is exactly what happened. It was advertised in the paper, you had your discussions in the public, and that's all they are legally entitled to under the land development code. Now, if your staff wants to give additional notice, and it's their policy to give mailed notice and to post the property, that's additional notice. It's not a legal entitlement. Had it been a legal entitlement, you would see those requirements in the land development code just like you see those requirements in the specific provisions dealing with variances where it specifically says you will have mailed notice and posted notice. You would see that in the rezone provisions where it says you get mailed notice and you get posted notice. You would also see that in the conditional use provision* which specifically references another code provision that says, we'll follow the notice provisions under_ a different section. Page10 AGENDA j~,fq 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 Is that language in the boat dock extension section? It is not. It is conspicuously absent. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners did not require that there be written notice or posted notice. So we don't believe that we should be here today at all, so I'd note that for the record. All notice requirements were met. Now, if you do -- if you have decided to go forward, there is precedence for this where -- where notice objections have been raised in the past, and I was -- I was party to that objection. I raised a notice objection on a variance petition saying that my clients didn't get the required notice. What the Board of County Commissioners did at that time, they did not rehear this case. What they did was, they said, anybody who didn't receive the notice required by the statute, the ordinance, can come and speak to us. They didn't do a whole full-blown new hearing. They allowed members of the public who were claiming they didn't get the required notice to speak, voice their concerns and let -- then let the petitioner respond to the concerns raised by those people who were claiming they did not get proper notice. So if you're going to go forward today, which you -- you still have the opportunity to say you do not want to go forward today after hearing my argument, you should limit yourself to only people who can say to you, under oath, that had there been posted notice, I would have been here and I would have objected, because those are the only ones who are entitled to the benefit of the posting. So what I would -- I would ask you to limit today's hearing to those people who can tell you they would have been here if there was posted notice and don't open this up for another full-blown second bite at the apple. And I would like to enter into the record an amended notice of appeal filed by Mr. Pires, clearly proving the point that I made regarding who was, in fact, here, and Mr. -- Mr. Pires' amended notice of appeal -- in this case, he was representing Roy Schaetzel, B.J. Boyer, Susan Burkhard, Bruce Burkhard and Eleanor Strasser, and he says in his notice of appeal, they were all here, present at that hearing. So at least in my opinion, they waived any notice objections and should not be permitted to speak today, and if that is all Mr. Pires represents, he s be allowed to provide any comments on their behalf. I'll Page 11 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 to Margi. In addition, several people provided their written objections before the last hearing. They must have had notice of the hearing. They had the time to write to you and tell you. Specifically, .Bill and Perry Benson and Ron and Harriette Link were referred to in the comments in your last verbatim transcript of the proceedings, and anybody else who provided you letters before that time had notice and had an opportunity to participate in the hearing. They, too, waived any right to speak here today. I understand that there's an abundance of caution argument regarding having another hearing, and, you know, if the notice provisions have not been followed, which we -- which we contend they have been followed, there is an element of risk, and that element of risk is to my client. My client is the one who's got to defend your action that was taken by the Planning Commission. If the notice was improper, we got -- we did not get your approval; however, if it was proper, we already have your approval. My client is willing to take that risk. We are the ones who will have to defend your action, and we will do it. So if it's -- if it's a fear that you're trying to protect us, we're willing to take the risk on the notice because we think it has been met. Now, the LDC works two ways. There's protections for the public and there's protections for the petitioner. The LDC says what type of notice has to be provided to the public and what the petitioner must know -- what has to happen procedurally for the petitioner to get a valid approval. We believe that the petitioner is harmed by having to come here today and retry this whole case, spend money to go forward, and we'll see how it ultimately turns out, but we don't believe that the time and expense is justified under the very reading of the land development code, and we would request at this time that the Planning Commission not hold another hearing because that hearing has already occurred. You will be here for quite a while, I'm sure, if we do a trial -- a whole new hearing, or at a minimum, anybody who gets up here and says, I'd have been here for -- if there had been posted notice, let them speak, and we'll respond that their concerns and just have -- bring forward the record that you had at your last meeting and let anybody who says they didn't have proper notice because of the posting problem, let them speak, we'll address their concerns and have a limited hearing, m~~ Page 12 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 think that is fair and appropriate to all parties. So I'd like to know how you wish to proceed at this time before I get into more detail. MS. STUDENT: May I respond? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me -- I want him to finish his objection and then we'll go forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, what I'm asking for is not unprecedented. That happened in another similar situation on a variance. It was a limited hearing. You brought forward all the testimony from the previous hearing so you didn't have to rehash it and then anybody who could show that they did not receive the notice or did not waive the notice was permitted to speak and it was very limited. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Marjorie, as -- I'm very uncomfortable where I'm sitting right now because I -- I hear his argument. I've also heard from the staff and I've heard from you. I guess-- MS. STUDENT: I think we should proceed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think that we've opened ourselves up either for litigation for what we've already done or what we're about to do, and I guess we're looking for some legal advice. MS. STUDENT: Okay. I'll be happy to give it. You're correct. I think no matter what we do, there's going to be litigation over this. So it's -- you know, the county's between a rock and a hard place. As I said, I spoke with Mr. Weigel and -- on this, and we feel that the new hearing is warranted because of the failure of the complete notice and the way that that has been interpreted by the county in the past. Courts give great weight to a local government's interpretation of its own regulations, and if that's how the county has interpreted it, which staff assures me it is, I think we're on good ground to go forward with the new hearing because this time all of the notice requirements were met as interpreted by the county and they were not in the last hearing. Secondly, case law tells us that if all the notice requirements, if there's one infirmity in notice requirements, the whole thing is void. And I recall from, I believe it was back in t 996, generally the variance situation that Mr. Yovanovich alludes to, and I think that was by agreement of everybo~ that's how they would proceed. Page 13 y that JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 I spoke with Mr. Weigel also as - in this matter just limiting, you know, who could speak at this hearing to only people that came Out for the first time here, and it was Mr. Weigers opinion that -- and mine that everybody should be allowed to speak again. The reason for that is, again, the past -- it's like the past hearing never happened because of the notice infirmity, and the waiver that Mr. Yovanovich talks about -- and I haven't, you know, researched this recently -- but that would be a waiver to present to a Court because the people showed up, not necessarily a waiver of their right to speak at any subsequent hearing to cure the defect. So again, it's my opinion that this is like it never happened before and this is a brand new hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a motion that we proceed with this hearing as if it were a brand new hearing. This commission bases its decisions and votes on facts and not popular opinion or how many people are in the room, so I -- I think unless there's something that's taken place with the property out there since we were here last, that the outcome is likely to be the same and that we, you know, move on with -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, before we go any further, I guess what was crossing my mind is, we have all heard this. I think we've all heard the objection. As chairman, I think I have a certain latitude that what I was gonna limit both the petitioner and the public to was to something new. The big issue I see here is they asked for 61 feet. Your motion, as I recall and we approved, was 57. We're now talking about 54. I do know there are a couple of items out there the petitioner has that he did not present before and there may be some things from the public, and I want the public allowed to speak, but I don't need to sit here and hear 57 people tell me they don't want it because they don't like it or for whatever reason, because I've already heard that. I read every one of those letters word for word. And although I want everybody their chance to speak, I'm not sure that I want to hear all of it all over again. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We don't have a second on the motion and if I second it, then we're in discussion on the motion; is that correct? I'm going to second Mr. Priddy's motion Page 14 J~,N 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 proceed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. It's been moved and seconded, and I understand the motion is -- is we're going to hear 100 percent of what everybody wants to say. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But you're not to allow 57 people to tell us if they don't like it because it's blocking their view? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will address that when we get to the public and I will also address that to the petitioner. It's been moved and seconded that we go forward. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Nay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm ready to go on the merits. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- a warning to the petitioner and the public, please, we all remember. It hasn't been that long. Please address new issues. I'm particularly interested in why -- now we can talk about 54 feet rather than 61. And to the public, remember, I said I've read all your letters. When it comes time for the public, I don't have a problem with everybody standing up saying you're against it, so noted, name and address. If you've got something new, please, we'd be willing to listen to it, but I don't think you or the commissioners want to be here until three o'clock this afternoon. One final comment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Marjorie, I have a question. Since there was an appeal of this petition, what happens to the appeal now that we're going to hear the whole item over? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think it's just held in abeyance, and then whatever the outcome of this meeting -- let's say the result is the same, I believe Mr. Pires would have to go and file another appeal based on the record of this proceeding. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I wanted to hear, whether or not there was any value to the appeal that was first filed -- or filed on the first one, so we can proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have to ask for one more act of indulgence. Can we have Mr. Pires state for the record his position on whether or not the fact that you're going forward today moots out his appeal, because I don't want to have Page 15 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 potential appeals out there? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would ask Mr. Pires if he'd like to comment on that. MR. PIRES: Anthony Pires, Woodward, Pires and Lombardo representing some various property owners in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I filed the appeal because of the fact that we were advised last Thursday at 4:44 p.m. that there was a question about this being heard, and so I filed it out of an abundance of caution. I would have been remiss in my obligations to my Clients if I had not done so. I've not withdrawn same. I'm not going to provide an opinion as to whether I think it's moot. I'm not going to make legal arguments on behalf of Mr. Yovanovich. It's there. Staff is holding it in abeyance and it is what it is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: With that being said, today's hearing is the second hearing on the boat dock petition 2000-20. So that you don't have to -- there's no argument that we're not bringing forward what you heard at the last meeting, I'd like to enter into the record and make it part of today's hearing the verbatim transcript or the minutes taken by your court reporter into the record. Is there any objection, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, I think I may have -- I may have a cleaner copy, Rich. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this one only highlights where it starts. It doesn't -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess we're taking a break while counsel -- MR. PIRES: No problem. No objection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- consultate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Nothing's easy anymore. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So far we've been professional. Let's not break the mold. MR. YOVANOVICH: With that being said, specifically, since we are going forward basically with a new hearing, I'm not going to rehash the testimony of Mr. Scofield, but I do -- I do want to enter Mr. Scofield in as -- he's testified before you on many, many, many boat dock petitions. You're intimately familiar with his qualifications, and I would like to tender him as an expert for purposes of both the October 5th hear, ng and for purpos, .~s ~a:3'~ ~./ Page 16 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 today's hearing. Since Mr. Scofield is not an attorney, he did not do the -- he didn't qualify himself as an expert on October 5th, and I would ask that you go ahead and qualify him -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Mr. Scofield as an expert witness. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Expert in what? MR. YOVANOVICH: In boat dock- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Boat construction? MR. YOVANOVICH: Permitting both the docks and actual construction. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved and seconded. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me. In procedures of this type, Mr. Pires has advised that he would like to voir dire -- or in lawyer talk, more or less cross-examine Mr. Scofield on his expertise, and in order to follow due process, I think we need to allow him the opportunity to do that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before or after we make the motion? MS. STUDENT: It would be before. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. When I get to the discussion part. It's been moved by Chairman (sic) Priddy, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: There was no second. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seconded by Commissioner Budd that Mr. Scofield be entered as an expert witness. Any discussion from the commissioners? If not -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have a point of order under discussion, do we -- did you just say that we should not have this motion and listen to the questioning of the expert witness -- MS. STUDENT: The motion -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- before, so we could have Mr. Priddy withdraw this and move along here? MS. STUDENT: The motion should be held in abeyance until Mr. Pires is done so the commission has an opportunity to assess what testimony would be elicited from Mr. Scofield, and then you would make your motion. That's the way -- when you've had these -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll withdraw my motion. Page 17 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 hear -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE'- I'm sorry. I misunderstood that, because I thought we were going to talk about Mr. Scofield not being an expert. But anyway, I'm sorry. I think Mr. Pires -- MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, should I direct the questions to the chairman or to Mr. Scofield? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will allow you to address the -- for sake of time, directly to Mr. Scofield. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scofield, what type of expert are you being tendered as for this particular proceeding today? MR. SCOFIELD: As an expert in dock permitting and construction and dredging and whatever else you want to relate to marine construction. MR. PIRES: And what is your educational background? MR. SCOFIELD: My educational background is a bachelor of science in geology. MR. PIRES: And do you hold a naval architect's license? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. That's for boat building. MR. PIRES: Do you hold any degrees in hydrology? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. MR. PIRES: Do you hold any engineering certifications? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. MR. PIRES: And when you say you are asking to be qualified as an expert in permitting, that's a broad area. What -- can you narrow the scope of that? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, for marine permitting, basically DEP, Corps of Engineers, county, related to marine work. MR. PIRES: Do you have a -- you don't have any educational background in physics? MR. SCOFIELD: Just through my geology, yes. MR. PIRES: Okay. Have you been qualified as an expert in navigation by any courts of the State of Florida? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I haven't. MR. PIRES: Have you been qualified as an expert in view by any courts of the State of Florida? MR. SCOFIELD: No. MR. PIRES: Have you been qualified by any courts in the standpoint of marine permitting? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, what? Page 18 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 MR. PIRES: Have you been qualified by the courts in the area of marine permitting? MR. SCOFIELD: Not by the courts. MR. PIRES: Do you hold any contractor's licenses? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, I do. MR. PIRES: And what type? MR. SCOFIELD: I hold a state 'general contractor's license, Class A certified general contractor's license, and I had a marine contractor's license in addition to that when I was in business doing marine construction. MR. PIRES: Do you have .- do you have a marine contractor's license today? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I do not. MR. PIRES: I have no further questions of Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Mr. Scofield as an expert witness in boat dock permitting and construction. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, before the vote, if I just may object for the record, since I don't believe a proper predicate has been made to establish Mr. Scofield's an expert in that area and object for the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes, I'd like to ask Mr. Scofield one question. How many years have you been doing this? MR. SCOFIELD: I started in marine construction in 1975 full time. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got one follow-up. Have you been qualified as an expert before this Planning Commission in the past? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, several times, quite a few times. MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you been qualified as an expert in front of other local government bodies as an expert? MR. SCOFIELD: The Board of Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about the Marco Island Planning Advisory Board? Page 19 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: The Marco--yes, absolutely. Yeah, I may add one thing. I mean -- well, that's -- we've probably heard enough, but I've -- I am recognized. My family's been in this town, my father was in the dredging business, dredged most of the waterfront communities. I've been in this business a long, long time. I became a consultant 11 years ago when I closed down my marine construction company. I do not hold a marine contractor's license now today because I don't need to. Once I qualified and took my state general contractor's Class A license, you do not need a marine contractor's license any more. You -- you can do marine construction under that. I am recognized all over this county and in Lee County as an expert. A member of Mr. Pires' law firm has hired me to do a boat dock extension and variance and submerged land lease on Marco Island for his private boat dock. So I think I'm recognized pretty much everywhere in this county as an expert. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Just for the record, once again -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One last time. MR. PIRES: Once again, continuing objection to the record for him being qualified as an expert in any particular form or fashion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. So noted. All in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carries. MR. YOVANOVICH: With that, Mr. Chairman, basically -- where did Rocky go? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: He just left the building. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here he is. MR. SCOFIELD: I just had to get a drink of water. Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: My -- my expert left. Without -- without rehashing the entire petition again, the -- you had asked a very specific question as to where we are today as to why -- and Rocky will get into the details, why are we now in front of you with a request -- or actually, we are willing to reduce the request from an originally 61-foot request to 54 feet because there -- there are many ways of measuring water depth. Page 20 Some JAN ~ 3 ~001 November 2, 2000 are more precise than others. Subsequent to the hearing that we had last time with everybody saying to you, the water depth isn't what it is, we went and had a professional survey done where they -- and that's not typical in your boat dock petitions. Typically you go forward and you -- you use another method of measuring water depth. There's a margin of error there. We did determine that once you get 40 feet out, and Rocky will tell us this, once you get 40 feet out from the water -- there's -- he was off by six inches. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' I was just going to say, shouldn't he be giving this testimony? MR. YOVANOVICH.' Well, he will be. He will be. Just give me one more second. But I want you to know that the reduction does not come without a compromise to the environment, and that compromise is, in order to move the dock in, you have to do more trimming of the mangroves, so our -- I'm trying to -- why our original request was for 61 feet was to avoid trimming mangroves to the greatest extent possible. So that -- from the perspective of trying to initially explain the difference, Mr. Scofield will go into the details. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner, John and Olga landimarino. I just wanted to say first off, I too have read all the letters given by the concerned people in Vanderbilt Beach, and after reading all the letters, I'm more convinced than ever that there's a huge misunderstanding. They all relate to a dock protruding 60 feet into the waterway. This is simply not -- it's not what's proposed. As -- I'll get Ross' little sketch back here, but I'll also hand out some new drawings. We had -- Tony Trigo and Associates -- thank you. Tony Trigo and Associates was hired by the owner to do water depths. I specifically gave them instructions to go out far enough, because there is a sandbar in the lagoon and that's what most of these people are concerned about, and understandably so. There is a sandbar out there. I made a comment last time that we have -- we had about 100 feet from the end of our proposed dock out is -- and I will give you the water depths. They're posted on this -- the big poster on the board, but I'll put it on the overhead here for you. We reduced the dock because once you get about 4 ~_1.~/~:L~ Page 2t JAN 2 3 2001 /¢,2. November 2, 2000 out, my measurements were almost, within a few inches, the same as the professional surveyor. There was a difference when you get out around 40 feet of a half a foot. This half a foot allowed us to move the boat in closer to the bank a little bit for the stern -- Tony, I've got handouts here if you want them. Okay. I will also enter into the record the registered surveys. I'll give you a registered one. There's -- when we get the survey, we're allowed to -- you know, it showed us I could move the boat in. The bow of the boat -- we were going to trim a few feet of the -; the mangroves overhang quite a -- quite a ways onto the lot, and I'll show you that right here. Is that readable? I can't see. It is? Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you sharpen that up a little bit? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We've got a handout here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, that will really make it sharp. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Speak for yourself. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Back it out, please. Back it out a little more. Okay. That's good. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a quick question, Rocky. You're talking about trimming mangroves? This is -- this has already been approved as part of this? I mean, you can do that? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. Mangrove trimming is permittable (sic), absolutely, especially from the DEP, when mangroves hang out over the water and if they interfere with the footprint of the dock, you can trim those mangroves back. The original application, we were going to trim a few feet of mangroves. We're going to trim about eight feet of mangroves back on the overhang right now. If you look at this drawing -- if you look at this drawing, you see this squiggly line here? That's -- that's the mangrove drip line. Drip line means -- that means where they overhang and the mangroves come out. This is the seawall back here. Now, this seawall is set back -- Ross showed you on his drawing. Now, this is a survey drawing right here. The property line is nineteen and a half feet out on -- on the east side. On the west side, the property line is 23 and a half feet out. That's how far back the seawall is set. Where the dock is going, this number right here is 21 feet, okay? Ross was off by a foot when Mr. Abernathy asked the question of how far out are you from the property line. I/~~.. Page 22 .IAN 2 3 2001 P~,.~ November 2, 2000 21 feet from the seawall to the property line, then we go out another 33 feet to attain the 54 feet that's required. So if we were here under the old code, we would be here today in front of you asking for a 13 foot boat dock extension. That is it. Now, when we protrude out in the waterway, some of the letters I read said, you know, we don't object to 40 feet. Well, we're asking basically for 34 feet here today from the property line and we're -- you know, where the other line is, I showed you on the other drawing. So that's basically what we're asking for. The water depths -- and I'll hand that out to you. These are the water depths. It may be a little bit hard to read on there. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. Is there a way that we can see on these videos here or on these televisions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess I would ask someone from staff if they could work on those two TV's?. MR. GOCHENAUR: I've been over there asking them to turn them on, and also the monitor on the podium's not on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. They're working on it. MR. SCOFIELD: How did that get on there? Okay. This is a little bit larger version of what you have. On your handouts, the water depths shown -- the end of the proposed dock -- first of all, the dock -- the dock, the way it's proposed, there was concerns about, well, they're going to tie up a dock (sic) on the end of this boat (sic). You can't. This is a U-shaped dock facing out. It's a slip coming in, bow in. Where the bow of this boat comes in, it's going to be in about 2.3 feet of water, maybe a foot and a half on a -- on lower than normal tides. The end of the dock -- the end of the dock is out -- is out where it shows it, and that is around five feet of water. Now, for 80 feet out on the big map and the one in front of you, for 80 feet out, there is up to five feet, and at the end of the 80 feet is where the bottom starts to turn coming towards the sandbar. When you hit 100 feet out from the end of the proposed dock, you're coming up on the sandbar. There's three feet of water -- there's three to three -- between three and 3.7 feet of water at 100 feet out. That's where you're starting to get up on the sandbar, and if you've got a lower than normal tide, that's where you're gonna hit it, but for 80 feet out, there is plenty oF~0^n~ Page 23 JAN 2 3 200 November 2, 2000 adequate water, which is a lot wider width than in a normal canal between docks and boats in Vanderbilt Beach. So the navigation is not a problem getting around this dock. One other thing right now that -- that I'll bring up and -- is concerns of dredging. I've been involved in a lot of dredging projects and I had extensive talks with DEP over this project. I sent them all -- this. project is permitted by the DEP. I have the DEP permits in hand for the 60-foot dock. That's not what we're proposing today. The owner has agreed, at my insistence, that we bring this down to 54 feet, which we can do, and still moor his boat adequately. The dredging issue on this, I got a letter, and I can enter it into the record here today, from -- from Mark Miller, DEP, and the letter states the criteria given for dredging in these single family lots, and there's a whole big list of criteria. The bottom line on that is though, they look at the mangroves, they look at the bottom, they look at the whole picture and if you can offset that dredging by moving a dock out or getting into deeper water that does not obstruct navigation -- now, if we were sticking out in the channel and obstructing navigation, then we would have a point on which to go to the DEP and say, look, we can't obstruct the traffic, we need to dredge and come in. They are very reluctant to give dredging permits on single family lots where you're dredging in a single area, creating a hole. On larger projects, they do that, and there are larger projects in this lagoon that are going to require dredging and they permit that. They do not like them on single family lots. After all the information I sent, Mr. -- excuse me, I'm getting a little dry here, Mr. Miller said that, Rocky, it's unlikely -- we permitted this job, it's very unlikely we would issue a permit to dredge here based on the conditions of this lot. Now, I have pictures here that I'll enter into the record, and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner's representative? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I would like to ask Rocky a couple. Is there a boat? Is there a boat, a particular boat owned by this owner who is going to build a house on this lot at this time? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. A~AI'r~. Page 24 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He doesn't own a boat? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. The dock we're proposing that's up on the screen right now-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: - that is a slip that allows for a 30-foot boat. Now -- and that is it. If this -- if this is granted, that means -- that's the cutoff. The end of his dock is the cutoff. Nothing can protrude out there. We do not have a dock where a lot of the other docks are that you can tie up outside of that and extend on out. We cannot do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But there is no current boat in existence? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. I would say most of the boat dock petitions and ones that I permit, the owners do not have a boat. I do this because they want to get the dock built first, then they can decide what kind of boat they can have to fit the dock. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They've got to build a house somewhere along the line. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, and I understand that. They can't build a dock until a house has started being built. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I have a great problem with permitting docks on vacant lots. That just -- somehow that's anticipating a problem that may never exist. The guy could come along and buy a pontoon boat. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, but Commissioner Abernathy, they can build a dock, but they cannot get a certificate of occupancy until they get a CO on the house, which means the house has got to be fit for occupancy. MR. SCOFIELD: They can't even -- you're not here issuing a permit today. That was your words just a minute ago. You're here -- this is a boat dock extension. Permits have to be pulled after the house has been permitted. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I understand that. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Rocky, are there any existing docks in that neighborhood that might have boats that stick out beyond where they should? That's hard to tell? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I can, you know --yes, I mean, of course there are. The whole thing here is, my client to~ay, ~e~r~ Page 25 ~ JAN23 2001 November 2, 2000 go back to the -- oh, this one right here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy, there's a picture here that may show an answer to your question. MR. SCOFIELD: To -- to answer it real quick, this gentleman, under the old rule, could come in here to the property line, which the neighbor was permitted to do, build a 20-foot dock and never be here today. He could go in, just pull a building permit, come out 20 feet. Now, if he wanted to put a boat in front of that dock, he couldn't do it legally unless he came here and got an extension. If he had a 20-foot dock out from the property line and wanted to put a lift out there, lifts are 13 feet. That's exactly what we're here asking for today. So the gentleman could have had a 20- foot dock sitting there and all of a sudden, if he'd have had a boat in front of that -- there's a lot of other cases, many in this area, where they have 20-foot docks around and boats are parked out in front and there's been -- but if the neighbor complains and they're not -- they don't have an extension, then they've got to come get one, and that's all we're asking here today is a 20-foot dock out from the property line and then 13 feet additional. If it was alongside, that's the same width for a boat dock -- for a lift and a dock -- excuse me, a boat lift and a boat. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But you're asking permission ahead of time as opposed to waiting on the neighbor to turn you in to get the -- the variance? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, with this dock configuration, we have to be here today. Yes, but the code has changed, so now we have to come all the way back from the seawall. We can't go from the property line. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. I understand. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: diagram that shows -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pull it up just a little. MR. SCOFIELD: Slide it up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a representation there that -- well, I can't tell what the difference is -- Going back to Ross' rough MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I can explain this to you. _ COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you quantify th; Page 26 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: Sure. Okay. This--this is not to scale. This was turned in a while ago. As a matter of fact, this dock here on the neighbor to the west, is not the dock configuration that exists there today. And -- and also, that scale is wrong. This dock is 46 feet out from the seaWall. This gentleman's property is 25 feet back from the property line. His seawall is 25 feet back. We are -- in the middle of our property, we're 21 feet back, so if we were allowed to build a dock extending out 54 feet here, we would actually be 12 feet past this gentleman's dock today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the -- MR. SCOFIELD: And -- go ahead, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The objectionable protrusion, if there is one, insofar as sight lines are concerned, is the 12 feet that we're talking about? People already have an impediment to seeing on the basis of the neighboring docks. So you're talking 12 more feet, is that -- that's the sum of the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: At 54? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. This -- you can see by the water depths we showed you, this is a very shallow area, and being notched in, this area is prone to filling, especially with mangroves in there, sediment is trapped and it's shallow. The gentleman to the east, I've spoken with -- at low tides, he can't get his boat on and off his lift a lot of the times and he's out, you know -- he's out 38 feet. Now, he can tie up in front of his dock until the tide comes up and then he gets his boat lift on, but, you know -- and I don't think there's any objection to that, and we're only -- if a boat's tied up in front of this dock here, we're only going to be out a few feet -- a couple of feet further than that, so -- I'm sorry. Anyway, that's -- the configuration of this dock, we're bringing the bow in. We're trimming the mangroves back about eight feet. We're bringing the deck (sic) in, the bow of the boat comes in to about two, 2.3 feet of water at normal low tide. The stern of the boat is out where we have adequate water depth, and we're not worried about the filling in for years to come because we still have about four and a half to five feet of water where the motors are, and this dock configuration that we're proposing is 26 feet away from the neighbors. It's centered in the lot and it will not cause any problems for access in an(~r~-~. Page 27 JAN 2 3 2001 _ November 2, 2000 to the neighbors, and that's why we designed it this way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any final questions of the petitioner? With that, does anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have the following registered speakers; Tony Pires, B.J. Savard-Boyer. Go ahead. I won't read them all off, Tony. Susan Burkhard. And I'll read the rest of them later. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, before Tony goes, I just Want to make sure that staff is automatically qualified as experts, or do I have to qualify staff as an expert? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe they're already that. Is that the case? Yes. Mr. Pires, would you tell us, for the record, who you represent today? I assume you're not here personally. MR. PIRES: No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anthony Pires of the Law Firm Woodward, Pires and Lombardo representing a number of the property owners in the Vanderbilt Beach area, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer, Mr. and Mrs. Burkhard, Mr. Schaetzel, Mrs. Strasser, and there are a number of other individuals who are here that may be assisting in contributing to, you know, paying for my time to be here today that I've not had any communications with, but there also are a number of individuals that -- in the area that wish to speak on behalf of themselves and the community as a whole, and from that perspective, as Rich has indicated, we introduced a part of the transcript. And as I mentioned to you before, the reason why I filed the appeal is because the community had been told this case would be reheard, then they were told at the last minute, last Thursday, it was not going to be reheard and we filed the appeal, but it is being heard today. We thank you for that. To the extent that -- what I find interesting is that I think Mr. Yovanovich's objection becomes moot if he's now asking for a revised application and submitting new evidence, I think, to this board; therefore, he's waived any opportunity, any objection he has to going forward. As I understand it also, the materials that you received today were materials that I just received today and I don't know if the staff has yet even received this new material subm ~ Mr. Scofield in the form of the depths that were certified Page 28 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 Trigo as of October 28th, as well as this new sketch which is dated October 28th, I believe. So I just want to make that note for the record, that I don't know if your staff has even analyzed it yet. MS. STUDENT: Mr. - Mr. Chair, could Mr. Pires allude -- he stated that -- he listed names of individuals that he represented and others, but I just want it clear for the record who -- you know, who he does represent for standing purposes, and if other people come up just on their own, that's fine, they have their own standing that way, but if Tony's speaking for some that don't and then -- MR. PIRES: Well, they will -- Marjorie, thank you for that, but my clients will also be here because they have additional fact- based testimony to provide. They are here to testify also. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just before we move on so that I'm paying attention when it's important, Mr. Pires, do you represent any of the -- any of the immediate neighbors that their view is an issue? Because the people that live three streets away certainly can't -- you know, I can't imagine that their view is going to be obstructed, so I need to know the folks that you represent that truly their view is -- is an issue. MR. PIRES: Well, we have Mr. Schaetzel and the Strassers. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And where do they live in relation to this property? MR. PIRES: Mr. Schaetzel is lot seven. This is lot nine. I have a plat also that I'd like to make part of the record. It's a property appraiser's map. The one in red, lot nine, is the subject property. Lot seven is Mr. Schaetzel, and he's also here to testify as to fact-based testimony. If you recall last time, he's the one that said, I have a 27-foot long boat. My dock is out -- about 37 feet out or 40 feet out, I have plenty of water, if you recall that testimony. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Tony, what lot is Strasser? MR. PIRES: I can get that information in just a moment, if I may. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: MR. PIRES: Lot 26. She's 26. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. across the street, I believe. Lot Thank you. Page 29 AGENDA iTEM JAN 2 3 2001 , November 2, 2000 feet out. MR. PIRES: They have standing by virtue of the requirements and provisions of the land development code with regards to notice issues in this particular case. The other yellow here, that's the -- another project that you all had the pleasure of reviewing earlier this year. With regards to this particular petition, we don't believe that any of the criteria have been achieved, and in fact, this petition is premature. I think Mr. Abernathy asked a good question, what boat is involved. And I think it's important because when you go through the criteria in the land development code, section 2.6.21.3.2 states as one the criteria, whether or not the water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located is sufficient to allow for safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request. And my query is, there is no vessel involved. How do we -- how can you even begin to determine whether or not the water depth where the dock facility is located is sufficient to allow safe mooring of a hypothetical vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request? So we don't believe that analysis is even possible without knowing what type of make, model, draft of vessel is involved. Additionally, section 2.6.21.3.5 outlines another criteria, whether or not there are special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the subject dock. Again, an analysis of that criteria, we do not believe, is possible without knowing what type of make, model of vessel is involved. Furthermore, we think the application has some other issues with regards to its inaccuracies or deficiencies. Paragraph two of the application asks the question consistent with the criteria I just articulated. Question -- and in fact, this is the application and petition in this matter. Is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without the use of a dock facility extension request, and Mr. Scofield's answer was no. This area is very shallow. Not just shallow, very shallow, coupled with a mangrove shoreline, which dictates a need for an extension. Yet we see by virtue of the -- and you'll hear additional testimony, I think, to corroborate and substantiate it, that depth of about three feet of water is achieved at about 35 AGENDA'~ Page 30 JAN 2 3 2001 P,. Iii _ November 2, 2000 In fact, at 40 feet out, you're at four feet. Forty feet out from the seawall line. I'm not talking 40 feet out from the property line. Forty feet out from the seawall line. When you get to the 54-foot dimension from the seawall, and this is this particular sketch -- or sounding. I think it was all handed to you. That particular material -- gremlins. That particular document shows that a water depth of 5.6 feet approximately or five and a half feet is achieved at the 54-foot depth. So I mean, we're -- there's four feet of water at less than 40 feet out from the seawall, which would -- which, in this case, would show plenty of depth to moor any vessel. In fact, the proposed 54-foot length -- I'm not sure what's wrong with this particular -- this is the national -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think we're having technical difficulties here. MR. PIRES: There we go. This dimension is approximately -- is 54 feet, and that's 5.6 feet right there of water depth. This is four feet of water depth and it's achieved at that point. So the question is, what type of vessel thereby necessitates this dock extension request. We've heard the answer, there is no vessel involved. So I think it's premature and it's speculative, and also the answer to the question provided in the application as to very shallow, I think is incorrect. The question was, is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without use of a dock facility extension request, and the answer was no. I think the answer is yes. Additionally, the application indicates that the width of the waterway is 900 feet. I think in reality what you heard from Mr. Scofield, based upon the soundings, that the water depth starts to become more shallow when you're 100 feet out. I think he indicated that when you're 100 feet out, the water depth drops down to 3.3 feet. Therefore, you have a channel that runs off of this lot that's 100 feet from the seawall. That's the distance that should be utilized as opposed to 900 feet, and that, again, is, I think, inappropriate as to the 900-foot width. It implies a larger waterway than what we have here. Therefore, the 100-foot wide waterway, we have more of an issue with regards to navigation. The sketch that was utilized by Mr. Gochenaur and furthermore was used at the last hearing which shows the relative location of other docks in the area shows that a ine~t~W~E~ Page 31 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 been pretty much established that's 20 feet out from the property line, and at 20 feet out from the property line, in this particular case, more than adequate depth is achieved, and those dock facilities are all right. In fact, you'll hear Mr. Schaetzel testify. He testified last time. He's here again today. He said, my dock goes out from that original seawall line 20 feet, and that's all 20 feet from the property line. I have a 27-foot boat docked in there on a lift. My water lines are exactly the same as he shows in the drawing. I have had that -- my dock in there for ten years. I have no problem with the water line or the water level; therefore, there is no need to go out beyond 20 feet from the property line. Again, this is the blowup sketch. Now it's 54 feet today versus 61 or 57. This is the property line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Upside down. MR. PIRES: Thank you. This is the property line. This dock goes out 20 feet, which is on lot ten. This dock on lot eight goes to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you slide it up a little? MR. PIRES: The dock on lot ten goes out 20 feet from the lot line. MR. SCOFIELD: Twenty-one. MR. PIRES: Twenty-one feet, excuse me. The dock on lot eight goes out approximately 20 feet from the lot line. The dock on lot seven goes out approximately 20 feet from the lot line. This request is for 34 feet from the lot line without any indication or showing of any need to do so. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry?. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said -- the gentleman you were quoting about his 20-foot dock, does he have the same configuration? MR. PIRES: That's Mr. Schaetzel? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Schaetzel. MR. PIRES: And he is at lot eight. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What type of dock configuration does he have, same type of thing? MR. PIRES: I think his is a bit different configuration where his vessel is parallel to the shore, the hoist is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And if you add the width o~ hi~^,, -' i.JAN 2 3 2001 Page 32 November 2, 2000 boat to his dock, how far out are you, because that's really the question? MR. PIRES: He's not on the outside, he's on the inside. .COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: He's on the inside? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. And in this particular case, you have a walkway that I think is interesting from the standpoint of what the applicant's requesting here that he -- as he had testified to today, you can trim the mangroves back eight feet. So he trims those back eight feet, move that dock facility an additional eight feet. There is also this interesting aspect of the configuration, !'11 call like a modified V, where that can be pushed in closer and gain an additional five or six or so feet, thereby eliminating the need to go out to the 54 feet. Twenty feet out from the property line, from our perspective, would be appropriate, which would be a boat dock extension request of about 42 feet total, as I understand it from talking to -- from hearing Rocky's testimony because the seawall sort of goes off at an angle, but 54 feet is excessive especially when you don't have a boat, the water depths are sufficient and you have, therefore, no showing of need or necessity. Based on -- you will hear additional fact-based testimony, and what we request that the Planning Commission do today is not grant the request for 54 feet. We request to come out 20 feet from the property line consistent with what exists out there today, which achieves -- is able to achieve water depths of about five feet in depth, based upon his own soundings. More than adequate to safely moor a vessel of 30 feet, hypothetical vessel. If it was a pontoon boat, it could be much closer, and once again, that's another issue with regards to this, but we were just provided this information today. You'll hear testimony from the neighbors again with regards to the issue of navigation, that you are now establishing a new line for no reason. There's nothing showing any necessity for this dock to go out 54 feet from the seawall. You have a line that's pretty much been established 20 feet out from the property line. That is what is appropriate in this particular instance, and we ask for your favorable consideration of that. Thank you. uestions COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Pires, I've got some for you. I hate to be a pain in the neck, but the -- it ju: Page 33 S ~TEM JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 logical to me, are you a marine consultant? MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Are you a marine surveyor? A naval architect? A general contractor?. A marine contractor?. But yet we have an expert witness who says that this will fit, but having none of the criteria, none of the qualifications, you're saying he's wrong. I'm inclined to not believe you. MR. PIRES: That's my argument and you'll hear fact-based testimony from the neighbors that indicate that they have vessels that are in that area that fit, that the docks fit within that basically 20-foot line coming from the property line. And once again, the fundamental problem we believe with this application is that they're asking you to speculate that there is a need for particular water depths to be achieved without having a boat dock. There's plenty of water going out a distance of 20 feet from the property line. That's based upon the soundings of Mr. Trigo's firm. That's not my testimony. That's the testimony from that particular document. And you'll hear the neighbors talk about how they get their boat up in that area. They can bring their boat in to where those mangroves are at low tide and still have plenty of water under their boat. And so that's what you're going to hear. Once again, I'm not an expert. I don't believe he's an expert. An expert in permitting and construction, but he's not an expert in those other areas. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Pires, I have a question also. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: You're saying that the neighbors would be satisfied with the dock only going out 20 feet. Would it be the same configuration of the dock or would you -- would they want that dock changed? MR. PIRES: I believe that the configuration could w you move the dock in, based upon the depths and the so JAN 2 3 2001 Page 34 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Well, if it only goes 40 feet from the existing seawall, you've got a four foot eight inch, if I read this right, correct, depth? But if a boat is, let's say, 30 feet long or if a boat is ten feet long and we go to the 30-foot marker, then we're at only 2.2 feet, so if you have a 30-foot boat, you're going to be sticking out 20 feet from the back of this dock. MR. PIRES: If they move -- if they configure this and they can push this in so as to be within that particular line, if they push it in -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But there's not enough depth once you get past that 40-foot mark. When you get to the 30 foot out from the dock -- from the seawall, then you've only got two feet, two inches. Now, I've had boats and I know that they don't -- a 26-foot boat may have a two and a half foot draft or a three- foot draft, but a 30-foot boat may have a four-foot draft. You don't know, depending on the manufacturer of the boat you buy. MR. PIRES: Absolutely, and that's one of the reasons why this petition is premature. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I would rather -- truthfully, if I was building one, I'd want it to be something that if I want to buy that particular boat, I can, because I have the room to put it in there. MR. PIRES: But also I think you'll hear and I think you'll recognize that the draft is generally measured from the stern, not from the bow, and the bow, the depths are achieved -- and this is at low tide, are achieved -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I've always measured my draft from midship where a keel would be. MR. PIRES: At this particular point, if you move into the -- a three foot depth is achieved at about the 30-foot contour, just past that 30 feet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: More as a comment than a question. Quite a few of these letters, and I don't know where these folks live, there's a couple of quotes in here about we all have trouble at low tide, and I certainly don't know what that means, whether it's occasionally or every time they come in to -- like I said, I make that as a comment on the attitudes for some of these letters. It sounds like they would like to have a longer dock. MR. PIRES: I can't -- once again, I can't speak -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm making that as a comment; Page 35 AGENDA ITE.I~ JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 MR. PIRES: I understand. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And one other question. I don't know if you can answer it. Is that sandbar marked in any way or is it just -- you have to have local knowledge? MR. PIRES-' I think local knowledge, but once again, the neighbors can testify as to that. Thank you. MR. NINO: B.J. Savard-Boyer. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions of Mr. Pires? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have one question. Would you try to clarify for me why you think it's necessary that a person who has purchased a vacant lot, is attempting to get a building permit and a dock extension permit, why we would -- or you, I guess, would require him to purchase his boat before he comes in and gets a dock extension or a permit to actually do this? Somehow this seems like you've got the cart before the horse. Why do you really feel, Mr. Pires, that we, as a group here, should have to require someone to own the boat before they actually build the dock? Because I think any reasonable person would buy a boat that fits what is able to go in that set of waters. MR. PIRES: In the land development code, in the area dealing with dock facilities, states in section 2.6.21.3.2, the following is one of the criteria, whether or not the water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located is sufficient to allow for safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request. There's no way to know what the water depths -- if they're sufficient for safe mooring of a vessel unless you know what type of vessel is involved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you not know which range of vessel? Now, the vessel doesn't say that the land development code requires them to purchase it, but the vessel would be within a range and you would not purchase -- you would not purchase a boat that did not fit within the range that you could safely moor at that particular dock at that water depth. MR. PIRES: Once again, I think the criteria is such that you need to show what vessel, to show what is the necessity, and if they were to give a make, model and type, that we are buying this and this is what we are going to put there, perhaps that would help. But again, this is just pure speculation, and I~lng Ac~c interestingly enough, the application indicated a 30-foot -[1' ~ ! ~/f~ Page 36 {~_ JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 vessel. During the course of the hearing last time, and it's in the transcript in response to questions by Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Scofield changed that to a 26-foot long vessel, and today he's going back to 30 feet, so I'm not sure. We're having changes as to dock length and changes as to vessel and that gets back to why it's important to know what the boat is that's involved to be able to know how much water it draws, where can it be safely moored. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And from my viewpoint, I guess I would say that that puts back to my concept of a range of a boat that could fit in that area. MR. PINES: Yeah, and once again, he hasn't testified -- he doesn't even know what the depths are for the types -- and he hasn't identified a range of boats either, other than 30 foot. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My -- my take when I read that is, the boat is subjective and it's the boat that I want to buy to put there. It's not the boat that I own. It's the boat that I want to buy to put there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is my interpretation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: My personal feelings, the boat at this point is irrelevant, but any further questions of Mr. Pires? If not, as non calls your name, if you would come to the podium over here on the right. I do thank you. You've been very professional and quiet. Now is your opportunity to speak. When you come up, because it's been a long morning, I'm going to ask you if you've been sworn in and then to give and spell your name for the reporter. MR. PINES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just briefly for the record, before they come up, if I can introduce for the record the fact that there are no building permits for this property. I think that was indicated before, but just -- I have a letter from staff, Johnnie Gebhardt, customer service supervisor, that the only permit for this property is a seawall permit from 1996. And furthermore, if I could introduce into the record a copy of a printout from the property appraiser's office indicating names and addresses of' various property owners in the area. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. non? NINO: Yes, Susan (sic) Savard-Boyer, Susa.n B~ MR. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name Is !~.J.~--/~ MS. Page 37 I JAN 2 November 2, 2000 Savard-Boyer, S-A-V-A-R-D, hyphen, B-O-Y-E-R. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, I have been sworn in. Tony asked me just to go over what I said last time, and basically what I said last time was that I heard about this dock proposal from an out-of-town neighbor and I printed up petitions and my neighbor and I -- my other neighbor and I went around and distributed it to the neighbors, specifically on Oak Avenue, because they would be the ones most impacted. One other thing I would like to say, at the last meeting, the reference to the neighbor immediately to the east of the proposed dock, the Links, Mr. Pires is not aware of who have -- who has contributed to us hiring him, and the Links have contributed. So I would say that since they are right next door, they certainly are helping us for this. Also, I'd like to say that I have, indeed, talked to Mark Miller at the DEP. He specifically told me that he does not -- or did not oppose dredging. He discourages it, but he did not oppose it. I have a couple pictures, and I'm only going to take a minute. This particular picture is taken from Mr. Link's dock, to the east of Mr. Link's dock and it shows where Mr. Link's dock goes out. It shows also mangroves that have been trimmed down a little bit. The mangroves in the distance are the ones on the proposed dock. So if the ones in the -- in the background can be trimmed down as Mr. Link's have been trimmed down, I don't see that there's any property (sic) with environmental concern. I don't think they have to be high to be purposeful. The other photo that I have is taken from the very end of the canal and it pretty much shows how all of the docks go out a specific distance. The one -- the boat that you see all the way -- way back here is tied outside of the dock, but it's not always there. I mean, it comes and goes, so I don't know how you can take that as a, you know, a point of reference. The dock that is on the west side of the proposed dock, you can see -- well, it's a very dark picture, but there are mangroves here. Their walkway goes out. Their dock extends out 20 feet from the property line or 40 feet or 41 feet from the seawall. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Which one is that again? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: This is the property to the west. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: To the west? Page 38 JAN 2 3 200{ November 2, 2000 MS. SAVARD-BOYER-' On the west side. The other one, Links', is the property immediately on the east side. COMMISSIONER PEDONE-- Do we know what size boat that is? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Looks like about an 18 footer. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: If we're looking west from Mr. Schaetzel's dock, and he is the third property -- the -- next to Link's, you can see where all of the docks go out the same from the seawall. I don't feel that it's necessary for them to go out another 13 feet, 14 feet. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Ma'am, you have to leave those photographs here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker? MS. BURKHARD: Hi. My name is Susan Burkhard and I live at 283 Oak Avenue. Also, I own a boat and -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. BURKHARD: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. BURKHARD: I want to be -- I want to show you some pictures of the boat that we used coming up into the mangroves of the property where the proposed dock would be. But before I do that, I'd like to make part of the record all of the photos and the documents and the letters from the October 5th, 2000, hearing so that you don't have -- we don't have to repeat and we can try not to repeat. We -- my brother and I went out and measured the depth of the water at low tide using a tide chart telling us when the low tide would be, and so we were out at about seven o'clock or 6:45 at night on the 26th, Thursday, and we were taking pictures and measuring the water. And how we measured the water is, we have a pole that's probably about six feet tall and it's got markings on it, like three feet, three and a half feet, four, four and a half, whatever. So it's a constant piece of measuring equipment. We came into the mangroves. I have -- my husband and I have a 23 and a half foot deep-V Maxum boat which draws a draft of about three feet, three feet when you have the outdrive down. I checked with the people at Wiggins Pass Marina and pu~' Page 39 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 question to the dockmaster there, if you have between a 26 and 30-foot boat, what would the normal draft be, and he indicated that it would be approximately two and a half to three foot draft. A boat that may be docked at that boat -- at that lot -- I want you to keep in mind that, first of all, that lot is for sale, so who knows who is going to be actually living there. It is for sale. We don't know who will eventually use that dock, but the person who has the petition for the dock owns this vessel, and on the information for this vessel, it indicates that it has a 12 inch draft, Very shallow draft because it's a catamaran, and it happened -- this particular boat happened to belong to Mr. Link who has the boat dock adjacent to the dock in question. He had no problem getting the boat in and out, and I would like to comment on low tide and how do we get our boats in and out and all that sort of thing. As I said, we have a 23 and a half foot deep-V Maxum boat. In very low tide at my dock, I have to be careful to get the boat out not at the lowest tide because of the way the lift is -- is constructed. We had a dock that was already built so we put a lift on the side of it. That means that we back our boat into that lift and we come within about a foot of the seawall with the outdrive, and we're able to manage this. This is in -- you know, this is part of the deal with this area. We all knew when we bought that this is not a deep area -- water area. It's not like Royal Harbor. There are restrictions that are made that you cannot -- you should not *be trying to get through Wiggins Pass if you have a draft of more than three feet. In fact, they really discourage, you know, right at three feet. And -- and the pass is shifting. They dredge it periodically. We run aground, but it's sandy. We deal with it. But to put a boat in there, in through that Wiggins Pass to get back into the area where this dock is, you cannot reasonably have a boat, I don't care what length it is, with a draft more than three feet and make it work. So I want to show you a picture of us with this 23 and a half foot deep-V hull pulled up right into the mangroves where the proposed walkway would come from the seawall out and attach to the rest of the dock. As you can see, I'm standing there measuring the water. We have the outdrive down. That means I've got three and a half foot draft -- or three feet, one Page 40 November 2, 2000 and I'm running the motor and we're not touching bottom. I put the pole down at another time when we went over there. This didn't happen to be the lowest tide, and I found that there was actually five feet of water from the surface to the bottom of the lagoon. As you can see here, I'm holding that instrument that we used for measurement. I'm five something feet tall and my hand is exactly where the water depth is. Therefore, I'm saying that at that time of the day, there was five plus feet of water available. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am? Ma'am? Can I just clear something? Are you disputing what we got today? MS. BURKHARD: I'm saying that -- that this gentleman, if-- if he puts a dock out, he has adequate water if he stays just 20 -- 20 feet from the platted line. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But you're not disputing the survey that they gave us today in terms of water depth? MS. BURKHARD: I couldn't see it because it wasn't on the monitor near me, so I'm at a disadvantage to what today's info was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. So you're not agreeing or disagreeing with what we were -- MS. BURKHARD: No, I'm just making a fact. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. You're presenting facts and showing us very clearly with your poles~and all. Are you an expert at -- on surveying? MS. BURKHARD: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MS. BURKHARD: But I -- I feel that that measurement device that I have is quite adequate. And in fact, if you'd like to see it, I have it in the car. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. I'm familiar with that type of thing. How many times did you actually take a depth, one, two, three -- MS. BURKHARD: Three times. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Three times in a -- MS. BURKHARD: At different times of the day. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Across a period of-- I mean, you can stick a pole down and find yo.u. rself at five feet and the~ know, s,x inches over, you could f, nd yourself at four, Page 41 ! JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 on what the bottom is. MS. BURKHARD: Well, I can tell you what we did find, and the last time that we were out there -- like I say, we got the tide chart, so we knew when the lowest tide was and we measured at the lowest tide and found that bringing in this boat into the mangroves where this dock would come out from the seawall, they would have three and a half feet below the - the outdrive. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MS. BURKHARD: As far as how far out we are from the seawall to the mangroves, we're probably about ten feet, so we're nestled in there with our nose just approximately ten feet from the seawall, and we're not disturbing the mangroves because there is a natural break there and that's where they had planned on putting the proposed dock, at that natural breakpoint. We further -- other than, you know, measuring the depth there, what we did was, we took a ski rope, a tow rope. We measured it 61 feet. I stood on the seawall and my brother was in our boat and he drove the boat out 61 feet from the seawall so that people would get an idea of what it would look like with a dock and a boat lift at the end of the dock out that far, and we took a picture of that and you'll see it here. The tow rope -- the tow rope is here. It's a little hard to see, but if you were up close, you could see the plastic parts on the tow rope. But anyway, 61 feet, I'm standing on the seawall and my brother's got the boat out 61 feet from the seawall. So as you look at the back of the boat, that's what -- what everybody up and down this canal and everybody who uses this whole area is gonna see. That proposed dock, if it went out 61 feet, would be out into this area, well beyond anybody else. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Could you show us where 54 feet would be on that? MS. BURKHARD: I could only make a guess that it would probably be back about here. I didn't measure 54 because we've been working off of 61, but if -- you know, if I had had the opportunity, I would have measured 54 also. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But you had the opportunity to measure 57, which was what was approved since you were -- when you were here last. MS. BURKHARD: Well, it started -- no, well, I was under the understanding that this hearing was going -- I mean, the ,ast~^~ Page 42 JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 hearing was just kind of wiped out of the picture and that we were going back to ground zero with saying that the application was for a 61-foot dock, not a 57, so that's why I was working on 61 feet. When we were even with Mr. Link's dock at low tide, it measured four and a half feet. And once again, plenty of water for people to navigate, and I think the main thing here is that these -- we don't own -- I don't own that waterway. None of us own that waterway. Everybody in the State of Florida or wherever, who has a boat has every right to use that waterway, and I don't think it's fair to have one person obstruct the waterway for no reason at all when he could get his boat in in that 20-foot range. Bring him out to his property line, you know, assuming that -- bring the seawall out and come out 20 feet, stay out as far as the rest of the people and everything will be just wonderful. I mean, we'll live with it. If we don't -- if we let it come out farther and people are out driving around at night, like last night, there was a boat that passed my dock, no lights on it and people are used to a particular line and a particular channel, they're liable to be hitting this dock with a boat at the end of it because they are not expecting that there's going to be a jog in the waterway, a jog caused by a long dock coming out. That's -- that's really a concern, and you can light that thing or do whatever to try to mitigate it, but the fact of the matter is, it is an obstruction. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Ma'am -- and I appreciate your giving good testimony, but I must ask you to sum it up, please. MS. BURKHARD: Sum it up is, give him what everybody else has. That is, if the guy on one side's coming out 20 feet from the property line and he can manage, the guy on the other side of him's coming out 20 feet from the property line, he can manage, then why can't the guy in the middle? I don't see that the water depth is any different. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Terence Brown, Vincent Deluca, Roy Schaetzel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You can use either podium unless you've got displays. You can certainly use the one on the right. MR. BROWN: Commissioners, my name's Terry Brown, B-R-O-W-N. I've been sworn in and I'm the brother of Susan Burkhard. I -- I'm here on vacation and was hauled out ! Page 43 2001 November 2, 2000 some depth readings. I'm not an expert, just put the stick in the water. And I think you can see -- again, I'm the one standing at the back of that boat at 61 feet out. And there isn't that great of variance between one feet or two foot or on. It's usually ten foot, then you'll see a depth change of six inches or what have you, Again, I'm just a witness as to the depth and I think you've heard everything. It's pretty clear to me as a visitor and -- and listening to what you've heard as well, so I'm not going to take any more time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. DELUCA: Hello. My name is Vincent Deluca, D-E-L-U-C-A. I've been sworn in. I live at 467 Oak Avenue. I think I could answer Susan's question, okay, as to why the petitioner wants the additional footage where on both sides it's 20 feet, because the petitioner would like the commissioners to help them sell the property. That is the bottom line. It's a vacant piece of property. They would have a unique selling proposition. Listen, we've got a dock that extends 12 feet beyond -- it's that simple. You will become, if you approve this, part of a sales presentation. As a salesman, I can see this very clearly. Now, I have a three-foot ruler. I measured, just yesterday, my dock, my neighbor's dock, just to get a feel of what 30 feet is. My neighbor's dock is ten feet out. Triple that amount. And there seems to be an erosion, a degradation of what's going on in Naples and it bothers me. I've been here since 1966. We built our house in 1979 and an expert witness, as we all know, can present facts either way, pro or con, depending upon who pays him and what his motivation is. So I urge you, don't become part of a sales presentation for a vacant lot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker? No more speakers? MR. NINO: Zeffert after that -- after Schaetzel, and Ed Maguire. MR. SCHAETZEL: I'm Roy Schaetzel. I own a dock facility two lots east of the petitioner's property. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. Were you sworn in, MR. SCHAETZEL: I was sworn in. Page 44 AGENDA IT JAN 2 3 2001 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL: And I had testified last time. My dock facility is 33.3 feet in length. It extends 20 feet into the water -- waterway beyond my rear property line. I have used the facility for some ten years and I dock a vessel 20 foot -- feet in length on a lift there. I question -- I -- I realize I gave testimony before, but I'm trying to give you something new here. I question whether the petitioner meets all the requirements of the code. I've read the sections of the land development code involved in this petition for extension. A reasonable interpretation of the language of these sections gives rise to a clear intent on the part of the framers of the language to protect the navigable waters in Collier County and to limit any impact or extension -- any impact upon or extension into such waterways to the absolute minimum that is necessary to meet the safe mooring and vessel maintenance needs of any property owner. In pursuit of means which will preserve this intent, I believe that this commission is entitled to and should inquire into the type of vessel which is intended to be moored and the types of dock facility construction which are feasible. In particular, the commission cannot be limited to considering only the dock facility type proposed by the respective petitioning property owner. If I am correct concerning the purpose spelled out in the land development code, then I believe it is the plain duty of the Planning Commission to seek out that dock facility type which impacts the navigable waterway to the absolute minimum, and yet meets the mooring and maintenance needs of the petitioner. Mr. Scofield has presented the commission with one proposed dock facility. Should not the commission ask Mr. Scofield whether or not the petitioner's needs, as defined by the code, can be satisfied by a dock facility construction different from the one he has proposed, and in particular, by the type of dock facility construction used by the property owners on each side of the petitioner's land? I submit to this commission that under the latter dock construction, very little, if any, extension into the waterway will be necessary to meet not only the petitioner's mooring and maintenance needs, but also the governing purposes of t Page 45 JAN 2 3 2001 ,,.. November 2, 2000 development code and the reasonable desires of other property owners in the area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL'- And I am on lot seven. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Very good. Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL: I bring my boat in bow first and my construction is just like the one he proposes, *but I -- I really believe the commission has an obligation to put an absolute minimum impact on the waterway and you have an obligation to seek the type of construction that allows that, if it's feasible. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I could make this part of the record also, this document, which I think was part of the last hearing also. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker?. MR. MAGUIRE: Good morning. I'm Ed Maguire and I live at 480 Oak Avenue, which location is almost at the end of the canal. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And are you -- have you been sworn in? MR. MAGUIRE: And I have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. MAGUIRE: The end of the canal, as you can well imagine, is an area of probably the shallowest water available on the -- on the canal. And I would like to address, I guess, the need first, inasmuch that I've been in that location since 1975. I've run a number of different boats out of that -- out of my dock and started with a 20 foot, and most recently I was running a 26-foot John Oldfield modified V out there, inboard, not IO, and my dock is five foot off my seawall, and I was able to dock that -- that boat in and out. Now, at extreme low tide, I couldn't. I'd have to judge my timing coming in and out; however, I was able to manage with it, and the need, I would question at that rate. I was able to come in and out without hesitation most of the time when I wanted to. The other thing is, going in and out of that canal, typically I knew I had to pretty much hug the line along the seawall on the north end of the canal, o~ at least the dock lineage in order to avoid hitting that sandbar down as you enter the lagoon and this boat drew about two and a half, maybe 32 inchl Page 46 November 2, 2000 water, and if I didn't hug that side, I was in trouble. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question for Mr. Maguire, because I think he may know the answer to this. We were shown a picture earlier of a fairly large boat that was docked on the outside of a dock that I think is fairly close to your end of the canal and the lady said that that boat wasn't always there. MR. MAGUIRE: Right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Are you familiar with that boat? MR. MAGUIRE: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How -- about how wide of a beam would that boat have? MR. MAGUIRE: I believe that has about a 15-foot beam. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So they have a 20-foot dock? MR. MAGUIRE: I don't know what their dock is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is it about -- if the boat weren't there -- MR. MAGUIRE: I would say it is probably in that range, yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So if the boat weren't there, their dock is pretty much in line with everyone else's? MR. MAGUIRE: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Then you add 13 to 15 feet onto that, they're out 34 feet, which would put it exactly in line with what we're looking at here? MR. MAGUIRE-' That may well be. I tried to call that gentleman to see if he was gonna come to this meeting and he's not there now. He's in Japan, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess my question is -- and I don't know if anybody here can answer it -- is that a legal docking? MR. MAGUIRE: I can't tell you that. I don't know. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross, can you answer that? MR. GOCHENAUR: Excuse me, sir. No, it's not. The land development code says that a docking facility comprises the vessel and docking combination, so if you have a permitted 20- foot dock, you cannot legally moor any vessel outward of that 20 feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Without a variance, and we don't know whether he has a variance for that dock or not. MR. GOCHENAUR: We have no record of an extensi Page 47 .,,. JAN ;? 3 2001 November 2, 2000 that dock. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sure that gentleman will be glad we had this hearing. Any other speakers, Ron? Thank you. MR. NINO: No, I have no other -- Zeffert was on the list, but he didn't get up. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Gentlemen, you're approaching the nth hour for me. I will allow the petitioner to respond. MR. YOVANOVICH: Rocky's going to do the response. I just want to make sure that everything's part of the record, including the DEP letter that Rocky referred to. I want to make that part of the record. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, and I just want to confirm that all the photos, documents and materials from October 5th are going to be made part of the record because they've been discussed by the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may also -- the materials for our appeal, the whole package, we can make part of the record. Mr. Yovanovich's copy was merely excerpts from it. Rich, do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't care. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Just real -- in wrapping up here, I mean, we've heard a lot of things. I've got notes. I mean, there's been a lot of things that have been -- MR. NINO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Rocky, excuse me. Mr. Zeffert is in the audience. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry, did we miss a member of the public? MR. ZEFFERT: Well, I don't know how public I am. I live at 416 Oak Avenue. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And your name, sir? MR. ZEFFERT: Martin L. Zeffert. I've been sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you spell your last name, please? MR. ZEFFERT: Z-E-F-F-E-R-T. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. ZEFFERT: I -- it's confession time. I am not an attorney. I lived in the lower dormitory at Iowa when I went to school--- ...... after the war, and my roommates who were all law studer~ts ~~ Page 48 ] JAN 2 3 200! November 2, 2000 me at the time that if you couldn't argue the merits of a case, you argue the technicalities. It seems they were quite more intelligent about this than I am. I own the property -- we bought in 1975, so I've paid taxes to Collier County for 25 years. I do not -- I did not originally live here. I lived in Pennsylvania most of my life. I was a senior vice-president, chief actuary of a large mutual insurance company. I've lived here full time and am a legal resident of Florida since 1989. I'm going to talk common sense, not law, plain English, although I can speak Spanish pretty well. Number one, there isn't a blasted need on any of those docks to exceed 20 feet. In terms of the -- you made reference to the gentleman who's in Japan. That's my next door neighbor, McCluggage. He's got a -- I think it must be 40 foot -- we ludicrously refer to it as the Queen Mary, but Rich was a quartermaster in the Navy and is pretty good with a boat. He gets in and out without ramming my dock or anybody else's, although there are times when they cannot come home when they want to come home. They have to stay outside. As far as distances, property lines and all that, I don't know much about that. I read the papers that came with my house a week or so ago and I don't read, that is, using plain English, that there's a divine right of anybody to extend this property line beyond the seawall without official permission. There's no legal right to say that you can build all the way out. Those idiots across -- the Regatta there wanted to put an island in the middle of the lagoon. Now, I rarely -- I have a 26-foot Regal cabin cruiser, which I keep at Wiggins Pass. During a hurricane, I wouldn't be very -- hurricane season, I wouldn't like to see my boat moored at my little dock. And the -- you cannot assume that you can protect yourself by simply building way out. I'm no expert on water. I don't pretend to be. I've owned two boats since 1979, and half a century ago, I was a coxswain in an engineer boat and shore regiment on landing craft off New Guinea in the Philippines, so I know something about water. The technicalities, no, I plead nolo contendere on that, but the facts are that the only decent spot, the few times I've taken my boat into my dock, is near the shoreline. You've got sa Page 49 JAN Z 3 200] November 2, 2000 -- it looks pretty, but it's not much good for a boat. I draw about three feet with the current one. And I'm saying to permit anybody to stick a 54 or 61-foot hunk of junk out there to protrude out from his shoreline or his -- I measure everything from the seawall because I don't know about the rest, but I do recognize a seawall when I see it. it's just idiocy. I do not -- the neighbors were calling for everybody to come, and what's it going to be one year, five years, ten years from now? Well, I'm 75. I take it a day at a time like I did in combat 50 odd years ago. But the facts are, we don't need trash like this and exceptions like this, and the only plausible story I heard was from a Mr. Deluca, who I don't know, who said it's just a matter of making the property a good dream for a real estate broker. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: I will take one minute. rve been hammered in previous hearings before by Mr. Pires by going out and using a pole to take water depths, saying that that's not an accurate way to do that, although his clients today have entered that into and it seems quite acceptable. I'm not accepting my measurements. That's why we hired a professional surveyor. The depths are what they are. People say you go out 20 feet, fine, we can go out 20 feet from the property line. There's four feet of water. That's great. If we have a boat that draws three and a half feet of water, we've got to tie it in front of that dock. That means we have to go out further than 20 feet. And we're not asking for, you know -- we're not asking for that much. We're asking for a 13 foot extension from the -- from the old code and 34 feet out from the -- excuse me, 33 feet out from the property line, and that's all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross, do you have something more to add to this? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, not unless there are any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Final chance for questions. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ross, after hearing all this, is it still your expert view as staff, it's -- is your recommendation still the same? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, itis. Inmyopinion, t~ i PageS0 ! JAN23_2001 ~ November 2, 2000 meets all code criteria. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, I close the public hearing and ask for a motion. .COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move, based on the testimony and evidence that we have heard here today and staff recommendation, I'm going to move that we approve BD-2000-20 with a length of 54 feet or a -- what amounts to the 20 plus 13. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm going to vote no, so I'm either going to discuss it now or after the vote. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'll allow you to do it now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. It seems to me that what we have here is a speculative dock based on a possible speculative house. We're talking here about boat dock extensions. Seems to me that -- that inherent in that is the underlying assumption that the allowable dock is insufficient; therefore, you need an extension of the allowable dock. Well, here we don't have a boat, we don't have a house and there isn't any evidence that anybody has asked for a permit to build a house. So my logic tells me that -- or my concept of logic tells me that once somebody prepares to build a house and prepares to buy a boat and can come in here under oath and say that their boat simply will not fit on a dock, perhaps configured shore parallel rather than perpendicular-- I mean, there's nothing that says one has to have a tuning fork shaped dock. Once a person can come in here and say all of that, here's my boat, here's my house, it won't work, then we're talking about a boat dock extension, the normal 20-foot boat dock having failed to fill the bill. At that point, it seems to me, we have something that's ripe for decision. I just don't see us getting into the business -- I wouldn't put it quite as crassly as the one gentleman did, but I just think the whole thing is premature, so I'm going to vote no. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I also will vote no, noting that there were 73 objections of neighbors registered with this group, they have and I can only agree with them that the--into the publi an overwhelming need for this protrusion Page 51 November 2, 2000 waterway. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And before we take the vote, I do thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I know this is an emotional issue. You conducted yourselves professionally and I apologize for any short that I've been with any speakers, but I think you can understand my position. One final comment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I comment? I'm going to support the motion because I feel that all the 'criteria has been met, and I am very sympathetic to the neighbors. i've been in -- I've boated with a 36-foot Searay in that area with a -- almost a three and a half foot draft, got stuck a few times in water in Turkey Bay, been in and out of that pass a number of times and been in the lagoon an awful lot and used to sit out there on my boat and picnic, so I'm very familiar with this and I'm sympathetic to what you're all saying; however, I believe it's my responsibility as a commissioner to pay attention to what staff says and realize that this does meet all the criteria, so I'm going to have to vote yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, I'm going to call for the vote individually so there's no doubt. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Nay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage, aye. Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. I would suggest that -- just a two-minute recess. I will be leaving. I will be back, okay? With that, I'm going to turn the meeting over to our-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You need to notify them of the 14 day -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before you all leave, I want to read this so there's no doubt, you all heard it before, but as to any Page 52 ~.. IOatC, E~A ~ JAN 2 3 2001 Sec. 2.6.21. 2.6.21.1. Dock facilities. Individual or multiple private docks, including mooring pilings, davits, lifts and the like are permitted to serve the residents e, fa de'.'s!epment an :-..~a! or watev.'.'ay !~'.: having waterfront property as described in diyision. 6.3, definitions, provided they do not protrude more than the respective distances specified in sections 2.6.21.2, and 2.6.21.3, for such sane.! vr waterway. Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access by users for routine maintenance and use while minimally impacting the navigability of the waterway, the native marine habitat, monatees, and the use and view of the waterway by surrounding property owners. Permitted dock facility protrusions as well as extension of dock facilities are measured from the property line, bulkhead line, shoreline, seawall, rip-rap line, or Mean High Water line, whichever is more restrictive. On unbridged barrier islands, a boat dock shall be Words e::-..g:k L~gug.u. are deleted, words underlined are added. JAN 2 3 2001 2.6.21.2. considered a permitted principal use; however, a dock shall not, in any way, constitute a use or structure which permits, requires, and/or provides for any accessory uses and or structures. Boathouses and dock facilities proposed on residentiaily zoned properties as defined in section 2.1.4 of this Code, shall be considered an accessory use or structure. Boathouses shall be required to be approved through the procedure and criteria in section 2.6.21.3 and 2.6.21.4. In addition, any covered structure erected on a private boat dock shall also be considered an accessory use, and shall also be required to be approved through the procedures and criteria of section 2.6.21.3. and 2.6.21.4. of this code. Dock facility requirements and restrictions. The following criteria apply to dock facilities and boathouses. Platted waterway width, where available, shall be considered true waterway width for the purposes of this section. 2.6.21.2.1. 2.6.21.2.2. For lots on a waterway that is 100 feet or greater in width, no boathouse, dock facility/boat combination shall protrude more than 20 feet into the waterway (i.e. the total protrusion of the dock facility plus the total protrusion of the moored vessel). A dock extension in accordance with section 2.6.21.3. may be granted to allow a protrusion of more than 20 feet. For lots on a waterway that is less than 100 feet in width, dock facilities may ................... ~ ............ occupy no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway or protrude greater than 20 feet into the waterway, whichever is a.qd/cr ca'age let: ~han a gin!re'am cf59 ~ergeg~ of:k: width etch: k .....~-'-.-'~ "J-:o~ ..... : ........ '~-':"- A dock exlension in accordance with section 2.6.21.3. may be granted to allow a protmsion of more than 20 feet, but at no time shall such extension allow more th~ 25 percent of the wate~ay width to be occupied. 2.6.21.2.& 3_: All dock facilities on lots with water frontage of 60 feet or greater shall have a side setback requirement of i 5 feet, except as provided in section 2.6.21.2.4.1 or as exempted below. All dock facilities (except boathouses) on lots with less than 60 feet o f water frontage shall have a side setback requirement of 7 1/2 feet. All dock facilities (except boathouses) on lots at the end or side end of a waterway having regular (linear) water frontage shall have a side setback requirement of 7 1/2 feet as measured from the side lot line or tiparian line, whichever is appropriate. 2.6.21.2.4.1.3. I. Kiparian lines (see division 6.3, definitions, riparian line) for lots at the end or side end of a waterway with a regular shoreline are established by a line extending from the comer of an end lot and side end lot into the waterway bisecting equidistanlly the angle created by the two intersecting lots (see Exhibit A). Riparian lines for all other lots should be established by generally accepted methods, taking into consideration the configuration of the shoreline, and allowing for the equitable apportionment ofriparian rights. Such methods include, but are not limited to, lines drawn perpendicular to the shoreline for regular (linear) shorelines, or lines drawn perpendicular to the centerline (thread) of the waterway, or perpendicular to the line of deep water (line of navigability or edge of navigable charme0, as appropriate, for irregular shorelines. 2.:,%. 4~ All dock facilities, regardless oflength/protrusion, shall have reflectors and house numbers four inches minimum size installed at the outermost end, on both sides. For multifamily developments, the house number requirement is waived. Words .~;.~a'.:E '2;;c.ag~ are deleted, words underlined are added. AGE~A IT~. JAN 2 3 2001 2.6.21.2.6. 5. All dock facilities are subject to, and shall comply with, all federal and state requirements and permits, including but no__~t limited to the requirements and permits of the Florida department of environmental protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2.6.21.2.-%. 6._, Protection ofseagrass beds. Where new docking facilities are proposed or boat dock extensions, the location and presence ofseagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch to 200 feet when available from the county, or a scale of one inch to 400 feet when such photographs are not available fi'om the county. The location ofseagrass beds shall be verified by a site visit by the site development review director or his designee prior to issuance of any project approval or permit. 2.6.21.2.~A-.6.._.[ All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten feet from any existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation and hard bottom communities. 2.6.21.2.'7.2.6._22 Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the ~ seagrasses, or a docking facility within ten feet of seagrasses. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: The dock shall be at a height ofat least 3.5 feet NGVD. 2. The terminal platform ofthe dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. 3. The access dock shall not exceed a width of four feet. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area o f seagrasses possible. i 2.6.21.2.g..3.6.3. The petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized pr5or to any project approval or permit issuance. 2.6.21.3. Dock facili~ ,,rtension: boathouse establishment criteria. Additional length/protrusion beyond said respective distances specified in section 2.6.21.2.1 and 2.6.21.2.2 for dock facilities; and all boathouses, regardless of the extent of the protrusion into the waterway or the width of the waterway, shall_..~re~.uire_gubli. c notice and a hea~fingby the I'mr~ni. ng Commi____ ssion. As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the planning commission takes action, pursuant to section 5.2.11 of this Code, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the board of zoning appeals, except that such appeal shall be filed with the development sen'ices director within 14 days ofthe date ofthe final action by the planning commission. The board of zoning appeals may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse, or reverse with conditions the action of the planning commission. Such appeal shall be filed with the community development and environmental services administrator, or his designee and shall be noticed for hearing with the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the procedures and applicable fee set forth in section t.6.6 of this Code. The planning commission shall base its decision for approval, approval with conditions, or denial, on the following criteria: A~ ITEM JAN 2 3_2001 2,6.21._'.2. 2.6.21.3.4. 2.6.21210. '.",'he:her or not the number or'dock 15citities or .qic~. :o :e locate: on the subitc: ;roecoy :s appropriate m relation to the length oi '.,.aten'ront prore.q>' avatiabie ;'or the 1ocauon of the proposed dock thciiities. 'A,"he:her or nat the water desth where the pro.c. ose"a dock r..",ciiirv ~s to be located is .=utT~cient to ailo'.,.' for sa~ mooring of the vezse!. '.her:by nec=zsuatmg the extension reque.q. '.Vhc:her or not the proposed dock facility and moored '.'esseifs~ in combination may have ~n adverse tmpac~ to navigation within an adiac:nt no', Wabie chin'me!. Whether or not,/'or lots on :i wate.'-~av that is m'.e',ter than 100 £e:t in width, Ihc proposed dock g,::ign a.r.d moofed '.':r.:~ facility occupies more p than 25 percent of the width of the water'way, or for boathouses only, protrudes greater than 20 feet r~. t .... ~ ...... and who:her or no~ a minimum of 50 percent of the width ofthe wate.-'wav ~ .....*-~ ................~ ....... ..... :'~ ':"' '"'" .............is maintained in order to ensure reportable v.'ale.-'w = v na','ig:~bility. 'X,,'he:her or not tgere ',re s~:iat conditions reinreal ro the sumer: gropeny or '~.'a~e:-aav which justiN.. the proposed dimensions a.n. ri location of ~he subbe'r: dock. '.l,5=:her or not the proposed dock is of minimal ,.Jim.:.":,.~tcns r;e::-:_~arv m order ro :a,-:,',teh,, sere.are :he moor:-"i vezse! '.,,bile pro',~ciing r:~onacie .."c:-".~s ;o che boat For rcutine ma,nte:",.ance. ~-~t,5out the use or. exr.~_..sp,'e Jerk '~'he:~.er or nor :he ~rocosed s~ructure is o(mm~m2t jimenzmns to minimize tee ~mgac: o( ~he vle'~, of the '.~ate.'".~ av by 5ur'rounamg ?.ro~:.-,? ov, nc,'~. '.Vke:h, er or not the :roc. osed ,,'ezsei is m e.".c:~s at' 55 on or .qe_21[i','e:.', lmcnc: [he ;'Jew of'the ~'ate:-..,.a,, :? sur'r, ounriing V',q~::he.- or :':or :he pre_,cosed [ocauon and de.'n,n ' '"' ~, ~ ¢¢ ; combinaucn :s such that ~_ ~j .mav re(rinse uoon the use o/nc:ghU...mag grocer, res. inciuding .w,', :.'::sung dock 5truc:ures. Regarding ex:s~:ng b~nthic ors:re,sins in the '.tc:nlt', of the Froposed exte.":s~on. '&~e:her or not seagr-a.sses are !oc-qed ,.,, nhm 200 /'e:: oC [he proposed dock: ~d Who:her or not the proposed dock Is suojec: :o the mo. na~e: proton:ton requirements of this Code (section 2.6.225. If de-r-reed n~.-':.s.zp,' based upon rcviev¥ or' [he ak-x~','e criteria. the ?ionrang camm~ssmn may impose suc~ conditions upon the ',Faro'vol of an extension r~=est it de:ms = nec.-ssao.. to accomplish the purpose: of this code and pm.te.~,:,,, the ~a~'ety and ¥,.e!£are o[ Ihe punic. Such condiuo~s lira,ted to. grcn~e.- side se'.l:~ck~ sl. provision o~' lignu 51. additional re:Ice:ors lar~.e: than tbur incheeL a. nd pronibmn~: or ~-,c..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.-m.,;:l~n~' rood cu~de.. afthe dock. f~lir',' JAN 2 3 2001 2,6.21.4. 2.6.21.4.1. 2.6.21.4.2. 2.6.21.4.3. Boathouse requirements: In addition to the criteria in section 2,6.21.3, the following criteria shall apply to boathouses: Minimum side setback requirement: 15 feet. Maximum protrusion into waterway: 25 percent of canal width or 20 feet, whichever is less. Maximum height: 15 feet as measured from top of seawall or bank whichever is more restrictive. A~A 19'E.M JAN 3 2001 2.6.21.5 COLI2ER COIYNTY LAND DEVELOPYfENT CODE EXHIBIT A LOT 1 LOT 2 60' OR TYPICAL ~ORE I .ESS so' 'rllAN 60' t · . t OO' WA'I'I,.:I?.WAY -- 15' LOT 3 15' I '3' ? LO'? 4 LOT 6 I.OT 5 1 'I.'YI)ICAL SETI~ACK I;~I'.:QUII(I';M['.;NTS FOR DOCK I~ACII.I'I'11~S ILl.. ---- RII~ARIAN I,INE Supp. ~o. 4 LDC,.:!92 JAN ~ 3 2001 section 2.6.21.) Boat yard and ways: A premises or site used as a commercial establishment for the provision of all such facilities as are customary and necessary to the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or sale of boats, marine engines or marine equipment and supplies of all khads including, but not limited to, rental of covered or uncovered boat slips or dock space or enclosed dry storage space or marine railways or lifting or launching services, and for dredge or barge dockage and storage. Boatel: A facility offering transient lodging accommodations normally on a daily rate for boat travelers. These accommodations include wet boat slips, where guests may or may not sleep on their boat, that are normally combined with a hotel/motel and its accessory uses, such as a restaurant. Boathouse, commercial: A building where boats are housed, launched, hauled, repaired, serviced, maintained or stored. Boathouse, private: A roofed, accessory use to a residential structure(s) adjacent to a waterway, open on all sides and providing covered protection to a boat and accessories customary thereto. A private boathouse may not be used for the purpose of human habitation. (See section 2.6.21.) Dock facility.' Any structure constructed in or over a waterway for the primary purpose of mooring a boat, or any combination of such structure and the vessel it accommodates. This includes docks, walkways, piers, mooring pilings, boathouses and the like. Marina: A boating facility, chiefly for recreational boating, located on navigable water frontage, and providing all or any combination of the following. boat sl/ps or dockage, dry boat storage, small boat hauling or launchinE facilities, marine fuel and lubricants, marine supplies, bait and fiahing equipment, restaurants, boat and boat motor sales, and rentals. Minor boat, rigging and motor repair which is incidental to the principal marina use i~ generally anowed as an accessory use. However, no dre4ge, barge or other work-dockage or service is permitted, and no boat construct/on or reconstruction is permitted. A boat sales lot is not a marina. Riparian line: An imaginary_ line beginning a.t the point at which vmoert3t lines intersect the mean high water line of a waterway and continuing into the waterway indefinitely..The purpose of the riparian line, as employed by this Code, is to provide a point of reference from which to measure setbacks for docking facilities. Waterfront: Property where any or all of its lot lines abut on or are contiguous to any body of water at its normE level, including creek, canal, bay, gulf and river, natural or artificial, not including a swimming pool, where water is present, yearround under normal conditions. (See division 3.2.) Yard~, w_aterfT. ont: The required open space extending along the entire waterfront property with depth measured from property line, bulkhead, shoreline, seawall, mean high water mark, access easement, whichever is the most restrictive. Waterfront property is hereby d ,a~ ~-~ os property abutting on the Gulf of Mexico, bays, bayous, navigable streams, and on mm -crea~A IYr~ canals, lakes, or impounded reservoirs. For the purpose of this ordinance, the ~ iittin~ ]~ setback for any principal or accessory structure adjacent to the water shall be the sa ' setback specified for the side or rear yard, as the case may be, in the particular zonin However, these setbacks shall never be less than 10 feet for any structure unless s provided for in section 2.6.2.2 of the Land Development Code. 2 3 200 ,~ifically EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.772, "MIKE CROUCH COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION" LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY OIL WELL ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY, ON THE SOUTH BAY 31sT AVENUE N.E. RIGHT-OF -WAY, ON THE WEST BY OCCUPIED LOT, AND ON THE EAST BY OCCUPIED LOT. OBJECTIVE: To issue Excavation Permit No. 59.772 for Mike Crouch Excavation in accordance with County Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, Division 3.5. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner proposes to obtain a commercial excavation permit to allow fill material totaling 21,158 C.Y. to be hauled off-site. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the County is none. The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Community Development Fund 113 Agency: County Manager Cost Center 138900 - Development Services Revenues generated by this project Total $4195.00 The breakdown is as follows: a) Excavation Review Fee- $850.00 b) Excavation Permit Fee - $121.00 c) Road Impact Fee- $3227.00* *This amount is only an estimate and is based on an assumed haul length of 8 miles and a duration of two years. Final Road Impact Fee will be computed by Transportation Division prior to excavation permit issuance. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: None HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None EAC RECOMMENDATIONS: AGE~NDA ITEM No EAC public headng was required because of the size of the excavation. CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS: No CCPC public hearing was required PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the issuance of Excavation Permit No. 59.772 for Mike Crouch Commercial Excavation with the following stipulations: The excavation shall be limited to a bottom elevation of 20' below existing ground. All disturbed areas proposed for lake excavation shall be excavated to a minimum elevation depth of 6'below the dry season water table. Off-site removal of material shall be limited to 21,158 C.Y. and shall be subject to "Standard Conditions" imposed by the Transportation Services Division in document dated 5/24/88 (copy attached) 3. The lake littoral zone shall be created and planted as indicated on the Plan of Record. In order to ensure a minimum eighty percent (80%) coverage of littoral zone planting areas, a performance guarantee, based on a cost estimate to replace the original installed littoral zone plants, will be required upon completion and acceptance of the excavation (Land Development Code 3.5.7.2.5). No Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until this performance guarantee is submitted. 5. All provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, Division 3.5 shall be adhered to o Where groundwater is proposed to be pumped during the excavating operation, A Dewatering Permit shall be obtained from the South Florida Water Management District, and a copy provided to Engineering Review Services for approval prior to the commencement of any dewatering activity on the site. 7. No blasting will be permitted. if trees are to be removed as a result of the excavating operation, a Vegetation Removal Permit, required by Land Development Code, Division 3.9 shall be obtained from Collier County Planning & Technical Services before work shall commence. 9. Stockpile side slope shall be at a maximum of 4:1 unless fencing is installed around the entire perimeter of the stockpile area. 10.Any stockpile in place for a period exceeding 60 days shall be seeded and mulched and erosion control devices installed. 11. Operation shall be limited to one year, with provision for a 1-year extension. PAGE 2 AGENDAITEM No.,~_,i( JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY SENIOR ENGINEER REVIEWED BY: '*~:%~'H~)MAs E. KUCK, P.~=. * ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER DATE~ \ DATE ROBEI~T J. MULHERE, A~-ICP PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: JOHI~. DU~INUCK, III INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE DATE PAGE 3 JAN 2 3 2001 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES "STANDARD CONDITIONS" EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS hNVOLVING OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL T~e intent of these "Standard Conditions" are to provide excavation permit applicants a summa~ of conditions which may affect their projects and which should be taken into consideration during all stages of project developm~mt: Haul mutes between an excavation site and an arterial road shall be private with property owner(s) approval or be a public collector road built to standards applicable to handle the resulting truck traffic. Where residential areas fi'ont collector roads, appropriate turn lanes, buffer and bikepath shall be required as minimal site improvements and if recommended for approval, shall be :so with the condition that the Transportation Services Administration reserves the right tc~ suspend or prohibit off-site removal of excavated material should such removal create a h~r~-dons road condition or substantially deteriorate a road condition; such action by the Transportation Services Administration shall be subject to appeal before the Board of County Commissioners. Haul mutes ufili~ini~ public roads shall be subject to road maintenance and road repair or an appropriate fair shm~ by the permittee in accordance with Excavation Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended Div. 3..':; and Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 93-64. Off-site removal of excavated material shall be subject to Ordinance No. 92-22 (Road Impact Ordinance). A traffic and road impact analysis shall' be made by the County to determine the effects that off-site removal of excavated material will have on the road system within the excavation project's zone of influence. If appropriate, road impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-22 shall be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. ' The Transportation Services Admin~h-ation reserves the right to establish em~ weigh~ limits on public madways affected by the off-site removal of excavated material; the procedure for estal>lis~ent of weight limits shall be the presentation of an applicable resolution before th,~ Board of County Commissioners. Should weight limits be instituted, the permittee shall be responsible to i~lement measures to assram that all !~svy tnw, k loadings leaving the permit's proper ty conform to the applicable weight restriction. The Excavation Performance C.m~i~u~ shall apply to excav~ion operatio~ ~ also tbe ~ ,of public ro~ds in accordance with current ordinances ~ ~pp~ EXIa'mrr AC.,~.~DA ITF~a JAN 2 3 2001 Based on soil boring information per Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, a blasting permit may be appropriate. Should a blasting permit application be submitted and should residential areas e~'ist within one mile of the excavation site, the County reserves the right to deny a blasting permit based on concerns for off-site impacts from blasting at an excavation site. Should a blasting permit be considered and approved, the minimum conditions of approval in addition to conditions per Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended are as follows: Structure inventory/monitoring and applicable property owner release as required by the Development Services Director. B. Security bond applicable to private property damage acceptable to the County. Control of size/depth/number of charges per blast by the Development Services Director. The fight o f the County to suspend and/or revoke blasting permit authority should it be determined that blasting activities are creating unacceptable off-site conditions either in t~:rns of private property damage and/or related physical effects of blasting operations. No excavation peaTnit shall be issued until receipt of a release from the T~rtation Services Administration applicable to proper mitigation of off-site impacts, meeting of applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 93-64, Ordinance No. 92-22, and Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended. Reference to letter of 5/24/88 Revised 1/13/98 JAil 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE UNANTICIPATED CABLE FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE AND FUND SPECIFIC FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS OBJECTIVE: To utilize unanticipated revenues to fund franchise administration litigation costs, consulting fees for next phase of the Institutional Network project, and contingency fees for cable franchise fee audit. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 14, 2000, the Board authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Lewis & Associates to provide auditing services of cable television franchise fees. The agreement was executed by Bleu Wallace, Director, Utility & Franchise Regulation on November 17, 2000. Lewis and Associates agreed to perform the audit of MediaOne and Time Warner for the County on a contingency basis of 35% of underpayments identified and recoverable. With the MediaOne audit complete, staff has received $433,544.00 in underpayments from MediaOne identified by Lewis & Associates. These funds have been deposited in a General Fund suspense account. Staff recommends these unanticipated revenues be utilized as follows: * Litigation Costs: On October 24, 2000, the Board authorized the County Attorney to retain outside legal counsel to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to Challenge implementation of Florida's Communication Services Tax Simplification Act. The County Attorney has since retained the services of Liebowitz & Associates to handle the litigation. Staff recommends that $50,000.00 be appropriated to fund anticipated legal costs. Institutional Network Consultant: Staff is negotiating with Colombia Telecommunications for the commencement of Phase II of the Institutional Network design. The design costs are estimated at $50,000.00. Staff recommends that $50,000.00 be appropriated to fund consulting fees for Phase II of the Institutional Network project. Auditor's contingency fee: In accordance with the agreement, Lewis and Associates is entitled to 35% of recoverable underpayments identified in the cable franchise fee audit. Staff recommends that $151,740.00 be appropriated to fund this portion of audit costs. * Remainder to Reserves: Staff recommends that the balance of $181,804.00 be appropriated to MSTD General Fund (111) Reserves. - AGENDA I?EM NO. ~ JAN 2 3 2001 FISCAL IMPACT: A budget amendment will be required to rec0gaize $433,544.00 of unanticipated cable franchise fee revenue, of which $151,740.00 will be appropriated for audit costs, $50,000 for legal costs, and $50,000 for consulting fees, with the balance of $181,804.00 to the MSTD General Fund (111) Reserves. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact on growth management regarding this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the appropriation of the unanticipated revenue to pay for audit fees and for other franchise administration projects and approve the associated budget amendment. REVIEWED BY: Date: //,5/3 / CABLE FRANCHISE OORDiNATOR UTILIT//~ FRANCHISE REGULATION D. E. "BLEW' WALLACE, DIRECTOR UTILITY & FRANCHISE REGULATION APPROVED BY: JOHN M. DUNNUCK III, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION AGENDA ITEM NO. 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO AMEND QUORUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITFEE OBJECTIVE: To improve the opportunity for representatives of the development community to make recommendations to the Commission on policies that affect the development community. CONSIDERATIONS: The Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) wants to improve its ability to reach a quorum during times when members are in transition. Under the current ordinance there are fifteen (15) members that serve on the committee. Eight (8) members must be present in order to reach a quorum. However, at any given time there may be two or three vacancies on the committee thus making it more difficult to reach a quorum. In an effort to improve its chance of reaching a quorum, the committee requested staff to bring back options for consideration. Staff offered three (3) options for the committee's consideration. Option #1: Leave the ordinance as it is written. Option #2: Amend the ordinance to achieve a quorum if 50% plus one of those members presently in office are in attendance (i.e. vacated positions would not count). Option #3: Amend the ordinance so that a designated staff member could serve as an ex-officio member of the committee. After discussion by the committee at its December meeting, the members voted in favor of the second option. As the DSAC reviews policy decisions and development review public hearings that affect the development community, if the committee does not reach a quorum then recommendations to the Board cannot be brought forward. GROVCYH MANAGEMENT PLAN: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with an amendment to this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney to amend the ordinance that governs the Development Services Advisory Committee to allow a quorum if 50% plus one of the appointed members are in attendance. The amendment will then be advertised and brought back to the Board for a final decision through the public hearing process. Prepared By: J_9hn M. Dunnuck, Interim Administrator _ Uommunity Development and Environmental Services Division AGENDA ~TEf~ No,_ , -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES, P}IASE ONE", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ~ APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia Lakes, Phase One", a subdivision of lands located in Section 23 Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, following the alternative procedure for approval of subdivision plats. CONSIDERATIONS: Engineering Review Section has completed the review of the construction drawings, specifications, and final plat of "Valencia Lakes, Phase One" These documents are in compliance with the County Land Development Code and Florida State Statute No. 177. All fees have been paid. Security in the amount of 10% of the total cost of ~_the required improvements, and 100% of the cost of any remaining 'mprovements, together with a Construction and Maintenance Agreement _or Subdivision Improvements, shall be provided and accepted by the Planning Services Director and the County Attorneys office przor to the recording of the final plat. This would be in conformance with the County Land Development Code - Division 3.2.9. Engineering Review Section recommends that the final "Valencia Lakes, Phase One" be approved for recording. plat of FISCAL IMPACT: The project cost is $278,213.33 borne by the developer. estimated) to be The cost breakdown is as follows: a) Water & Sewer - $111,105.00 b) Drainage, Paving, Grading $!67,108.33 The Security amount, equal to 110% of the project cost, is $306,034.66 JAN 2 3 2001 Executive Summary Valencia Lakes Phase One Page 2 The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Community Development Fund 113 Agency: County Manager Cost Center: 138900 Development Services Revenue generated by this project: Total: $3223.40 Fees are based on a construction estimate of $167,108.33 (does not include Orangetree Utilities water and Sewer improvements) and were paid in June, 2000. The breakdown is as follows: a) Plat Review Fee ($425.00 + $4./ac)- $ 349.14 b) c) Paving, Grading (1.3% const. est.) GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Construction Drawing Review Fee Water & Sewer (.50% const. est.) - $ N/A Drainage, Paving, Grading (.42% const. est.)- $ 701.85 Construction Inspection Fee Water & Sewer (1.5% const. est.) - $ N/A Drainage, - $2127.41 The Concurrency Waiver and Release relating to conditional approval has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: issues HISTORICAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPACT: archeological impacts EAC RECOMMENDATION: Approval CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There are no outstanding environmental There are no historical or That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat of "Valencia Lakes Phase One" for recording with the following stipulations: Approve the amount of $306,034.66 as performance security for the required improvements. AGENDA ITEA4 JAN 2 3 2001 Executive Summary Valencia Lakes Phase One Page 3 o Approve the standard Agreement, and form Construction and Maintenance a. That no Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. b. That the plat not be recorded until suitable security and an appropriate Construction and Maintenance Agreement is approved and accepted by the Planning Services Director and the County Attorney's office. PREPARED BY: John R. Houldsworth, Senior Engineer Engineering Review REVIEWED BY: Date ThomKs E. Kuck, P.~. Engineering Review Manager -' R6be.i~t Mulhere, AICP Planning Services Department Director APPROVED BY: John M.~Dunnuck III, Interim Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services Date Date Date j rh 2001 .... -.......,. ,-,.,, ,~,,,~von~r' ~o ~UUIH, t?.4NGE 27 P-48-27 E 12-48-26 S 3-48-26 15-48-2 14-48-21 25-48-26 LOCATION MAP JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR LELY RESORT RECLAIMED INFRASTRUCTURE MAINS, PHASES 1, 2 & 3 OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, to accept the conveyance of the sewer facilities. CONSIDERATIONS: 1) The Developer of Lely Resort, has constructed the sewer facilities within dedicated easements to serve this development. See attached location map. 2) Preliminary acceptance was approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services staff on August 21, 2000, in accordance with Ordinance 97-17. 3) Staff has recorded all appropriate legal documentation which had been reviewed by the County Attorney's office for legal sufficiency. 4) The sewer facilities have been operated and maintained by the Collier County Water-Sewer District during the one 1) year warranty period. 5) A final inspection to examine for any defects in materials and workmanship was conducted by the Community Development and Environmental Services Division staff and found to be satisfactory. FISCAL IMPACT: The water facilities were constructed without cost to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Funds for the routine maintenance and upkeep will come from the Operations and Maintenance budgets of the Wastewater Utility Department. GROWTH MANAGF/~ENT IMPACT: This project has been connected South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity presently exists to serve this project. Executive Summary Lely Resort Reclaimed Infrastructure Mains, Phases 1, 2 & 3 Page Two ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: None HISTORICAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None EAC RECOMMENDATION: None CCPC RECOMMENDATION: None RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, accept the sewer facilities for Lely Resort Reclaimed Infrastructure Mains, Phases 1, 2 & 3. PREPARED BY.: Shirley Nix, Engineering Technician II Engineering~eview Services Date REVIEWED BY: Thomas E. Kuck, ~"P.E. Engineering Review Services Manager Planning Services Department Director APPROVED BY: Joh~[' D~nnuck,- III, Interim Administrator COM~NITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES attachments Date Date 2001 :s ,ANTING, :S ON, SITE GORDON PASS LITTLE MARCO PASS BIG MARCO PASS MARCO ISLAND CAXAMBASPASSt~~ GULF OF MEXICO ALLIGATOR ALLEY AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR VILLAS OF CAPRI OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, to accept the conveyance of the water facilities. CONSIDERATIONS: 1) The Developer of Villas of Capri, has constructed the water facilities within dedicated easements to serve this development. See attached location map. 2) Preliminary acceptance was approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services staff on June 13, 1997, in accordance with Ordinance 97-17. 3) Staff has recorded all appropriate legal documentation which had been reviewed by the County Attorney's office for legal sufficienc'3'. 4) The water facilities have been operated and maintained by the Collier County Water-Sewer District during the one (1) year warranty period. 5) A final inspection to examine for any defects in materials and workmanship was conducted' by the Conununity Development and Environmen%al Services Division staff and found to be satisfac%ory. 6) The U%ilities Performance Security (UPS), in the form of a Performance Bond No. SUN-319045 in the amount of $2,636.50, will be released to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent upon the Boards approval. FISC~L IMPACT: The water facilities were constructed without cost to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The cost of operating hnd maintaining the water facilities will be paid by monthly user revenues. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project has been connected to the County Regional Water Treatment Plant and North/South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity presently exists to serve this project. JAN 2 3 200f Executive Summary Villas of Capri Page Two ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: None HISTORICAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None EAC RECOMMENDATION: None CCPC RECOMMENDATION: None RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier Coun%y Water-Sewer District, accept the water facilities for Villas of Capri, and release the UPS to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. PREPARED BY- Shirley Ni>~, Engineering Technician II Engineer~n.~ Review Services Date REVIEWED BY: / Engineering Review Services Manager Date Rober Mul.~~- Planning Sez-vices Department Director APPROVED B~~: John ~. Dunnuck, III, Interim Administrator COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES attachment s Date Date ]AN 2 3 200{ VICINITY MAP JAN 2 3 2001 Bond No. SUN-319045 Form 2 - R~'. 4/28/89 - (Performance Bond) Utilities Acceptance Documents - Doc #320 UTILITIES PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL PARTIES BY THESE PRESENTS: that Eastridge Parmers, Ltc[ 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33145 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Hartford Fire Insurance Company Hartford Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (hereinat~er referred to as "SureW"), are held and firmly bound unto Collier County, Florida (hereinafter called "County."), in the total aggregate penal sum of Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Six and Fifty cents Dollars ($2,636.50) in lawful money. of the United State, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made. we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors. administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by. these presents. Owners and Surety are named for singular or plural, as the context requires. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Owner entered into a certain Utilities Facilities Construction Contract. dated the /~,~ day of May, 1997, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the CounW has a material interest in the performance of said Contract; and WHEREAS the County has adopted Ordinances and Resolutions (hereinafter "Land Development Regulations") concerning the Owner's obligations to the County regarding the construction. conveyance and warranty of water~ facilities at the Villas of Capri, Project No. SDP #94-123-A constructed within the Unincorporated area of Collier Coun .ty; NOW, THEREFORE, if the Owner shall well, truly and faithfull)' perform its obligations and duties to the County under said Land Development Regulations and all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of said contract during the original term thereof, and any extensions thereof which may be granted by the Owner, with or without notice to the Surety and during the guaranty period established by the County., and thereafter, and if the Owner shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under such contract, and shall fully indemnify and save harmless the County from all costs and damages which it may suffer by reason of failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the County all outlay and expenses which the County may incur in making good any default, then this obligation shall be void, othenadse to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the said Surety, for value received hereby, stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying same shall in any way affect obligation on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or ack tion terms of the contract or to the work or to the specification. 3AN 2 3 2001 ~'8-_ ~7~ -- PROVIDED, FURTI-IEK that it is expressly agreed that the Bond shall be deemed amended automatically and immediately, vdthout formal and separate amendments hereto, upon amendmere to the Contract not increasing the contract price more than 20 percent. so as to bind the O~er and the Suret), to the full and faitlfful performance of the contract as so amended. The term "Amendment", whenever used in this Bond, and whether refemng to this Bond. the Contract or other documents shall include any alteration. addition or modification of any character whatsoever. With IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have caused this Instrument to be executed this 12th day of May, 1997. d Name , Printed Name Before me. the above si~ed autho.~'. perso~ly ar~a~ed_~~'/_ //~,~,,,'/~',~ this 12th day of May. 1997. ~~~r~ My Conumssi~Uc sr^xt OF ~.ORIO^l ~ CXn~S!O~ t~O. CC*~9~2 Witness' c//- gary E. Pen^ Printed Name Before me, the above signed authorit)', personally~ Prepared by: Mary C. Aceyes 5979 N.W. 151st Street, #105 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Mary ~. Aceves~ Atl~mey-in-Fact ~---~ C~Aceve.5.~day of May, 1997. ?' 2ommi.q$ion Expires: ~.l'tl '~,~..,- C~.ORIA MCC, LURE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY POWER OF ATTORNEY Km~w all men by tirade Present~, That the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a co~ duly organizeel under the ~ of the State of Connecticut, and having its IXthcipa] office in the City of Hartford, County of Hartfo~l, State of ConneclJcut, does hereby make, constitute and appoint CZ-IARLF~/. ZV~gLgOAF, ~ARY C ACEVP~ and D. ~~ ~$ its true and lawful Attomey($)-in-Fact, with full power and aut~ to each of said Attomey(s)-imFsot, in their separate ~ if more than one is named above, to sign, execute and acknov~e any ~ all bonds and u~ am:l other writings obtig~ in the surety bonds are accepted by states and municipalities. and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or pen'nitted in all actions or proceedings or by law allowed, and to bind the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY thereby as ~ and to the same extent as if such bonds and undadakings and othor writings obligatory in the nature fi~mmof were signed by an Executive OffSet of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and sealed ~ attested by one other of such Ofrx~em, and hereby rat~es ~ cor~rms all that its said Attomey(s)-in-Fact may do in pumuanca hereof. This powe~ of attorney is granted by and under authority of the following provisions: (1) By-Laws edopted by the Stockholde~ of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meating duly called and held o~ the 9th day of Ma~ct~, 1971. ARTICLE IV secmta~, o~ Attom~-ir~Cact, and revoke tt~ W and aultmrl~ give~ to him. SECTION 11. Att~Kt shall have ix~wer and lutoo~. ~ubject to t~e tom~ and W of ~ W of attorney iasued to Item, to execute and deliver o~ behaff of the Company and to attach tt~e ~eal of the ~ thereto any and sil bom~ and uWngs, and ntJ~er 'aretings ol:Higatory in the nature there., am:l any suc~ instrument execut~l by any $uctl Attorney-in-.Fact shag ~ as I~ding ulx~ t~e ~ as if signeel by an Exe~JtNe Officer and se. aled and attested by one oltter of such Officere. This power of attomey is signed and sealed by facsimile unde~ and by the authodt~ of the following Resolution adopted by the Directore of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting dun called and held o~ the 12th day of February, 1993. execulecl anti ce~r~l by lacamle a~'~.~e~ ancl facamile real a~11 be val~l aml Ixnc~g ulx~ 1l~ C~-~,,~/m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m In Witnes~ Whereof, the HARTFORD FIRE .INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by ~ Vice- Presiclent, and its coq~ate asal to be hereto affixed, cluly atteated by its Sec, ~,,u~,,~y, this 1st clay of May, 1995. STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF HARTFORD HARTFORD RRE lieURANCE COMPANY Paul L Marebella V/ce-Pm~t On this 1st day of May, A.D. 1995. before me pemonally came Paul L Mamballa, to me known, who being by me duly sworn. did _.de¢~e___ and ~ that he resides in the County of Hanford, State of ~ ~at he is the V'~e-Prasident of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows ~ seal of the said corporation; that the seal affixed to the said insU~ment is ~L~ch corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directore-of said corporation and that he signed his name thm~o by like order. I, the undersigned. Secretary of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connectcut Co~, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF A'rrORNEY remain~ in full force and has not been revoked; and furthermore. that Signed and saaled at the City of Hartford. t. 97 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN RESOLUTION 2000- 455, THE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners correct a scrivener's error in Fee Resolution 2000-455. CONSIDERATION: The Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 2000-455 on December 12, 2000, amending the Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees. The schedule contained scrivener's error, which have been corrected in attached Exhibit "A". FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact to Collier County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the scrivener's error correction to Resolution 2000-455. PREPARED BY: PLANNER I EW DI Y: ~ONALD-1~. NlZi4'~CP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE blo.oI DATE ICP DATE PLANNING SERVIC~IRECTOR J )~xl ,' , , INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE COuMM~ITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NO. JAN 2 3 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN 'RESOLUTION 2000-455, SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES. WHEREAS. the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2000-455, pertaining to a Schedule of Development Review and Braiding Permit Fees on December 12, 2000; and WHEREAS, following said action adopting Resolution 2000-455, staff was advised of typographical errors, which constitute a scrivener's error. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Count3', Florida: That the Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees contained in Resolution No. 2000-455, is hereby amended. by correcting the typographical errors in the Fee Schedule attached here to as Exhibit "A." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this __day of ,2001. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: / ~· ,,5 '/' ~" .... Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney g,adrnin. misc./Scri 'ener's Error Resolulion,'CS/im BY: CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Words ctruck thrcu~h are deleted; words underlined are added. JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees A) ADMINISTRATION Appeals & Interpretations Official Interpretation Request of Land Development Code (LDC), Growth Management Plan (GMP), or Building Construction Administrative Code (Administrative Code) Interpretation request submitted in conjunction with a land use petition or requested during an application review process Determination of Vested Rights $275.00 $100.00 $100.00 (plus the County's out-of-pocket expenses associated with hearing officer and hearings) Appeal of Vested Rights Determination Amendment to Land Development Code Appeal of an Administrative Decision (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC) $100.00 $1,200.00 $500.00 (non-refundable) Page 1 of 23 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ~ Exhibit "A" Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals (as may be provided for in the Collier County Administrative Code or the LDC) $500.00 B) BLASTING PERMITS & INSPECTIONS 30 day permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application $85.00 90 day permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application $200.00 Yearly permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application $500.00 Renewal permit fee, non-refundable payable upon application $100.00 After-the-fact fee, due to blasting without the benefit of permit $2,500.00 Fine fee, per detonated shot with after-the-fact permit $100.00 Handler fee, for handler who assists the user or blaster in the use of explosives $25.00 In addition to the blasting permit application fees, the following inspection fees shall be paid upon issuance of a blasting permit. Blasting Inspection Fee: $275.00 $5O.0O Trench Blasting: Quarry Blasting: The fee for quarry blasting shall be an annual fee based on the estimated number of blasts per year at $75.00 each. (This number may be adjusted based on the actual number of blasts occurring within a given year.) Page 2 of 23 Words ......~- *~ .....~ are deleted; words underlined are added (non-refundable) (per acre) (per linear foot) ACtA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" C) ENVIRONMENTAL/LANDSCAPING Agricultural Clearing Permit First acre or fraction of an acre Each additional acre or fraction of an acre Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Landscape Re-inspection 1st Every inspection after 2nd Special Treatment Review (ST) First five acres or less Each additional acre (or fraction thereof): $150.00 $50.00 $500.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 $150.00 $50.00 Coastal Construction Control Line (CCSL) CCSL Permit Dune Walkover Dune Restoration Variance Petition Sea Turtle Permit Sea Turtle Handling Permits Sea Turtle Nesting Area Construction Permit Sea Turtle Nest Relocation $150.00 $2OO.OO $1000.00 $25.00 $2OO.OO $100.00 Page 3 of 23 Wordsstruckt~rcugh aredeleted; wordsunderlined areadded ($1,500.00 maximum ) ($1,500.00 Maximum) JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" D) Vegetation Removal Permit First acre or fraction of an acre Each additional acre or fraction thereoff Vehicle on the Beach Permit Application * Permit fee shall be waived for public and non-profit organizations engaging in bona fide environmental activities for scientific, conservation or educational purposes. After-the-fact Environmental or Landscape Permits CCSL Variance Petition All other Environmental or Landscape Permits & Inspections EXCAVATION PERMITS Annual Renewal Application (Private) Application (Commercial) Application (Development) Permit for private and development excavations (Upon approval of application, fee not to exceed $3,000.00): 1) 0-2,000 cubic yards excavated material 2) Each additional 1,000 cubic yards excavated material 3) Over-excavation penalty per cubic yards Reapplication Road Impact Analysis $150.00 $50.00 ($1,500.00 maximum) $250.00* 2x normal fee 4x normal fee. $100.00 $100.00 $850.00 $125.00 $64.00 $3.OO $1.00 $64.00 $125.00 Page 4 of 23 Wo~sztrucItt~rzugh are deleted; wordsunderlined areadded · A~A JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" E) Time Extension After-the-fact Excavation Permit RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS Right-of-Way Construction Permit* (Right-of-way permits issued in conjunction with an approved subdivision shall not require payment of right-of-way construction permit fee.) Right of Way Construction Permit Renewal Reinspection fees: 1st 2nd Each inspection after 2nd Jack-and-bore Open-cut construction PSC regulated or County Franchised Utilities Sprinkler Head Placement in County ROW Turn-lane/median construction After-the Fact permits $50.00 4x normal fee $125.00 $50.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 $170.00 $235.00 $85.OO $25.00 ROW Construction Permit Fee Plus applicable Inspection Fee 4 x normal ~e (Max. $1,000) *NOTE: In addition to the right-of-way permit application fee, the applicant shall pay a $50.00 per day inspection fee based on the number of work days as determined by the engineer or agent of record. Right-of-way permits limited to the authorization of driveway connections shall be exempt from the inspection fee. Page 5 of 23 Words .............~,, are deleted; words underlined are added AC~NOA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" F) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Site Development Plan Review (SDP) Pre-application fee Utility Plan Review & Inspection Fees Construction Document Review Construction Inspection Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification Submit as insubstantial change Site Development Plans - 3rd and subsequent additional reviews $750.00 (plus $10.00 per D/U plus $25.00 per residential building structure; plus $.03 per square foot plus $25.00 per building for non-residential. $300.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) 0.50% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs 1.50% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs $100.00 for first sheet $50.00 for each additional sheet $300.00 Site Development Plan Amendment $1,000.00 or $750.00 (plus $10.00 per D/U plus $25.00 per residential building structure; plus $.03 per square foot plus $25.00 per building for Page 6 of 23 Words struck tLrc, ugh are deleted; words underlined are added 2001 Exhibit "A" Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change Site Development Plan Time Extension Site Development Plan Conceptual Review Additional review of construction plans for phased construction of Site Development/Improvement Plan improvements. Site Improvement Plan Review (SIP) Violation of the conditions of approval of the SDP/SIP or installation of improvements, clearing, or other land alteration not depicted on, or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved SDP/SIP. G) SUBDIVISION Lot Line Adjustment non-residential, whichever is greater. $100.00 for first sheet $50.00 for each additional sheet $100.00 $250.OO $250.00 per phase. $750.00 Four x the SIP/SDP application fee $125.00 Subdivision Review Fees Construction Document Review Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification -Submit as Insubstantial Change $0.42% of probable cost of construction $100.00 for first sheet $50.00 for each additional sheet Subdivisions - 3rd and subsequent additional reviews and substantial deviations from approved Page 7 of 23 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" construction documents Subdivision Inspection Fee $425.00 1.3% of probable cost of construction for const. inspection. Subdivision, Preliminary Plat (PSP) Petition Application Administrative Amendment Final Plat Additional review of construction plans for phased construction of subdivision improvements. $500.00 $250.00 $500.00 $5OO.OO plus $5.00 per acre for residential; plus $10.00 per acre for non-residential; (mixed use is residential) plus $5.00 per acre for residential; $500.00 plus $10.00 per acre for nonresidential; (mixed use is residential) per phase Two-year Extension $100.00 Water and Sewer Facilities Construction Document Review 0.50% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs Construction Document Resubmission or Document Modification 0.25% of probable water and/or sewer construction costs Page 8 of 23 Words struck threug5 are deleted; words underlined are added AGEISA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" Construction Inspection Violation of the conditions of approval of approved construction plans or installation of improvements, clearing, or other land alteration not depicted on, or otherwise authorized as a part of the approved construction plans or permit. 1.50% of probable water and/o~ sewer construction costs Four x the PSP or Final Plat Review Fee. i) TEMPORARY USE PERMITS Beach Events Permits Individual Permit Block of 25 calendar days Block of 50 calendar days Block of 75 calendar days Block of 100 calendar days Block of 125 calendar days Block of 150 calendar days $100.00 $2,25O.OO $4,500.00 $6,75O.OO $9,000.00 $11,250.00 $13,500.00 Temporary Use Permit Special Sales & Events Model Homes and Sales Centers Construction and Development Residential and Non-Profit Garage and Yard Sale Permits Temporary Use Amendment, Renewal or Extension $125.00 $25O.OO $125.00 $100.00 No Charge Twice the fee for renewals or extensions Page 9 of 23 Words struck tkrc, ugh are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" Temporary Use Permit for Special Events requiring BCC approval, including Circus and Camival Permits Political Signs (Bulk Temporary Permit) WELL PERMITS/INSPECTIONS* Hydraulic elevator shaft permit Test hole permit (including 1 st six holes) - each additional hole Well permit (abandonment) Well permit (construction or repair) Well permit (monitoring) Well Permit (modification of monitor or test well to a production well) *NOTE: Multiple wells may be allowed on one permit, but each well must be accounted for and the appropriate fee shall be charged for each well in accordance with the above listed schedule. Well Reinspections First Reinspection Second Reinspection Third Reinspection After-the-fact well permits $275.00 $5.00 requested after the expiration date. $130.00 $50.00 $5.00 $20.00 $75.00 $50.00 $25.00 $50.00 $75.OO $100.00 3x normalfee per violation. Page 10 of 23 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added AGE.~DA ~TEM JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" K) ZONING/LAND USE PETITIONS Pre-application fee Alcoholic Beverage or Service Station Separation Requirement Waiver Boat Dock Extension Petition Conditional Use Petition ($300.00 when filed with Rezone Petition) Conditional Use Extension DRI Review (In addition to cost of rezone) DRI/DO Amendment Flood Variance Petition Interim Agriculture Use Petition Non-Conforming Use Change/Alteration r~cce:,~ ~ ~ o~.:~ A~ .... Pa ki E mptio .......................... ~ ................r ngxen PUD Amendments (PDAs) Minor Major *Minor 8: Major: *Property owner notifications: $300.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) $1000.00 $1000.00 $2000.00 $250.00 $2500.00 plus $25.00anacre $1500.00 $1000.00 $350.00 $1000.00 $1000.00 $1500.00' $2500.00* $1.00 non-certified mail $3.00 certified return receipt mail Page 11 of 23 Words sm:ck t~rc'a§h are deleted; words underlined are added 2001 Exhibit "A" *Note: Petitioner to pay this amount after receipt of invoice from Planning Services Department. Petition will not be advertised until payment is received. Planned Unit Development Amendment (Insubstantial) Rezone Petition (Regular) Rezone Petition (to PUD) Street Name Change (Platted) Street Name (unplatted) or Project Name Change Variance Petition Variance (Administrative) Zoning Certificate: Residential: Commercial: After-the-Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions $1000.00 $2100.00 plus $25.00 an acre $3000.00 plus $25.00 an acre $200.00 plus $1.00 for each property owner requiring notification of proposed street name change. $200.00 $1000.00 $400.00 $50.00 $125.00 2xthe normal petitionfee L) MISCELLANEOUS Data Conversion Fee (to cover the cost of converting graphic and narrative information into electronic format) per site plan or land use petition $25.00 per site plan or land use petition $15.00 per amendment (PUD, Page 12 of 23 Words struck thre. ug~ are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" M) site plan, etc.) Official Zoning Atlas Map Sheet Publications, maps, reports and photocopies. $.50 as set forth in Resolution 98-498, as amended. Requests for formal written zoning/land use verification or similar such request for written staff responses. $100.00 per property Research: The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes that are no longer current shall be $40.00 per hour with a one half hour minimum charge. The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not a part of the regular standard reports shall be $25.00 per hour with a one half hour minimum charge BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE A permit application fee shall be collected at time of applying for a building permit. The permit application fee shall be collected when the plans are submitted for review. The fee shall be applied toward the total permit fee. The applicant shall forfeit the application fee if the application is denied or if the application is approved and the permit is not issued within the time limitation as stated in Section 103.6.1.1 of the Collier County Ordinance No. 91-56, as amended. Application fee will be computed as follows: Single family and duplex* -$.05 per sq. ft. with minimum of $100.00 Multi-Family & Commercial* - $.05 per sq. ft. up to 10,000 sq. ft. - $.025 for square footage over 10,000 sq. ft. * Maximum application fee shall NOT exceed $5,000.00. Minimum fee of $50.00 for each of the following: plumbing; mechanical (A/C); electrical; fire; and building, when applying for additions/alterations. Minimum fee for all other applications = $50.00. The balance of the total permit fee will be collected at the time of issuance of the permit and will include any fee adjustments necessary., Page 13 of 23 Words struck thrcagh are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 pg. /(..5 Exhibit "A" N) BUILDING PERMIT FEES The fee for a building permit shall be computed as follows: Such fees shall be either based on the contractor's valuations of construction cost or based on calculated cost of construction as set forth on the attached Building Valuation Data Table, whichever is greater. 1) Valuation of construction costs of less than $750.00 - No permit or fee is required, but construction must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. If inspections are required by the Building Official or requested by the applicant, the appropriate fees shall be paid. EXCEPTION: All work involving structural components and/or fire rated assemblies requires permits and inspections regardless of construction cost; signs must secure permits as stated in Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended. 2) Valuation of construction costs of $750.00 through $4,999.99 - a) With one or no inspections - $50.00 b) With multiple inspections- $100.00 3) Valuation of construction costs of $5000.00 through $49,999.99 - a) With one or no inspections - $17.00 $30.00 plus $7.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $2,000.00. b) With multiple inspections - $20.00 $80.00 plus $7.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $2000.00. 4) Valuation of construction costs of $50,000.00 through $1,000,000.00 - a) $333.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $50,000.00. 5) Valuation of construction costs over $1,000,000.00 - a) $3474.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $1,000,000.00. O) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Page 14of23 Words :trt:cl: t~rc~:g~ are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" P) The fees for electrical permits for new structures or placement or relocation of structures shall be computed as follows: 1) $0.40 per ampere rating of all single-phase panelboards. 2) $0.15 per ampere rating for switch or circuit whichever is greater, if item #1 above does not apply. 3) When not a complete installation, all switch and circuit breakers ahead of panel boards shall be computed at $0.15 per ampere. 4) Permit fees for any change in electrical installation shall be computed at the above rates for that portion of new and/or increased fees in existing electrical facilities. 5) The minimum for any electrical permit shall be $50.00 per unit or tenant space. 6) Fifty percent (50%) in additional fee costs shall be added to all above fees for three phase installations. EXCEPTION: Ordinary repairs limited to a $200 value or less may be made without a permit. Repairs must comply with all County Codes and Ordinances. If inspections are required by the Building Official or requested by the applicant, the appropriate fees shall be paid. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES The following fee calculations shall be applied separately when the permit involves mixed occupancies. 1) Residential occupancies: The fee for a plumbing permit shall be computed at the rate of $50.00 to be charged for each living unit with one to three bathrooms. An additional fee of $10.00 will be assessed for each additional bathroom. 2) Nonresidential occupancies: The fee for a plumbing permit shall be computed by the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest fee: a) The rate of $3.00 per 425 square feet of floor area, or fraction thereof; or b) Institutional facilities, hospitals, schools, restaurants and repairs in any occupancy classification shall be charged at the rate of $1.00 per fixture unit; or Page 15 of 23 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 .4._/? Exhibit "A" 3) 4) 5) 6) c) Minimum of $50.00 for each occupancy or tenant space. Grease traps: An additional fee of $50.00 shall be assessed for each grease trap. The cost for retrofit piping shall be computed at the minimum fee of 50.00 per floor for each main riser. The cost of a permit for lawn sprinkler systems shall be computed using the dollar valuation as shown under Section M N of this Resolution. The minimum plumbing permit fee shall be $50.00. Q) MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES The following fee calculations shall be applied separately when the permit involves mixed occupancies. 1) Residential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall be computed at the rate of $50.00 for each living unit up to three tons of air conditioning. Each additional ton or part thereof shall be $3.00 per ton. 2) Nonresidential occupancies: The mechanical permit fees shall be computed by one of the following methods, whichever is calculated to be the greatest fee: a) The rate of $50.00 for the first three tons or three horsepower of air conditioning or other mechanical systems per tenant space, each additional ton of air conditioning or horsepower shall be $3.00; or b) The rate of $3..00 per 425 square feet of floor area, or fraction thereof. 3) A permit for the change out of components shall be calculated at the above mechanical permit fee rate or the minimum fee whichever is greater. 4) The cost of retrofit piping shall be computed at the minimum fee of $50.00 per floor for each cooling tower, or $50.00 for the first 3 horsepower and $3.00 for each additional horsepower, whichever is greater. 5) The minimum mechanical permit fee shall be $50.00. Page 16 of 23 Words struck t~reug~ are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" R) S) T) U) FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PERMIT FEES The fees and exemptions set forth in the "Exhibit B" affixed hereto and made a part of this Schedule of Development Review and Building Permit Fees shall apply to Fire Prevention and Control Permits for both the independent and dependent fire districts. MOBILE HOME/OFFICE TRAILER AND OTHER TRAILER PERMIT FEES 1) The permit fee shall be $50.00 to set-up a single-wide trailer or mobile home on an approved site plus electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire protection fees as applicable. '2) The permit fee shall be $75.00 to set-up a double wide or larger mobile homes on an approved site plus electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire protection fees as applicable. CHICKEES AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES The permit fee will be based upon a calculated cost of construction of $4.00 per square foot under roof or the contractor's estimated cost of construction, whichever is greater. The fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section ~, N of this Resolution. Additional permit fees for electric, plumbing, mechanical, fire, etc., will be charged when applicable. POOL OR SPA PERMIT FEES 1) For construction of each public pool or spa the fee shall be - a) Valuation of construction costs of up to $4,999.99- $100.00 b) Valuation of construction costs of $5000.00 through $49,999.99 - $30.00 $80.00 plus $7.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $2,000.00. c) Valuation of construction costs of $50,000.00 through $1,000,000.00- $333.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $50,000.00. d) Valuation of construction costs over $1,000,000.00 - $3474.00 plus $3.00 per thousand dollars, or fraction thereof, of building valuation in excess of $1,000,000.00. 2 ) For construction of each private pool or spa the fee shall be - $100.00 Page 17 of 23 Words struc!: t~rc~:gh are deleted; words underlined are added AC.~.~A ITEl JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" v) w) x) Y) SCREEN ENCLOSURE PERMIT & PAN ROOF FEES Construction costs shall be calculated as follows: 1) 2) 3) Screen Roof --- $2.00 per sq. ft. of floor area. (Screen Walls Only) Pan Roof --- $3.00 per sq. ft. of floor area. (Screen Walls Only) Existing Roof --- $2.00 per sq. ft. of floor area. (Screen Walls Only) The screen enclosure orroof fee will then be calculated in accordance with Section N of this Resolution. SIGN PERMIT FEES Sign permit fees will be calculated in accordance with both: 1) 2) Section N) Building Permit Fees and Section O) Electrical Permit Fees (if applicable) The minimum ~ building permit fee for a sign shall be $75.00. * NOTE: Multiple signs of the same type (i.e., wall signs) and for a single project may be allowed per one permit, however an appropriate fee shall be charged for each sign in accordance with the schedule set forth in item ~. ~ (W) above. CONVENIENCE PERMIT FEES Convenience permits are issued in blocks of 10 each. Only licensed contractors are eligible to purchase convenience permits. Convenience permits are limited to the use specified on the permit. The fee for a book of 10 convenience permits is $400.00. REVISION AND AS BUILT PLAN REVIEW FEES; CORRECTIONS TO PLANS 1) PERMIT AND PLAN REVISIONS The fee for each permit revision submitted after permit issuance shall calculated using fee schedules outlined in Sections g N through G R above. The minimum permit fee for revisions to permitted projects shall be $50.00. Page 18 of 23 Words :tr'ack t~rzng~ are deleted; words underlined are added be JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" z) AA) BB) 2) 3) AS BUILT PLANS The fee for "As Built" plan review shall be ten (10) percent of the original building permit fee or $150.00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing amended building plans in the office to determine that change orders and various field changes are in compliance with the minimum construction and fire codes of Collier County. The following are required for as-built drawings review: a) An itemized list of all changes made after permit plan approval. b) As-built plans that have all changes made after permit plan approval "clouded". c) As-built plans and changes shall be signed and sealed by the engineer and/or architect of record. CORRECTIONS TO PLANS a) First Correction to Plans no charge b) Second Correction to Plans $75.00 c) Third & subsequent correction to plans $100.00 PERMIT EXTENSION The filing fee for each permit extension shall be equal to 10% of the original building permit fee or $100.00, whichever is greater, but shall not exceed $500.00. The filing fee is intended to cover the cost of reviewing existing or amended building plans to determine and verify code compliance. DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PERMIT FEES The permit fee shall be $50.00 for the demolition of any building or structure. PRE-MOVING INSPECTION FEES The fee shall be $150.00 for the pre-moving inspection of any building or structure. Page 19of23 Words struck tkrough are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" cc) INSPECTION FEES A charge of $20.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections for which a permit is not necessary. A user fee of $40.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections on a time specified basis. DD) EE) FF) A user fee of $120.00 per inspection shall be assessed for inspections requested after normal working hours. (Normal working hours for inspections are Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM, excluding holidays.) First Partial inspection for single-family & tenant buildout - No charge Second & subsequent partial inspections for single-family & tenant buildout - $25.00 REINSPECTION FEES Reinspections for any type of building permit shall result in an additional fee of $50.00 per inspection for the first reinspection, $75.00 for the second reinspection and $100.00 for the third and each successive reinspection. FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT Where work for which a permit is required is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit, the fees herein specified shall be four times the regular fee not to exceed $1000.00 for permits costing $250.00 and less. The penalty for failure to obtain a permit when one is required having a cost greater than $250.00 shall be two times the regular amount. The payment of such fee shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of any applicable construction code or ordinance in the execution of the work, or from any penalty prescribed within any construction code, law or ordinance of Collier County. LICENSING The fee for licensing items is as follows: Letters of Reciprocity $3.00 Page 20 of 23 Words ztruck tSrcx:g~ are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" GG) HH) If) KK) Contractors Change of Status Voluntary Registration of State Certified Contractors Pictures Laminating DUPLICATE PERMIT CARDS $10.00 $10.00 $2.00 $1.00(perlicense) The fee shall be $5.00 for the issuance of a duplicate permit card for whatever reason. CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTORS To record a change of contractor or subcontractor, on a permit that has been issued, the fee shall be $50.00. This fee includes the issuance of a new permit card. PERMIT FEE REFUNDS If requested, in writing by the owner or his authorized agent, 50% of the fees charged, other than the application fee, may be refunded-provided that a permit has been issued, construction has not commenced, and the refund is applied for prior to the cancellation of the permit. RECORD RETRIEVAL The fee for retrieving records from inactive or remote storage including microfilmed documents shall be a minimum of $15.00 or $3.75 per file whichever is greater. COPY FEES The fee for blueprint and miscellaneous copying shall be as follows: Microfilm copies, standard documents $2.00 each. Microfilm copies, of plan $5.00 each. Blueprint copies, size 24 X 36 $3.50 each, size 36 X 48 $5.00 each. Charges for reproducing a complete set of plans shall be $2.00 per page for 24 X 36 and $2.50 per page for 36 X 48. Page 21 of 23 ..... ~- are deleted; words underlined are added AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Exhibit "A" LL) MM) NN) oo) PP) 1. RESEARCH The fee for researching records, ordinances, and codes that are no longer current shall be $40.00 per hour with a one half hour minimum charge. The fee for creating and designing special computer generated reports that are not a part of the regular standard reports shall be $25.00 per hour with a one half hour minimum charge. SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE The fee for one-year subscription service to be mailed quarterly shall be $15.00 per year. The subscription year is from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. ELECTRONIC DATA CONVERSION SURCHARGE A surcharge in the amount of 3% of the building permit application fee, with the minimum surcharge being $3.00 and the maximum being $150.00, will be applied to every building permit application submitted. A flat fee of $3.00 per permit will be charged for those permits for which an application fee is not required per item (M) of this Schedule. REGISTRATION OF RENTAL DWELLINGS The fee for registration of rental dwellings is as follows: 1 ) Initial Registration Fee - $15.00 2) Annual Renewal - $10.00 Fee Waiver Procedures Requests for fee waivers may only be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Waiver requests for development review and building permit fees shall be submitted in writing directly to the appropriate Community Development & Environmental Services Division Staff, who will prepare an executive summary for consideration by the Board. Such requests shall include a statement indicating the reason for the fee waiver request and, if applicable, the nature of the organization requesting the fee waiver. Page 22 of 23 Words struck thrcag~ are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 200{ Exhibit "A" The Board may consider allowing fee waivers for temporary use permits for special events and for right-of-way permits to place temporary signs within the right-of-way for recurring events, subject to the following criteria: a) Fee waivers for recurring events within any 12-month period. The Board may grant a single fee waiver to cover multiple recurring events within any 12-month period provided the number of events during that 12-month period does not exceed 12 and that no more than one event is scheduled in any 30 day period. b) Fee waivers for recurring annual and semi-annual events. The Board may grant a single fee waiver to cover multiple recurring events within any 3-year period provided the total number of events does not exceed 6 and that no more than 2 events are scheduled within any 12-month period. c) Limitations on fee waivers for recurring events. Requests for waivers of fees for recurring events shall specify the number of events and approximate date or expected occurrences of such events. Events exceeding the number or time frames approved by the Board shall require the submission of a new request for fee waiver. Page 23 of 23 Words struck tSro~:gh are deleted; words underlined are added JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE WORK ORDER # WMI-FT-01-03WITH WILSONMILLER INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES FOR THE PATHWAYS 2001 PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 69081 OBJECTIVE: To receive the Board of County Commissioners' approval of Work Order # WMI-FT-01-03 for professional surveying services for the Pathways 2001 Project in order to prepare construction drawings for 31/2 miles of sidewalks at six (6) different locations throughout Collier County. CONSIDERATIONS: In order to improve pedestrian safety the County proposes with recommendations by the Collier County Pathway Advisory Committee (PAC) to construct six (6) pathways in various locations throughout Collier County. The proposed improvements will occur along the following streets: 1.. Lakewood Boulevard - Davis Boulevard to Estey Avenue (1,320_ feet). 2. 22nd Avenue SW - Hunter Boulevard to 50th Terrace SW (950 _+ feet). 3. Weber Boulevard - White Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard (6,000_ feet). 4. Ridge Street - Goodlette-Frank Road to US 41 (2,550 _+ feet). 5. West Delaware Avenue - South 9th Str6et to South 1st Street (2,640 _ feet). 6. Boca Ciega Drive - Lakewood Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard (4,700 _+ feet). The design survey will be utilized to create a base map for each pathway location. The Transportation Operations Department in-house design team will produce construction drawings based on the base map information provided by WilsonMiller Inc. Transportation Operations Department Staff negotiated the fees for this project's design survey. The total cost for these services is $35,000.00. The design survey is expected to be completed in sixty (60) calendar days. WilsonMiller Inc. has an approved fixed term annual contract for professional surveying services with the County. ~-~ FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $35,000.00 are budgeted in the Road Construction Gas Tax Fund. The Funding source is Gas Taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Transportation Operations Director to approve Work Order # WMI-FT-01-03 on behalf of the Board. SUBMITTED BY: Gerald N. Kurtz, Engineer II Transportation Operations Department Date: AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 pg. REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Edward J. Kant, P. Transpor~tion ~ffs Departrnent .... N~"rn~n Fede?, Administrator Tra/sportation Division Attachment: Work Order # WMI-FT-01-03 GNK:gk Dat ~ '7-'/7 :/,j~ Date: JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ,~, WORK ORDER # WMI-F'F-01-03 Agreement for Fixcd Term Land Surveying and Photogra~l~g~e~,?s Dated Januasy 25, 2000 {RFP 99-298 This Work Order is for professional surveying services for work known as: Pathways 2001 Proiect The Pathways 2001 Project consists of the planning, design and construction of approximately 3'/2 miles of sidewalks at six different locations throughout Collier County. The work is specified in the proposal dated November 22 2000 which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order #WMI-FT-01-03 is assigned to WilsonMiller inc. Scope of Work: Provide surveying services for the purpose of locating the existing road right-of-way and surface and visible features using an electric data collector. Data will be collected independently at each location, only on the side of the street or roadway affected by proposed improvements. All surveys will be on an assumed horizontal and vertical datum. Re-flagging of the road right-of-way by WilsonMiller at the time of construction will be at the discretion of the client. Boundary surveying is not included in the scope of services. · Lakewood Boulevard - Topographic features along the west edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feel beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Provide cross-section data at 50 foot intervals. · 22"~ Avenue SW - Topographic features along the north edge of the travel lane to a point i0 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. · Weber Boulevard - Topographic features along the east edge of the travel lane to a point I0 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. · Ridge Street - Topographic features along the north edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Provide cross-section data at 50 foot intervals. · West Delaware - Topographic features along the north edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Provide cross-section data at 50 foot intervals, including cross-sections beyond the 7th Avenue and of pavement to 9th Avenue. · Boca Ciega Drive - Topographic features along the south, east and north edge of the travel lane to a point l0 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Deliverables: Upon completion of the field survey, data collected information will be processes and delivered in a ACAD RI4 format for in-house design purposes. Schedule of Work: Complete work within 60 days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed authorizing start of work. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with the negotiated lump sum amount indicated in the schedule below (if a task is time and material, so indicate and use the established hourly rate(s) as enumerated in Schedule "A" of the Agreement). Design Survey (all six locations) Re-flagging the road right-of-way (all six locations) $32,000.00 (lump sum) $ 3,000.00 (time &material) TOTAL FEE $35,000.00 Any change within monetary authority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of the Agreement. PREPARED BY: ~erald N. Kurtz. Engin~'/r II. Transportation Operations Department Date AGEND ~ pg. Work Order # WMI-FT-01-03 Page 2 December 13, 2000 Richar~Heliriegel, P.E., Senj~r ~-roj, y~vt~anager Trnnspottn~ion Oper~ D~ment Director /Date/ Date Approved as to Form and ACCEPTED BY: ATTEST: (Corporate Secretary) TS'p~ Name a~Zd Title Wil..sonMillcr Inc. Name of Firm By: Signature Note: BCC needs to authorize the dollar amount and request that BCC to authorize the Transportation Operations Department Director to execute the Work Order as part of your Executive Summar) No.~~ JAN 3 2001 Wilspn ller New Directions In Planning, Design & Engineering November 22, 2000 Mr. Jerry Kurtz, PE Collier County Transportation Eng. and Construction Management Dept· 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building D Naples, FL 34112 RE: Revised Surveying Services Proposal (RFP 99-2981) Pathways 2001 Collier County Project No. 69081 Dear Mr. Kurtz: Per your request the following is the revised scope and fee to prepare six (6) design surveys on the above captioned project. The six (6) proposed surveys, located throughout Collier County, are along the following streets at approximately the lengths as shown: · Lakewood Boulevard: Davis Blvd. to Estey Ave. il,320+ feet) · 22"~ Avenue SW: Hunter Blvd.'to 50"~ Terrace SW (950+ feet) · Weber Boulevard: White Blvd. to Golden Gate Blvd. (6,000_+ feet) Ridge Street: Goodlette Frank Road to US 41(2,550_+ feet) · West Delaware Avenue: S 9~ Street to S 15' Street (2,640_+ feet) · Boca Ciega Drive: Lakewood Blvd. to Lakewood Blvd. (4,700_+ feet) SCOPE OF SERVICES Provide surveying services for the purpose of locating the existing road right-of-way and surface and visible features using an electronic data collector. Data will be collected independently at each location, only on the side of the street or roadway affected by proposed improvements. All surveys will be on an assumed horizontal and vertical datum. Re-flagging of the road right-of-way by WilsonMiller at the time of construction will be at the discretion of the client. Boundary surveying is not included in this scope of services. · Lakewood Boulevard - Topographic features along the west edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Provide cross-section data at 50 foot intervals. · 22"~ Avenue SW - Topographic features along the north edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. 11 / 22/0~-~7'Z71 V~m Weber Boulevard - Topographic features along the east edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Ridge Street - Topographic features along the north edge of pavement to a point apparent right-of-way line. Provide cross-section data at 50 foot intervals. Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradonton Tampa 3200 8ai/ey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105-8507 941-649-4040 ~ 941-643-5716 www. wilsonmiller. corn Surveying Services Proposal Pathways 2001 Collier Count7 Project No. 69081 W'dspnMiller Page 2 West Delaware Avenue - Topographic features along the north edge of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. Provide cross-section data at 50 foot intervals, including cross-sections beyond the 7th Avenue end of pavement to 9th Avenue. Boca Ciega Drive - Topographic features along the south, east and north edge's of the travel lane to a point 10 feet beyond the apparent right-of-way line. FEE(s) The estimated fee for the above scope of services relating to the design survey is $32,000.00, TM&E and will commence within two week upon your Notice to Proceed. The estimated fee for re-flagging the road right-of-way, as found during the course of the design survey, prior to construction s $3,000.00, TM&E and will commence within one week upon your Notice to Proceed. The total fee of this proposal is $35,000.00. DELIVERABLES Upon completion of the field survey, data collected information will be processed, and delivered in a ACAD 14 format for your design purposes. This proposal is based on the understanding WilsonMiller has regarding this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this, do not hesitate to contact me at 649-4040, ext. 6307 Sincerely, WILSONMILLER, INC. Drew Beck, P.S.M -- Michael H. Maxwell, Project Manager Vice President AGEN E)A,,IT, EM JAN 2 3 2001 Pg.__~ ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 136B IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. KENNETH E. DERMA, ET AL., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final Judgment as full and final compensation to be paid for the acquisition of the easement designated as Parcel 136B for the Golden Gate Boulevard project in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Kenneth E. Derma, et al., Case No. 99-3688-CA. CONSIDERATIONS: On January 7, 2000, an Order of Taking was entered in Collier County Circuit Court regarding the acquisition of easements for the Golden Gate Boulevard project (Project No. 63041). On January 20, 2000, Collier County deposited with the Registry of the Court the sum of $3600.00 for Parcel 136B in accordance with the Order of Taking. Through negotiations, the parties have reached a settlement agreement whereby the property owner, Kenneth E. Derma, will be fully and fairly compensated for the property interests taken for the public purposes enumerated in the resolution of condemnation (Resolution No. 99-287). The terms of the settlement agreement are set out in the Stipulated Final Judgment (attached as Exhibit "1"). The Stipulated Final Judgment provides for $10,000.00 to be paid to the Respondent as full compensation for the property rights taken as to Parcel 136B, and $2112.00 to be paid to Robert Gebhardt, Esq. as attorney fees. The Stipulated Final Judgment provides that Collier County shall deposit the additional amount of $8512.00 with the Registry of the Court. Staff has reviewed the County's obligations stated in the Stipulated Final Judgment and consider them to be reasonable. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $8,512.00 are available in the road construction gas tax funds. Source of funds are gas taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan for CIE Project No. 53. 1 AGENDA ITEIV~ RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: approve the Stipulated Final Judgment; approve the expenditure of the funds as stated; and direct staff to deposit the sum of $8512.00 into the Registry of the Court. SUBMITTED BY: H~di ~'. ~shion - - - Assistant County Attorney Date: REVIEWED BY: A. N. Korti, Project Manager Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Date: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Steve Miller, P.E., Director Transportation Engineering & Constrt~tion Management Nor~fi Feder, Administrator Tr~sportafion Division . David C. Weigel County Attorney Date: Date: Date: ;/',,/., / h: LitXEmDomXDerma\ExS um-P 136BSFJ 2 JAN 2 3 2001 Pg..._~~ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, VS. Petitioner, Case No.: 99-3688-CA Parcel No.: 136B 1 and for all other damages in connection with said parcel; it is further ORDERED that Respondent, KENNETH E. DERMA, receive from reasonable attorney's fee the sum of Two Thousand, One Hundred Twelve Doll~ Petitioner as a JAN 2 3 2001 .g. 3 ., KENNETH E. DERMA, et al., Respondents. / STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Joint Motion made by Petitioner, by and through its undersigned counsel, and Respondent, KENNETH E. DERMA, for entry of a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel 136B, and it appearing to the Court that the parties are authorized to make such Motion, the Court finding that the compensation to be paid by Petitioner is the full compensation due the Respondent, KENNETH E. DERMA, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises thereof, it is thereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent, KENNETH E. DERMA, have and recover from Petitioner, COLIJER COUNTY, FLORIDA, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($10,000.00) for Parcel 136B as full payment for the property interests taken and for damages resulting to the remainder, if less than the entire property was taken, business damages, ($2,112.00). Except as provided herein, no attorney fees or costs shall be awarded in connection with the above-styled cause of action as it relates to Parcel 136B; it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall install landscaping around the County's retention pond in accordance with the Irrigation and Remedial Landscape Plans for Pond 7 dated January 25, 2000; it is further ORDERED that Petitioner, COl IJF~R COUNTY, FLORIDA, shall deposit an additional Eight Thousand Five Hundred Twelve Dollars and 00/100 ($8,512.00), subject to the approval of th~ Board of County Commissioners, into the registry of this Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Stipulated Final Judgment; it is further ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall disburse the total amount of Ten Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($10,000.00) to Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur Trust Account, c/o Robert C. Gebhardt, Esq., 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #300, Naples, Florida 34108; less any amounts previously paid for the benefit of Respondent, KENNETH E. DERMA; it is further ORDERED that disbursement of funds to Respondent is subject to any claims of mortgagee Old Kent Mortgage Company; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall disburse the amount of Two Thousand One Hundred Twelve Dollars and 00/100 ($2,112.00) to Porter Wright, Morris & Arthur c/o Robert_ C. Gebhardt, Esq., 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34108-2709; it is further ORDERED that title to Parcel No. 136B, drainage and maintenance easement, being fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, which vested in Petitioner pursuant to the Order of Taking dated January 7, 2000, and the deposit of money heretofore made, is approved, ratified, and confirmed; it is further 2 AGENDA.,I'[EM., 2001 ORDERED that the Notice of Lis Pendens filed in the above-styled cause and recorded in Official Record Book 2610, Page 850 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be dismissed as to Parcel 136B; it is therefor dayof DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Naples, Collier County, Florida, this ,2000. Conformed Copies to: Heidi F. Ashton, Esq. Robert C. Gebhardt, Esq. Old Kent Mortgage Company Jack M. Jacobsen, Florida Power & Light Bookkeeping ,, Hugh D. Hayes Circuit Court Judge JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT The Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request this Court to enter the foregoing Stipulated Final Judgment. Dated: 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #300 Naples, Florida 34108 (941) 593-2990 Attorney for Kenneth E. Derma h:Lit~,EmDom\~rma-SFJ-Pareel 136B 3 HEIDI F. A~'HJON, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0966770 Harmon Turner Building 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774-8400 - PN (941) 774-0225 - Fa, Attorney for Petition JAN 2 3 2001 'ROJECT NO. 63041 'ROJEC,T PARCEL ~10, 13t~.B LEGAL DESCRIPTION & SKETCH (NOT A SURVEY) The Nodh 50 feet of the South 115 feet of the West One Half (1/2) of Tract 121, Golden Gate Estates Unit No. 3, as recorded In Plat Book 4, Page 77 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. WEST PROPERTY LINE EX~STIN0 R/~ LIllE {OOLDEN OATE BLVD.) ~ORTH pROpERTY LINE 165 FEET PROPOSED 50FT, EASEMENT finch EAST PROPERTY LINE N lEXISTING lO FT, RAN EASEldENT) EXISTING 15 FOOT DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND MAIHT. EASEMEHT {OR 2),7~, PG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 136C IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. KENNETH E. DERMA, ET AL., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stipulated Final Judgment as full and final compensation to be paid for the acquisition of the easement designated as Parcel 136C for the Golden Gate Boulevard project in the lawsuit entitled Collier Coun.ty v. Kenneth E. Derma, et al., Case No. 99-3688-CA. CONSIDERATIONS: On January 7, 2000, an Order of Taking was entered in Collier County Circuit Court regarding the acquisition of easements for the Golden Gate Boulevard project (Project No. 63041). On January 20, 2000, Collier County deposited with the Registry of the Court the sum of $3500.00 for Parcel 136C in accordance with the Order of Taking. Through negotiations, the parties have reached a settlement agreement whereby the property owners, Rebecca and Russell Hunter, will be fully and fairly compensated for the property interests taken for the public purposes enumerated in the resolution of. condemnation (Resolution No. 99-287). The terms of the settlement agreement are set out in the Stipulated Final Judgment (attached as Exhibit "1"). The Stipulated Final Judgment provides for $10,000.00 to be paid to the Respondents as full compensation for the property rights taken as to Parcel 136C, and $2145.00 to be paid to Robert Gebhardt, Esq. as attorney fees. The Stipulated Final Judgment provides that Collier County shall deposit the additional amount of $8645.00 with the Registry of the Court. Staff has reviewed the County's obligations stated in the Stipulated Final Judgment and consider them to be reasonable. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $8,645.00 are available in the road construction gas tax funds. Source of funds are gas taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan for CIE Project No. 53. 1 2001 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: approve the Stipulated Final Judgment; approve the expenditure of the funds as stated; and direct staff to deposit the sum of $8645.00 into the Registry of the Court. SUBMITTED BY: Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: A. N. Korti, Project Manager Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Steve Miller, P.E., Director Transportation Engineering & Construction Management TN~n's ~oertdae~ ~) nA dD?3 ~i ot ~ DavidC. Weigel ~ tS~) - County Attorney Date: Date: /-/o - ~ / Date: 1 '- tl- O-'t' h: Lit~EmDom~DermaXExSum-P 136C SFJ 2 JAN 2 3 200! IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION COIJJER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, VS. Petitioner, Case No.: 99-3688-CA Parcel No.: 136C damages, and for all other damages in connection with said parcel; it is further ORDERED that Respondents, RUSSELL and REBECCA HUNTER, Petitioner as a reasonable attorney's fee the sum of Two Thousand, One Huntire 1 receive from JAN 2 3 2001 KENNETH E. DERMA, et al., Respondents. / STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Joint Motion made by Petitioner, by and through its undersigned counsel, and Respondents, RUSSEI.I. and REBECCA HUNTER, for entry of a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel 136C, and it appearing to the Court that the parties are authorized to make such Motion, the Court finding that the compensation to be paid by Petitioner is the full compensation due the Respondents, RUSSELL and REBECCA HUNTER, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises thereof, it is thereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondents, RUSSELL and REBECCA HUNTER, have and recover from Petitioner, COI.I JER COUNTY, FLORIDA, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($10,000.00) for Parcel 136C as full payment for the property interests taken and for damages resulting to the remainder, if less than the entire property was taken, business Dollars and 00/100 ($2,145.00). Except as provided herein, no attorney fees or costs shall be awarded in connection with the above-styled cause of action as it relates to Parcel 136C; it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall install landscaping around the C0unty's retention pond in accordance with the Imgation and Remedial Landscape Plans for Pond 7 dated January 25, 2000; it is further ORDERED that Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, shall deposit an additional Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and 00/100 ($8,645.00), subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, into the registry of this Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Stipulated Final Judgment; it is further ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall disburse the total amount of Ten Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($10,000.00) to Porter, Wright, Morns & Arthur Trust Account, c/o Robert C. Gebhardt, Esq., 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #300, Naples, Florida 34108; less any amounts previously paid for the benefit of Respondents, RUSSELL and REBECCA ~R; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall disburse the amount of Two Thousand One Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and 00/100 ($2,145.00) to Porter, Wright, Morns & Arthur c/o Robert C. Gebhardt, Esq., 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34108-2709; it is further ORDERED that title to Parcel 136C, a drainage and maintenance easement, being fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, which vested in Petitioner pursuant to the Order of Taking dated January 7, 2000, and the deposit of money heretofore made, is approved, ratified, and confirmed; it is further ORDERED that the Notice of Lis Pendens filed in the above-styled cause and recorded in Official Record Book 2610, Page 850 of the Public Records of Collier Count . b-'lnrida he. AOF. NDA ~ dismissed as to Parcel 136C; it is therefor NO. ~&_/t3,) ,~ JAN 2 3 2001 ~ i:)g. /"/" dayof DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Naples, Collier County, Florida, this ,2000. Conformed Copies to: Heidi F. Ashton, Esq. Robert C. Gebhardt, Esq. Vh'~a~"----~-' ~' ~1 Bookkeeping Hugh D. Hayes Circuit Court Judge JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT The Parties hereby Stipulated Final Judgment. stipulate and respectfully request this Court to enter the foregoing Dated: Florida Bar No. 343749 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #300 Naples, Florida 34108 (941) 593-2990 Attorney for Russell & Rebecca Hunter Dated: / ?[,, HEIDI F. ASHTON, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0966770 Harmon Turner Building 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774-8400 - Phone (941) 774-0225 - Facsimile Attorney for Petitioner h:I_itXEmDom\~rma-SFJ-Parcel 13612 3 JAN 2 3 2001 I~OJ~.CT NO. 63041 ROJEC.T PARCEL 140. 136 C LEGAL DESCRIPTION & SKET_CH (NOT A SURVEY) The North 50 feet of the South 115 feet of the East One Half (1/2) of Tract 121, LESS the North 10 feet of the South 75 feet of the East 20 feet thereof, Golden Gate Estates Unit No. 3, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 77 o¢ the Public Records of. Collier County, Florida. , H~fiTH J~RO, PERT7 Lille WEST PROPERTY LINE 165 t"EET PROPOSED ,~0 FT. O~INAGE & MAINI'ENANCE. EASEMENT 45 FT. EXJSTINO PJW LINE * I ~' r_ .....:: :.':::.'."-'.'.'-: finch EAST PROPERTY LINE (EXIBTINO ~0 FT. R/W EASEMENT] EXISTING 15 FOOT DRAINAGE', UTILITY'~,NO MAINT, EASEMENT (OR 2~7~, PG 2~ZO] / / JAN 2 3 2001 Pg._ ~_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #00- 3039. GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WIDENING FROM CR 951 TO WILSON BOULEVARD; COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 63041; BID NO. 00-3039, CIE NO. 62 OBJECTIVE: To receive Board approval of Change Order No. 4 to the construction contract for the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard (CR 951) to Wilson Boulevard. CONSIDERATIONS: The Golden Gate Boulevard Four Lane construction consist of major stormwater management and outfall system improvements. These improvements require removal of existing driveways, pipes, and reconstruction of new driveways with appropriate pipe sizes and inverts set at the proposed ditch elevations. Construction is already in progress and new residential dwellings have been constructed in the vicinity of the improvements, thereby increasing the number of driveways to be removed and reconstructed. The cost associated with the work listed above is $386,634.45. In accordance with Exhibit H "General Terms and Conditions", Section 10.2 of the executed contract document, a change order shall be issued and executed promptly after an agreement is reached between contractor and Owner concerning the requested changes. See the attached Change Order and the associated sheet with pay item descriptions, quantities and cost. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $386,634.45 are available in Road Impact Fees District 6 Fund. Source of funds are Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project is consistent with the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $386,634.45 to compensate for construction of additional driveways. AGENDA, ITEM No. JAN 2 3 2001 / SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: ~-'- ~"""~"~ Date: A. Nyankadau Korti, Project Manager Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Department /J~,~'~~ Date: ' J Mitch Riley, P.E., St. Project manager Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Department ~-~' ;"~"- { ~"/~/~'"-'"'" Date: i/":-~/C'l Steve l~iller, P.E., Director Tr~spCrtation En~neering & Construction Management Department j.,."?/' / ' . %")"'~ ~'/I ,'~ - Date: No ,riCan Feder, Transportation Division Administrator AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Pg CHANGE ORDER # 4 TO: APAC - Florida, Inc. 1451 Myrtle Street Sarasota, Florida 34230 FROM: Collier County Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Department Public Works Division, Building "D" 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 Project Name: Golden Gate Boulevard Four Lane Improvements Project No. 63041 Bid Dated: March 8, 2000 Change Order No.: 4 Bid No. 00°3039 Date: January 4, 2001 Change Order Description: See attached sheet for Pay Items and associated fees for this Change Order No. 4 Original agreement amount .......................................................................$ Sum of previous change order amount ......................................................$ This Change Order No. 4 Amount [add] ....................................................$ Revised Agreement Amount ......................................................................$ 15,047,227.29 115,735.88 386,634.45 15,549,597.62 Original contract time in calendar days .................................................730 days Adjusted number of calendar days due to previous change order .....................0 days This change order adjusted time is ........................................................0 days Revised Contract Time in calendar days ...............................................730 days Original Notice to Proceed date ..........................................................May 22, 2000 Completion date based on original contract time ................................May 21, 2002 Revised completion date due to change order(s) .................................May 21, 2002 Your acceptance of this change order shall constitute a modification to our Agreement and will be performed subject to all the same terms and conditions as contained in said Agreement indicated above, as fully as if the same were repeated in this acceptance. The adjustment, to this Agreement shall constitute a full and final settlement of any and all claims arising out of, or related to, the change set forth herein, including claims for impact and delay costs. SUBMITTED BY: '~~'~--~--~ Date: REVIEWED BY: A. Nyankadau Korti, Project Manager Transportation Engineering & Const. //~ '~---~ ~-t ,~ '~J--' Date: Management Dept. Mitch Riley, P.E., Sr. Project Manager Transportation Engineering & Const. Management Dept. APPROVED BY: ACCEPTED BY: __~;~"-" 6/~/4~<'~ Date: 1/"/~ / Steve Miller, P.E., Director Transportation Engineering & Const. Management E rank G;{e~V~ce lYre-sident. APAC - Florida, Inc. bpt. AGENDA.ITEM No. I~ ~5,) U/ JAN 2 3 2001 o~ o~ c) o o < -o ::3' · '~ ~;0 ':' ~ z o z z m o ,o.s ~ 133 0 0 0 o~ o m.-I c>z -rm z~, mo OC ;0z mo AGEN~)&ITF_M NO. ~.) ~ JAN ~ 3 Z001 pc. ~-~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve De Angelo Brothers, Inc. for Pelican Bay Cattail Removal under'RFP #00-3125 for Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal, reject Bid 00-3050 for Pelican Bay Cattail Removal and approve the necessary budget amendment. fAmesP. Ward' ' /Department Director DATE: REVIEWED BY: 1 L;-~. ('~z ~, ~f Steve Camell " Purch~,~ingDire,,,~ [,/ 2 Edward J. Kay' Transpon~ti~~i~ Director No~anFeder, 1ICP, Administrator Tragsponation Bi vi s i on / DATE: /f.:/O,/ DATE: DATE: AG£NOA ITEH .~- No./~tr~) ~ IAN 2 3 00! m December 5, 2000 Pelican Bay Service Division Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL. 34108 Aquagenix would like to thank Pelican Bay for the opportunity to bid on Cattail removal. On Friday December Ist, Kyle and I surveyed this area, which is to be removed and treated for all regrowth. Aquagenix will provide ]abor, materia/s, supervision, equipment, supplies, tools, disposal and chemical treatment after removal. This removal includes Canails, Brazilian Pepper, and Primrose Willow fi'om tmnway to mangrove canopy. All removal work will be done manually with claw truck loading and hauling debris off site. All beneficial plants will be carefully cut around in order to promote these beneficial species. Aquagenix will always have a supervisor on site during work hours to oversee work and traffic control along tramway. We feel this job will take aprox. 4-6 weeks to completc with several men working each day, with the weather permitting. When finished we will stabilize bank affected by our equipment, which should be minimal. Scope of Work: 20 AC - Complete Project - Manually remove Cattails, Primrose Willow, and Brazilian Pepper. liaul off Site Treat Cattails area (20AC) Aprox. 2-3 months after Removal. $107,000.00 DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. Customer Date Native Technolo es, Inc? CLIENT: PELICAN BA Y SERVICES Ann: Kyle Lukasz 801 Laurel Oak Dr. - $te 605 Naples, FL 34108 3215 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 209 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 35309 Phone 954.523.5236 · 888.301.1707 Fax 954.462.7011 ww w. nativetechnologiesinc.com PROJECF: CA TTAIL REMOVAL PROJECT LOCATION: COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 Native Technologies, Incorporated shall perform the work in accordance vdth the following scope of services: NTI will remove all Cattail vegetation on the west side of the Pelican Bay Berm road t¥om the commons to the North Tram Station. All cattails will be chemically treated, removed predominantly by manual means and properly disposed. Brazilian Pepper and Primrose Willow as discussed on site will also be treated and removed. All vegetation debris will be hauled off-site. Only EPA certified herbicides will be utilized. NOTINCLUDE~ Maintenance, monitoring, planting, survey, aerial photographs, continuous hydrographs, orange barricade fencing, installation/supply of turbidity barrier or silt screen or other erosion control, water sampling, soil sampling and associated laboratory analysis, AGENDA IT, EN .- JAN 2 3 2001 State Ccrtifica[e # C1:1C058946 ~dnted ~ r~ i~q,e.J o d.JoD ol9I :t~0 O0 ~0 OTHER CONDITIONS: Owner shall be responsible to obtain any and all petalits required for the above stated work at no cost to native Technologies, Inc. NTI shall not be responsible for any hydrologic issues relating to the site. County nmst provide adequate access for ali phases of the operation, NTI will not be responsible for incidental damage due to inadequate construction access. CONTRACT FEE~$~ NII agrees to provide the above stated exotic removal services for the sum of $138,440.00 Invoices submitted for work completed shall be paid within 30 day of receipt. If payment, performance, and'or maintenance bonds are required, add 1.5% to al! costs. Submitted by: Accepted by: Native Technologies, Inc. 868~-L9S-~6 a~eJodJo3 FL[~II]~ ENVIRONmENTaL Fax:~lZ~288778 Dec 5 2000 12:38 P~O! FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL INCORPORATED December 5, 2000 Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican Bay Services Division of Collier County Government 801 Laurel Oal< Drive, #605 Naples, FL 34108 RE: Pelican Bay Cattail Removal Alternate Bid Dear Kyle: Florida Environmental recommends the following alternative method for cattail removal along the west side of the Pelican Bay Berm Road from the Commons to the North Tram Station. We feel this alternate meets the intent of RFP ~:)0-3125 with significant savings to Pelican Bay Services. Task Cost 1 , $15,000 Description Initial eradication of cattails and other nuisance vegetation by aerial and ground herbicide application, Three (3) semi monthly herbicide treatment events to preclude the re-establishment of nuisance vegetation. Biomass reduction using mechanical and hand crews to meet maximum vegetation height of 1 foot above water level. TOTAL $8,000~ $7,OO0 $30,000 V~,th the exception of woody vegetation, no material will be removed from site. Florida Environmental will initiate activ~ within 30 days of authorization to proceed and will complete all work including follow up maintenance program within 240 days, Sincerely, Andrew J. Dodd Vice President POliO381101, Muntock, FL 3398J-/IO8 18505 PauLon D,~, Bldg. B, Po. Charlotte, FL 33954 ~io&{O0flcnv,iron. com P.~ge I 888/536.2855 FAX 629- 721 C) A~£NOA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH WCI COMMUNITIES, INC. ("DEVELOPER") FOR THE CONTRIBUTION OF LAND TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; ACCEPT PAYMENT AS SATISFACTION OF THE DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATION TO FUND THE COST FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD OVERPASS STRUCTURE AND APPROVE THE EXECUTION OF EASEMENTS OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval for a Developer Contribution Agreement between Collier County and the Developer for the contribution of land for right-of-way, drainage and utility purposes necessitated by the improvement of Livingston Road in exchange for road impact fee credits; accept the amount of impact fee credits generated from this contribution and cash or additional impact fee credits as satisfaction of the Developer's obligation under the Pelican Marsh PUD to fund the cost for the expansion of the Goodlette-Frank Road overpass structure to six lanes. The County shall convey back to the developer an easement for a golf cart path under Livingston Road and for pan of an effluent storage pond that infringes into part of the Livingston Road right-of-way. No road impact fee credits will be granted for the 4.27 acres of the pond. The location of the pond conforms to the current design plans for the roadway. The developer will indemnify the County for any use of the pond. CONSIDERATION: Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, Section 3.06 provides for the establishment of a "development contribution credit" against road impact fees imposed under Section 2.10, in return for certain donations of required lands. Under the provisions of the above referenced Ordinance, when the Transportation Services Director approves the dedication of said land as being necessary for the construction of Collier County "transportation network" improvements, the Director may ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement which will establish a credit against impact fees otherwise payable for the development of the parent parcel from which the dedication came. In an effort to alleviate congestion and develop a North/South conduit, the Collier County Transportation Division has planned for the construction of Livingston Road. The engineering design plans of the Livingston Road Project from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road (C. R. 846) requires the conveyance, by warranty deed, of a 275' corridor, hereinafter referred to as the "Contribution". Developer owns or has legal control over the land described as the Contribution and will insure that the entire length of the Contribution is deeded to the County in fee simple title, free of all liens and encumbrances except for the above-referenced easements. Pursuant to the Pelican Marsh PUD Ordinance No. 99-90, as amended, the Developer agreed to contribute (or cause to have contributed) to Collier County the road right-of-way required for that section of proposed Livingston Road within the Pelican No. Executive Summary - WCI Pa eO.eofFour JAN 2 3 2001 boundaries. In addition to this commitment and in accordance with Ordinance No. 99-90, the cost for design, permitting and construction of the expansion to Goodlette-Frank Road Overpass structure from (2) lanes to up to six (6) lanes (as approved by the Board of County Commissioners), is the sole responsibility of the developer, however, the Developer could elect to apply cash and existing impact fee credits from previous Pelican Marsh dedications or those received for the Developer's dedication of the road right-of-way for the future Livingston Road as full or partial payment of the Developer's obligation to pay for the expansion of the Goodlette-Frank Road overpass structure County Road Impact Fee Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, requires the value of the Contribution be based upon an appraisal of market value of the Contribution. Both parties acknowledge and accept that the value of the Contribution is Two Million, Three Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2,336,687.50), as derived from an analysis of comparable sales of similar properties, between unrelated parties in a bargaining transaction. All claims to the impact fee credits identified under this agreement, pertaining to the conveyance of the Livingston Road Contribution, shall be relinquished by the Developer and the credits shall be retained by the County in order to satisfy the Developer's obligation under the commitments of the Pelican Marsh PUD Ordinance for future improvements to the Goodlette-Frank Road Golf Cart Overpass expansion. Because there are insufficient road impact fee credits available from the Livingston Road Contribution, to pay for the estimated costs of the Goodlette-Frank Road Overpass expansion, the Developer shall remit, within ninety (90) days from the date of the execution of this agreement, the balance in cash or from accrued road impact fee credits from Road Impact Fee District One. FISCAL IMPACT: The Developer Contribution Agreement shall establish a Road Impact Fee Credit in the amount of Two Million, Three Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2,336,687.50) in Road Impact Fee District One that will be returned to the County by the Developer. The estimate of probable costs for the construction of the Goodlette-Frank Road Overpass expansion that the Developer is obligated to pay for are estimated at Two Million, Nine Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand, Thirty-Two Dollars and Eighty Cents ($2,936,032.80). The County will deduct Two Million, Three Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2,336,687.50) in impact fee credits received from the Developer for the value of the Livingston Road land donation from the cost of the Goodlette-Frank Road Overpass. Since the amount of road impact fees resulting from the land donation is insufficient to pay for the cost of the expansion, the Developer shall pay the difference in cash or donate additional road impact fee credits equal to the difference. The amount owed by the Developer is Five Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand, Three Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and Thirty Cents ($599,345.30). FISCAL IMPACT: Fund: #331 Execuli',e guttartary - WCI Page Tv.o of Four Cost Center: #163650 2 (Road Impact Fee Distl AGENDA IJ]EM No. [~ {'"'h ~ ~ JAN 2 3 2001 pg. c:~ No Funds will be paid to the developer by the County. Said Impact Fee Credits are not anticipated to adversely affect the cash flow or liquidity of the funds in the Road Impact Fee District. Funds received from the Developer will be deposited into the appropriate Road Impact Fee District I Fund. The Developer, pursuant to the Developer Contribution Agreement, shall be required to pay all costs associated with the recordation of conveyance documents and any recording costs of corrective instruments. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Execution of the Developer Contribution Agreement will provide for the construction of necessary infrastructure, which is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: Approve the Developer Contribution Agreement subject to the Developer furnishing all necessary closing documents, as determined by the County and as acceptable to the Office of the County Attorney, to the Office of the County Attorney for review no later than 4 p.m. on January 19, 2001 and subject to the Developer paying all documentary stamp fees and other costs associated with the transfer of the real property. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Developer Contribution Agreement and the easements for a golf cart path and effluent pond on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners; and Authorize the acceptance and recordation of any necessary conveyance and release documents upon approval by the Office of the County Attorney; and Authorize Staff to record all pertinent documentation in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Prepared by: Jacqueh~ne Hubbard Robinson, Assistant County Attorney %, Date: l "--- 1'7 --.~2,,r~ [ Reviewed and Approved b/~: ~ David C. Weigel, County Atto~ Date: 1--'~ l 7 -- d~ Executive Summary - WCI Page Three of Four J4,N 2 3 2001 Re v i e~.~e d~AA~ro v e~SC.' ,~in i~en~'-r~s, ~i gl~t-of~~'~ordin ator ? Revie~%effand &10p.r~ve4 by: Nd'r ~ 'hn FedeX', Transportation Administrator / / Date: /-/_t~'~ Date: Executi~ e Summary - WCI Page Four of Four 4 JAN 2 3 2001 STANDARD FORM COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDITS FOR WCI COMMUNITIES, INC. - LIVINGSTON ROAD and GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD No.2000-001-TR-WCI~Livingston Road THIS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 23rd day of January, 2001, by and between WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation duly organized and authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to herein as "Developer," whose address is 24301 Walden Center Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, by and through Jerry Starkey, its President, who has been duly authorized to execute this Contribution Agreement for Road Impact Fee Credits and THE BOARD OF COLTN~y COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as "County." RECITALS: WHEREAS, Developer is desirous of entering into a contribution agreement with the County which grants a credit for road impact fees, in exchange for land donations to the County's transportation network; and WHEREAS. Developer either has legal control over, or is the record title owner of certain lands described in Exhibit "A" (hereinafter referred to as "The Development") attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which upon development in the near future will be subject to the imposition of road impact fees; and WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge the value of the donated land is based upon a written appraisal of fair market value by qualified and professional appraisers acceptable to the County and based upon comparable sales of similar property between unrelated parties in a bargaining transaction with a date of value being the date immediately preceding the approval of the development order creating the contribution commitment in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.2,8.1, Collier County Land Development Code, a copy of said Appraisal Letter and Certification of Appraisal being attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "B," and WHEREAS, the term "road impact construction lands" refers to the land areas directly affected by the road impact construction as defined in the Collier County Code of Ordinances sections pertaining to road impact fees; and No.21)00-1 -TR-WCl-Livingston Road AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 WHEREAS, the Transportation Administrator will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Proposed Plan for donation, as set forth in this Agreement, is in conformity with contemplated improvements and additions to the County's transportation network and that it will be advantageous to the public for Developer to donate certain land or have legal authority to effectuate the donation of certain land as described herein and in Exhibit "C" which comprise, among other things, roadway facilities that are required to be made pursuant to the Pelican Marsh Planned Unit Development Ordinance, a development order; and WHEREAS, after reasoned consideration by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board has authorized the County Attorney to prepare this Contribution Agreement upon the Board finding that: a. The subject Proposed Plan is in conformity with the contemplated improvements and additions to the County's transportation system; b. Such Proposed Plan, viewed in conjunction with other existing or proposed plans, including those from other developers, will not adversely impact the cash flow or liquidity of the County's road impact fee trust account in such a way as to frustrate or interfere with other planned or ongoing growth necessitated capital improvements and additions to the County's transportation system; c. The Proposed Plan is consistent with the public interest; and d. The proposed time schedule for completion of the Proposed Plan is consistent with the most recently adopted five-year capital improvement program for the County's transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds that the contributions contemplated by this Contribution Agreement are consistent with the County's existing comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the PUD Ordinance provides that: (A) Developer agrees to dedicate, or cause to be dedicated and deeded to the County the 275' wide road right of way required for that section of Livingston Road within the Pelican Marsh Community PLrD boundaries, (referred to as the contribution or land donation). (B) The timing of the dedication shall be at the request of County, and County shall be responsible for costs title in the of conveyance and Developer shall pay all recording costs. (C) Developer shall be entitled to impact fee credits for this dedication pursuant to Ordinance 92-22 and Section 380.06(16), Florida Statutes, (1995). (D) The value of the dedicated property shall be determined pursuant to Subsection 2.7.2.8.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (the "LDC"). WHEREAS, this Contribution Agreement shall not be construed or characterized as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. AGEI~IDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: The above recitals are true and correct and shall be incorporated herein. In exchange for the land donation identified and contemplated in this Contribution Agreement as set forth in Exhibit "C," Developer shall solely be entitled to credits for road impact fees as more particularly described herein. The amount of credits for road impact fees shall be determined according to the following standards of valuation: The value of any donated land shall be based upon current appraisals of fair market as of the time of the initial PUD zoning as set forth herein. A copy of said appraisals are attached hereto as composite Exhibit "B". No credit for lands, easements, construction or infrastructure otherwise required to be built or transferred to the County by law, ordinance or any other rule or regulation shall be considered or included in the value of any developer's contribution, unless specifically set forth in the relevant law, ordinance, rule or regulation. Upon execution of this Contribution Agreement, additional work requested by the County beyond that contemplated in the description of and estimate of costs for contributions under this Contribution Agreement shall be paid for by the County and shall not be considered or included in the value of any Developer's contribution unless agreed to by the County. No 2000-1-TR-WCI-Lix ingston Road Claims to the impact fee credits identified under this agreement resulting from the Livingston Road Land Donation as set forth in Exhibit "D" hereto, shall be relinquished by the Developer and retained by the County, in the amount necessary to satisfy the developer's obligation under the Pelican Marsh PLq), Ordinance number 99-33, to pay for the cost of expanding the Goodlette-Frank Golf Cart Overpass to six (6) lanes. The County has determined that the cost of constructing this expansion, based upon a certified estimate of probable cost prepared by a professional engineer and attached hereto is $2,936,032.80. This estimate of probable cost has been approved by an engineer employed by the County's Department of Transportation. The County shall deduct the amount of road impact fee credits available to the Developer, pursuant to this agreement, from the amount of the estimate of probable cost in order to determine the amount of the Developer's remaining obligation. Pursuant to paragraph 7 below, there are insufficient impact fee credits available to cover the cost of construction of the expansion of the Goodlette-Frank Gold Cart Overpass, therefore the Developer AI3ENDA ITEM 3 JAN 2 3 2001 o 10. shall satisfy its obligation under the aforementioned PUD utilizing the method set forth in paragraph 5 below. Since there are insufficient road impact fee credits available from the Developer's Livingston Road land donation, as set forth herein, equal to the estimate of cost of the Goodlette-Frank Golf Cart Overpass expansion as set forth above, the Developer shall remit, within ninety (90) days from the date of execution of this agreement, the balance in cash or from accrued road impact fee credits within Road Impact Fee District One. In the event additional accrued road impact fee credits are used to satisfy the Developer's obligation, a written release shall be executed by the Developer within the ninety (90) day period set forth in this paragraph. All fight-of-ways necessary for construction and retention easements for the future construction by the County, of the Goodlette-Frank Golf Path Overpass expansion to six-lanes, shall be and shall continue to be provided at no cost to the County by the Developer. The amount of the road impact fee credits to be granted under this agreement for the Livingston Road Land Donation is $2,336,687.50. County agrees to design and construct, at its sole cost and expense in accordance with Developer's drainage plans, any County drainage improvements which require extensions beyond the Property being donated to necessary sources or outfalls situated on the Developer's or its successors' or assigns' adjacent lands, and further agrees to complete such construction within a reasonable period of time so as not to delay development on such lands and to the extent to which it is feasible will do so in accordance with Developer's plan. Developer will coordinate with the County to determine permanent outfalls for water management connections/extensions from the Property being donated to Developer's or its successors' and assigns' adjacent lands in a timely manner. Developer or its successors or assigns will convey to the County, within a reasonable time, after a request by the County, any easements required for drainage improvement extensions referenced in Paragraph 8 above, based upon locations approved by Developer and County. The developer must complete all construction work within the Livingston Road fight of way conveyed under this agreement, associated with its golf cart path underpass. r~o later than March 1, 2002. This construction work shall include the following: go Placement of the box culvert; Placement of the roadway embankment and all embankment treatments, such as any retaining wall or any other construction to stabilize the embankment; AGEI~DA IT~.M No. lt~ /~ ~ . 4 JAN , 3 2001 pg. No2000-1 -TR-WCl-Livingston Road c. Construction of the golf cart path; 6. Placement of required utilities or casings to accommodate them. II. Developer shall be responsible for all costs incidental to and resulting from the construction of the golf cart underpass, as set forth in Paragraph 10, on the donated property conveyed pursuant to this agreement. 1'9 The Developer shall furnish to the County all documents necessary to insure that any real property required to ',e conveyed to the County from any other landowners, for the Livingston Road right-of-way, shall be free of any and all claims for road impact fee credits, based upon the value of the right-of-way conveyed. The Developer shall indemnify the County from any claims for road impact fee credits regarding the Pelican Marsh PUD obligations of the Developer. 13. The failure of this Contribution Agreement to address any permit, condition, term, or restriction shall not relieve either the Developer or its successors of the necessity of complying with any law; ordinance, rule or regulation governing said permitting, requirements, conditions, or terms of restrictions. This Contribution Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with all relevant State or Federal laws and regulatory requirements enacted after the execution of this Contribution Agreement that are applicable to and that may preclude the parties compliance with the terms of the Contribution Agreement. 14. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Contribution Agreement shall only be modified or amended by the mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. 15. The burdens of this Contribution Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Contribution Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Contribution Agreement. 16. The performance and execution of this Contribution Agreement shall be carried out in conformance with the Risk Management Guidelines established by the County*s Risk Management Department for land use as more particularly described in Exhibit" D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Developer shall hold the County harmless and shall indemnify the County for and from any and all claims resulting from the use of the golf cart path and effluent pond easements conveyed by the County as identified in Exhibit "G" to this agreement. 17. This Contribution Agreement shall be recorded by the County in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida within fourteen (14) days after the County, by its duly authorized Chairman, executes this Agreement. A copy of the recorded document will be provided to Developer. 2001')- 1 -TR-W CI-Livin ~ston Road 5 AGENDA ITEM' No. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. 18. Any party to this Agreement shall have the ability to file an action for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Contribution Agreement., said remedy being cumulative within any and all other remedies available to the parties for enforcement of this agreement. 19. Developer certifies, by virtue of entering into this agreement, that all donations and contributions are consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. 20. County agrees, to the best of its knowledge, that all donations and contributions are consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. 21. Developer certifies, by virtue of entering into this agreement, that Developer is the sole owner or has legal control of the donated lands. An attorney's opinion of title and a statement of Developer's authority to enter into this agreement are provided by Developer and are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "E." 2¸'3. Developer shall convey all lands free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by warranty deeds, within thirty (30) days of the execution of this agreement and shall have presented to the Office of the County Attorney, prior to the execution of this agreement, the form and language of the deeds, as set forth in Exhibit 23. The parties acknowledge that any land donation made pursuant to this agreement is an integral pan of and a necessary accommodation to the Collier County transportation network. 24. The Developer certifies, by virtue of entering into this agreement that any off-site improvements contributed, are an integral part of and a necessary accommodation to the County's transportation network. 25. Thc off-site improvements, if any, exclude access improvements. 26. The Transportation Administrator has determined that the proposed road impact fee credit plan is consistent with the public interest. 27. Developer has provided an attorney's opinion first, setting forth the authority of the developer to cause the conveyance in fee simple of the entire land donation, and second, identifying any lien holders having asserted a lien or encumbrance on the donated land or other contribution, and provided a certificate of no liens. Said opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit "E." 28. No 2000- I-TR-WCI-Livingston Road Developer has provided, in Exhibit "E", an attorney's opinion setting forth the legal authority and present validity of any business entity utilized by the developer in the execution of this agreement, including an affidavit listing the names and addresses of all panners, if a pannership, and stating that the entity is in full force and effect. -- - A~IqDA ITEM ' 29. The parties acknowledge that any donation and/or contribution are characterized as work done and property rights acquired by a highway or road agency for the improvement of a road within the boandaries of a public right of way. 30. The road impact fee credit granted shall only be for donations or contributions made to the transportation network to accommodate growth and which were made within the respective road impact fee district where the road impact construction is located. 31. The impact fee credits provided in this Agreement for Developer's land donation shall be a credit only against road impact fees and such imp ~ct fee credits shall not offset, diminish or reduce any other charges, fees or other impact fees for which the Developer, its successors and assigns are responsible in connection with the development of their lands. 32. The Developer shall provide to the County the necessary documents, including any agreements requested by the County, evidencing the golf cart path underpass and the effluent storage pond easements as set forth in Composite Exhibit "G", including a drawing of the location of each. 33. The amount of available road impact fee credits shall be set forth in Exhibit "H" and all claims to these credits shall be relinquished to the County by Developer. 34. The parties agree to the sum of $2,936,032.80 as the amount of the certified estimate of probable cost for the expansion of the Goodlette-Frank Golf Cart Overpass to six (6) lanes as set forth hereto in Exhibit 'T' to this agreement. LN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written. Attest: Dated: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORDA WITNESSES: By:. JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., Chairman WCI Communities, Inc. No 2000-1 -TR-WCI-Li~ in~,ston Road 7 By: JERRY STARKEY, President --- - A(3END~,ITEM No. II- Jg--, 1 ~ vj ~.~ JAN 2 3 2001 Print Name: Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisday of , 2001, by Jerry Starkey, President of WCI Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation. On behalf of the corporation and limited liability company. He/She is [ ] personally known to me, or [ ] has produced driver's license no. as identification. (SEAL) Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: NOTARY PUBLIC Name: (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson Assistant County Attorney No 2000- l -TR-WCI-Li~ineslon Road XOE-NDA ITEM JAN 2 32001 LIST OF EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO AGREEMENT Exhibit "A" - - Description of Lands owned by Developer Exhibit "B" - - Arcon Appraisal Letter and Certification and Kenneth R. Devoes Appraisal Letter and Certification Exhibit "C" - - A legal description and drawing of Land Donation Exhibit "D" - - A copy of the Risk Management Guidelines applicable to this Agreement Exhibit "E" - - An Attorney's Opinion of Title and other matters Exhibit "F" - - The Warranty Deeds Exhibit "G" - - A legal description and drawing of the two existing easements for golf carts and drainage Exhibit "H" - - The Road Impact Fee Credit Ledger Exhibit "I" - - Certified Estimate of Cost No 200(I- 1 -TR-WCI-Livin~ston Road 9 JAN 2 3 2001 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PELICAaN/vL2kRSH, being approximately 2214 acres, more or less, is legally descr/bed as follows: BEGINNING at the southwest comer of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the west line of said Section 27 and the easterly right-of-way line of U.S. 41 North 00°38'20" West 2623.40 feet to the west 1/4 comer of said Section 27; thence continue along the west line of said Section 27 and said right-of-way North 00"39' 12" West 827.69 feet; thence leaving said line North 89°20'45" East 3844.57 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of proposed Goodieire-Frank Road as recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58, Public Records of Collier County., Florida; thence along said westerly fight-of-way line in the following four (4) described courses; 1) South 05°34'48" East 3545.96 feet to the south line of said Section 27; 2) South 05°33'10" East 2642.17 feet; 3) southerly 620.87 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave westerly having a radius of 2799.93 feet through a central angle of 12°42'18" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 00047'59" West 619.60 feet; South 07°09'08" West 1675.64 feet to the boundary line of the plat of Pine Ridge Second Extension as recorded in Plat Book 10, page 86 of the Public Records of Collier County,, Florida;. thence along the boundary of said Pine Ridge Second Extension in the following eight (8) described courses: 1) 2) 3) 4) 53 6) 7) South 89°50'58" West 88.21 feet; North 31°34'00" West 120.19 feet; North 05~37' 10" West 956.47 feet; South 74°46'39" West 379.98 feet; South 12004'43" East 23.53 feet; South 87°09'43" West 272.40 feet; northwesterly 1854,46 feet along the arc of a non-tangential circular curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 1640.26 feet through a central angle of 64°46'40" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 48050'02" West 1757.26 feet; I-I A'~3ENDA ITEM JAN 3 001 8) North 81013'22" West 737.85 feet; thence leaving said plat boundary North 00°03'39" West 707.85 feet; thence South 89°33'32" East 336.81 feet; thence North 00°26'28" East 180.64 feet; thence northerly 37.60 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave easterly having a radius of 130.00 feet through a central angle of 16°34' 19" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 08°43'37" East 37.47 feet; thence North 17o00'47" East 181.41 feet; thence northwesterly 654.92 feet along the are of a circular curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 395.00 feet through a central angle of 94°59'52" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 30°29'09" West 582.44 feet ~ence North 77°59'05" West 144.30 feet; thence northwesterly 418.87 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 800.00 feet through a central angle of 29°59'57" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 62°59'06" West 414.10 feet; thence North 47°59'08" West 100.03 feet; thence westerly 615.18 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave southerly having a radius of 826.09 feet through a central angle of 42040'04" and being subtended by a chord wh/ch bears North 69019' 10" West 601.07 feet; thence South 89o20'48" West 204.55 feet to the west line of said Section 34, and the east right-of-way line of U.S. 41; thence along said line North 00o39'20" West 665.92 feet to the Point of Beginning;' LESS AND EXCEPT all that part of Pelican Marsh Unit Five as recorded in Plat Book 22, pages 88 through 89 Public Records of Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwesterly comer of said Pelican Marsh Unit Five; thence along the boundary of said Pelican Marsh Unit Five South 89°33'32" East 306.56 feet to a point on the west line of Tract WF-1 (Drainage Easement) according to the Plat of Grand Isle at Pelican Marsh, Plat Book 24, pages 67 througk 70, Public Record,: of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line South 00°00'00" East 481.17 feet to a point on the north line of Tract "B" (Vanderbilt Beach Road) according to the Plat of Pelican Marsh Unit Five, Plat Book 22, pages 88 through 89, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence southwesterly 306.37 feet along the arc of a non-tangential circular curve concave to the soatheas:, having a radius of 2430.00 through a central angie of 07°13'26" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 88° 15' 16" West 306.17 feet to a point on the boundary of said Pelican Marsh Unit Five; thence along said line North 00°03'39" West 492.87 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 3.40 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. No. JAN 2 3 2001-.. Bearings are based on the north line of said Pelican Marsh Unit Five being South 89033'32" East. Containing 573.98 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the west ~4 comer of said Section 27; thence along said west line North 00°39' 12" West 827.69 feet; thence leaving said line North 89°20'45" East 577.78 feet to tile Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence North 57°47'59" East 46.92 feet; thence North 68°35'21" East 110.88 feet; thence North 00°39'12" West 187.52 feet; thence North 77°43'40" East 573.08 feet; the~nce South 72o59'03" East 785.48 feet; thence South 00°39' 15" East 27.71 feet; thence North 89o20'45" East 503.78 feet; thence South 00°39' 15" East 100.64 feet; thence South 89020'45" West 1957.22 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Containing 9.5 acres more or less. B.: :~ri,irs are based on the west line of said Section 27 as being North 00°39' 12" West. AND LESS THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) DESCRIBED PARCELS: All that part nf Section 27, Tnwnship 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier Count,, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the west one quarter comer Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East; thence along the west line of said Section 27 North 00039' 12" West 827.69 feet; thence leaving said Section line North 89020'45" East 55.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the area thereon described; thence North 89°20'45" East 366.45 feet; thence South 00039' 15" East 34.09 feet; thence southeasterly 47.35 feet along the arc of a non-tangential circular curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 70.00 feet through a central angie of 38°45'23" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 64°19'09" East 46.45 feet to a point of compound curvature; · AOI~NDA"i'Tk::~ No. , . 0...., _ ]LOW~' JAN2 3 2001 1-3 thence southerly 259.53 feet radius of 197.21 feet through which bears South 07°14'23" thence southerly 151.40 feet radius of 130.00 feet through which bears South 02°54'07" along the arc of a circular curve concave westerly having a a central angle of 75024'06" and being subtended by a chord East 241.20 feet to a point of reverse curvature; along the arc of a circular curve concave easterly having a a central angle of 66043'37" and being subtended by a chord East 142.99 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence southerly 120.22 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave westerly having a radius of 70.00 feet through a central angle of 98°24' 12" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 12056' 10" West 105.98 feet; thence south 62o08' 16" West 75.07 feet; thence southerly 48.75 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave easterly having a ra,,l~us ,'~f 30.00 feet through a central angle of 93o06' 13" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 15°35' 10" West 43.56 feet; thence South 30o57'58" East 34.79 feet; thence southerly 19.94 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave westerly having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 14o16'43" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 23o49'37" East 19.89 feet; thence along a non-tangential line South 84°13'14" East 158.41 feet; thence South 80°55'24" East 183.78 feet; thence South 81°52'51" East 180.90 feet; thence. South 00°00'00" East 261.28 feet; thence North 90°00'00" West 394.57 feet; thence North 00°00'00" East 271.73 feet; thence North 84013' 14" West 120.32 feet; thence South 33°05'40" West 54.13 feet; thence South 76°56'51" West 89~04 feet; thence North 58°35'21" West 65.19 feet; thence North 15°31 '55" West 74.80 feet; thence North 00°41'4I" West 115.24 feet; thence North 28°22'47" East 171.51 feet; thence North 17°11'45" West 106.79 feet; thence North 13002'52" East 28.51 feet; thence North 73°36' 14" West 54.78 feet; thence South 49016'08" West 112.78 feet; thence South 89o47'08" West 53.08 feet; thence North 58°06 49" West 50.49 feet; thence North 00°39'12" West 303.49 feet to the Point of Beginning of the area herein described. Containing 7.8 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are based on the west line of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being North 00°39' 12" West. I-4 '/~ENDA ITEM No. ~/ O / JAN-2 3 2001 All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the west ~A corner of said Section 27; thence along said west line North 00°39'12" West 827.69 feet; thence leaving said line North 89°20'45" East 2469.55 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue North 89°20'45" East 787.88 feet; thence South 84°45'32" West 23.43 feet; thence South 74°56'42" West 121.32 feet; th. ence South 79°49'51" West 45.93 feet; thence westerly 45.51 feet along the arc of a tangential circular curve concave to the north having a radius of 66.00 feet through a central angle of 39030' 16" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 80°25'01" West 44.61 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence northwesterly 52.92 feet along the arc of a tangential circular curve concave to the south having a radius of 150.00 feet through a central angle of 20012'57" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 70°46'21" West 52.65 feet; :hcnce North 8¢°52'50" West 36.59 feet; thence westerly 46.17 feet along the arc of a tangential ckcular curve concave to the south having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 33o04' 13" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 82°35'04" West 45.54 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence westerly 38.16 feet along the arc of a tangential circular curve concave to the north having a radius of 60.00 feet through a central angle of 36°26'18" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 84°16'06" West 37.52 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence westerly 68.84 feet along the are of a tangential circular curve concave to the south h:"5,g a ;ad!us of .305.00 feet through a central angle of 12055'58" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 83°58'44" West 68.70 feet; thence South 89033' 17" West 18.36 feet; thence South 89°39' 11" West 71.63 feet; thence North q"° ~ .....z~. ,_s ..o uo V. ~. 36 03 feet; ~ence Sou~ 86°06'33" West 42.94 f~t; ~ence Sou~ 83°~'08" West 26.23 f~t; · ence Sou~ 51°01'05" West 27.49 feet; ~ence Sou~ 33025'42" West 19.95 feet; ~ence Sou~ 15=39'57" West 20.54 feet; ~ence Sou~ 10°54'31" West 34.~ f~t; ~ence Sou~ 89°20'~" West 101.~ f~t; ~ence No~ 10045'58" ~t descried. 101.42 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Containing 0.48 acres more or less. Bearings are based on the west line of said Section 27 as 1-5 All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the west ~A comer of said Section 27; thence along said west line North 00°39' 12" West 827.69 feet; thence leaving said line North 89°20'45" East 3401.12 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continue North 89o20'45' East 443.43 feet; thence Soufix 05°34'48" East 147.72 feet; tl-.ence South 89020'45" West 51.56 feet; thence North 23°56'01" West 13.07 feet; thence northerly 30.72 feet along the arc of a tangential circular curve concave to the east having a radius of 80.00 feet through a central angle of 21059'53" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 12056'04" West 30.53 feet; thence North 05°01'01" West 31.56 feet; thence North 36019'27" West 32.02 feet; t/nonce No~-~a 56°04'43" West 35.11 feet; thence North 80°39'23" West 32.53 feet; thence North 88039'20" West 97.78 feet; thence North 86o04'48" West 45.79 feet; thence North 89°49'56" West 132.77 feet; thence North 69°40'18" West 37.23 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Conua:m/ng 0.3~° acres more or less. Bearings are based on the west line of said Section 27 as being North 00°39'12" West. AND TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: Beginning at the northwest comer of said Section 35; thence along the north line of said Section 35 North 89°45'35" East 5231.69 feet to the west right-of-way line of Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31); thence along said westerly right-of-way line South 00°31'47" East 5258.31 feet to the south line of said Section 35; thence along said soufix line South 89°39'22" West 2541.65 feet to the south ~/4 comer of said Section 35; thence continue along said south line South 89°39'32" West 2641.33 feet to the southwest comer of said Section 35; thence along the south line of said Section 34 South 89o51'02" West 391.57 feet to the boundary line of a parcel described in O.R. Book 524, page 121 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence along the boundary of said parcel North 01003'33' ;V,~,~O~f~( I~ No.. ~, ~_~/~ JAN 2 3 2001 thence continue along the boundary of said parcel South 89°51 '02" West 443.28 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of proposed Goodlotto-Frank Road as recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said easterly right-of-way line North 07°09'08' East 1729.52 feet; thence continue along said easterly right-of-way line northerly 649.69 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave westerly having a radius of 2929.93 feet through a central angle of 12042' 18" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 00°47'59" East 648.37 feet; thence continue along said right-of-way line North 05°33'10" West 2628.44 feet to a point on the north line of said Section 34; thence leaving said right-of-way line and along the north line of said Section 34 South 89°31 '31" East 772.91 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 708.39 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. AND TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL Beginning at the northeast corner of said Section 36; thence along the east line of said Section, South 02o12'03" East 2671.63 feet to the east 1/4 comer of said Section 36; thence continue a',ong the east line of said Section 36 South 02006'28" East 2519,08 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Vanderbilt Beach Road; thence along said northerly right-of-way line North 89°39'39" West 2855.35 feet; thence continue along said line North 89°43'59" West 2544.87 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31); thence along said easterly right-of-way line North 00o31'47" West 4490.03 feet to the southwest comer of the east 15 feet of the west 115 feet of the south 80 feet of the north 61q.49 feet of said Section 36; roenee along Ene south line of said land North 89°27'57" East 15.00 feet; thence along the east line of said land North 00°31 '47" West 80.00 feet; thence along the north line of said land South 89°27'57" West 15.00 feet to the east fight-of- way line of Airport Road (C.R. 31); th~'~ce a',cng said righ:-o~way Norfin 00c31 '47" West 539.49 feet to the north line of said Section 36; thence along said north line North 89o27'57" East 3914.28 feet to the southwest corner of the east IA of the east 1/2 of said Section 25; thence along the west line of the east 1/~ of the east 1/2 of said Section 25 North 01054'09" West 2668 19 feet; thence continue along the west line of the east !/2 of the east ~A of said Section 25 North 01o57' 16" West 2567.06 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846); thence along said right-of-way North 89o14'36" East 1325.57 feet to the east line of said Section 25; thence along said east line of Section 25 South 02006'59" East 2569.75 feet to the east 1/4 comer of Section 25; AGENDA ITEM No. [(~/> , JAN 2 3 1-7 1.3 thence continue along said east line of Section 25 South 02°00'46" East 2670.97 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 789.67 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are based on the State Plane Coordinates 1983 datum 1990 adjustmere, the north . line of Section 35, being North 89°45'35" East. AND TOGETHER W1TH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS WITHIN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: Parcel I: N '/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Parcel II: S xh of the NE 1/4 of the SW I/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Parcel III: N ~/2 of the SW ~/4 of the NW I/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Parcel IV: S 1/: of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. ?~,~.;e! V!' N 1/2 of the SW I/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier Count3~, Florida. Parcel VII: NW t/,~ of the SW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Parcels I, II, III, IV, VI and VII contain a total of 141.61 acres, more or less. Total parcel contains 2214 acres, more or less. PROPERTY oV~rNEI~SHIP The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of WCI Communities, Inc., whose address is 24301 Walden Center Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida 1-8 34134. AOEN"DA ITEM No. ~ / O--/' JAN 2 3 2001 COMPLETE APPRAISAL IN SUMMARY FORMAT OF CONVEYANCE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSISTING OF 64.77 ACRES FROM THE PELICAN MARSH PUD 95-4 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: THOMAS E. CONRECODE WCI COMMUNITIES 24301 WALDEN CENTER DRIVE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 4306 Arnold Avenue Naples, Florida 34104-3396 941.643.6888 Fax: 941.643.6871 E-mail: arcon@naples. infi.net EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUATION: JANUARY 23, 1995 DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 2, 2001 ARCON FILE NUMBER: 20004449 lNo.A~NDA ITEM -- jAN 3 2001 January 2, 2001 Thomas E. Conrecode WCI Communities 24301 Walden Center Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Re: A Retrospective (January 23, 1995) Complete Appraisal - Summary Report, Of Conveyance Of Livingston Road Right-Of-Way Consisting Of 64.77 Acres (a 275' wid*, by 10,260' long right of way dedication) from the Pelican Marsh PUD 95-4 Being Located In Collier County, Florida ARCON File No. 20004449 Dear Mr. Conrecode: At your request, we have appraised the above referenced real estate. The purpose our appraisal was to estimate the retrospective market value of the fee simple estate for the above referenced real estate as of January 23, 1995. As such, this valuation is predicated upon the economic conditions and market performance that existed as of this retrospective date. The appraisal report was prepared on January 2, 2001 The analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this appraisal report has been prepared, in strict compliance with the Uniform Standards of?rofessional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The report has been written to conform to the USPAP requirements for a Summary report. Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the market value of the subject property "as was" on January 23, 1995 was: 64.77± Acre Livingston Road ROW, JANUARY 23, 1995: ..........................$2,753,000 We trust the appraisal is completed in sufficient detail to accomplish its intended use. Please call if you need further assistance. ~ENDA ITEM · ~ No. J ~tg/...p JAN 2 3 2001 4306 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida 34104-3396 941.643.6885 Fax: 941-643.6871 E-mail arcon@naples.infi.net I certify This appraisal ' Julian L. ~ ' Stokes~Al, CR~ CCIM General R.E. Appraiser RZ. CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no (or the specified) personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; any specified interest or bias has not affected the impartiality of my opinions and conclusions. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent' upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I, Carlton J. Lloyd have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. I, Julian L. H. Stokes, MAI, CRE, CCIM have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. No one has provided significant professional assistance to the person (s) signing this report. My reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. I certify that the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, Julian L. H. Stokes, MAI, CRE, CCIM and Carlton J Lloyd have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute and the State of Florida. Julian L. H. Stokes, MAI, CRE, CCIM is currently a State Certified General Real Estate Appraisers, as set forth in Florida Real Estate Appraisal License Law S. 475 II. Carlton J. Lloyd is currently a State Registered Assistant Real Estate Appraiser as set forth in section 475.501, Florida Statutes. The preceding certification is in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, USPAP 2001 Edition; Standard Rule 2-3 dated January 1, 2001 and with the Appraisal Institute's Supplemental Standards of Professional Practice, effective July 31, 1999. a requested minimum valuation, a svecific valuation, or / Carl on/. o a " State-Re i~ered RE. Appraise: '.:.. #0005128 JAN 2 3 2001 APPRAISAL OF VACANT LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 25 & 36 TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25 NAPLES, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY REAL PROPERTY IVtANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 ATTN: Iv[P,. KEVIN HENDRICKS t ! 1 ! ! REQUESTED BY: MR. KEVIN HENDRICKS DATE OF APPRAISAL: JANUARY 23, 1995 PROJECT NUMBER: 2000-7 PREPARED BY: KENNETH R. DEVOS, MAI. SRA 6309 CORPORATE COURT, SUITE 208 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33919 KENNETH R. DEVOS, MAI, SRA STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER 0000703 6309 CORPORATE COURT, SUITE 208 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33919 (94 I) 437-2245 PAGER (941) 489-8481 FAX (941) 437-225 Email: ken I d~iline.corn July 19, 2000 Mr. Kevin Hendricks Collier County Real Property Management Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Appraisal of Vacant Land Pelican Marsh Collier CounD', Florida Dear Mr. Hendricks: In accordance with your request, I have made an appraisal of the land more specifically described in the body of this report for the purpose of estimating the market value of the fee simple interest in the land listed within the report. By Market Value is meant the most probable price in terms of money that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair market sale: the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not artected by undue stimulus. The site is valued based upon its "as is" condition as of the day before approval of the PUD under which it now is being developed. The function of this report is to ser,,,e as the basis for estimating compensation to the owners in the form of development credits. This is a complete appraisal report, premised upon the Special Limiting Condition presented within the report. The date of the value estimate is January 23. 1995, which was the day prior to the approval of the Pelican Marsh PUD. I have thoroughly analyzed the physical sociological economic, and governmental factors which influence the properb"s value. Based on my investigation and analyses, it is my opinion that the market value of the fee simple interests of the property to be acquired, plus danrages to the remainder, if any, was: TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,202,000) The following pages present the data and discussions which form the basis for our value conclusions. JAlq 2 3 2001 REAL ESTATE APPILa. ISERS & CONSULTANT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PAGE TWO Information and statements furnished to the appraisers and contained in this report were obtained from sources considered to be reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for the accuracy of such items furnished the appraiser can be assumed by the appraiser. Disclosure of the comems of this report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the appraiser is affiliated. Neither all nor any part of the conterns of this report or copies thereof shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client specified in this report. To the best of my ability, the analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed and the report was prepared in accordance with the standards and report writing requirements of the Appraisal Institute and USPAP. This appraisal is also subject to the underlying assumptions and contingent conditions contained in the attached report. I appreciate this oppommity to have been of service to you. If you have any questions with regard to this matter. please let me know. i I I Respectfull)' submitted, Kenneth R. Devos, MAI, SRA State-Certified General Appraiser 0000703 1 I ! I I I No. ! I .f/--J., .JAN 2 3 2001 REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS I CERTIFICATE OF VALUE i I I I I I I iI ! ! I I I cenif'y '~o the best of my knowledge and belie[ thal: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and arc my personal. unbiased, professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interesl in the property that is the subjecl ofthis report, and I have no personal interesl or bias with respect for the pomes involved. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions that were developed. My analyses, opinions, or conclusions were developed and this reporl has been prepared in conformity with the requirements oflhe State of Florida for state-cortified appraisers. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the State of Florida relating to review by. the Real Estate Appraisal Subcommittee ofthe Florida Real Estate Commission. I have made a personal inspection ofthe property thai is the subject of this report and ! have affordcx:l the property owner the opportuni~ to accompany me at the time of the inspection. I have also made a personal field inspection ofthe comparable sales relied upon in making this appraisal. The subject and the comparable sales relied upon in making this appraisal were as represented by the photographs contained in this appraisal. 8. No persons other than those named herein provided sigmficant professional assistance to the person sig~ing this report. 9. I understand that this appraisal is to be used in connection with funding of the purchase price by. the State of Florida ]O This appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate State laws, regu~ [alions. policit."s and procedures applicable to the appraisal of propera,.'; and_ to the bc~ of my knowledge, no portion of the property. value entered on this cemficate consists of ~tcms which are non- compensable undo' the established law of the State of Florida. I have not revealed the findings or resoiLs of this appraisal to am. one other than officials of Collic"r County Real Property Managc'rncnt Department and I will not do so until so authorized by Collier County officials or until I am required by due process of law. or untfi I am released from this obligation by.' having publicly tesnfied as to such findings. 12 Statements supplemental to this ce~ ticate. as required by. membership or candidacy. in a professional appraisal organizeurn. r,. are descn'ixxi on an addendum to this certificate and. be reference, are made a part hereof Based upon my independent appraisal and the exercise of my pro fessional judgment. my opinion of the market value of the proper'q:' appra k'.;ed asofthc ~3rd day' of Janua~'. 1995, is: Two Million. Two Hundred Two Thousand Dollars. Markel value should be allocated as follows: LAND $2.202.000 IMPROVENLENTS: $ -0- NET DAMAGES &JOR COST TO CURE $ TOTAL $2.202.000 LAND AREA 6477 acres CODE (1234) U~IIP PROPERTY TYPE CODES I. R-Rural 3. H-(Home) Residence U-Urban B-(Business) Commercial 2. I-Improved F-(FactoD') lndnstnal V-Vacant S-Special Purpose 4. P-Partial K~NNET!I R. DE~rOS, MAt SRA State-Certified General Appraiser #0000703 A(3ENDA ITEM No.~ JAN 2 3 201)I CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and bel/ef,... the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or perspective interest in the subject of this report and I have no personal interest of bias in respect to the parties involved. compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses. opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity. with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. the use of this report is subject to the requirements of The Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this study, I, Kenneth R. Devos. IvlAI, SRA, have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I, Kenneth R. Devos. MAI. SRA, have made a personal inspection of the properties which are the subjects of this study. DATE Kenneth R. Devos, MAI. SPA State-Certified General Appraiser 0000703 l ! ! l 1 AGF..NDA ITEM No. ~ ~ .. ~,L JAN 2 3 2001 PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROJECT PARCEL NO: TAX PARCEL NO. SEC TI ON COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SKETCH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL (NOT A SURVEY) (5£E SHEET 5 OF ,5 FOR DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL,) 56, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE + SEE SHEET 2 OF 5 _J 25 EAST SCALE.. = 250' ~ NO~ THER£ ¥ RIGH T- 0~- WAY LINE 050' ~oE R.O. ~) ~ P.O.B. ACH ROAD~EX~NSION ~ o2=5'5~" ~- ~SOUTH LINE OF SE ~ -~ ~ 416+28.74 o ~ % ~.0. C. . ~ ~ S~UTH~S~RLY CO,%N~F 0r ~ ~ SEC~ON BEARINr~ ~ ~FO ~' r~r ~,~cT lINE OF ~E SOUreST OUAR~R OF P ~ S,~bfiON ~D~I~EMsE 2e E., AS BENS N 02'C'~'.57' ~ o,, / ' REPARED BY: / No · ~ . I ~.-,~.7 t OF 5 . ..... / ' ~~',~,~: · ....~ ...... / JAN za zu ~ ~ WAY~ JJJJJJ ~ SCALE: 1" = PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROJECT PARC~_L NO: ~ TAX PARCEL NO. SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SKETCH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL (NOT, A SURVEy) )N OF RIGHT-OF- NAY PARCEL) MA TCHLINE SEE SHEET 3I OF 5 I ] r~Ro~os~o --J II ~, ORA~NA~E I LOWELL L LADEWIG I ~ EASEMENT I ~ ~s~ ~' i ' ..........P~. 4~) I ~ ~;~l SCA:E: "= 250' ~ I ~ ~ ~ / J ~ (SEE SHEET 5 OF 5 FOR DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL) ~ST-WE'$T ONE-OUARTIZR SECTION LINE 25 EAST 275' LiNE ON~ -QUARTER ~,~ MATCHLINE SEE SHEET OF 5 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE I,YEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF // ........ $ E., S ~ING N 02~5 ~7 W. // PREPARED BY: AQIENDAITEM S~ET 2 OF ' .... ~;.ou Iv~)~ I ! ~: , /~ -/ ~ -. winmare NuLL R 5k'NO. ..... ~.~,, 2 3 200f I / ..... PROJECT: NO, 620~1 _ PROJECT PARCEL NO: TAX PARCEL NO, SECTIONS 36 AND 2.5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SKETCH OF R. IOHT-OF-W. AY PARCEL (NOT A SURVEY) ('SEE SHEET 5 OF 5 FOR DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL) MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4 OF 5 ~ sou~ LINE OF SEC~ON 25,~ ~ ~' SOU~ LINE OF SEC~ON NQR~ LINE OF SEC~QN 36 ~ ~ ~OR~ LINE OF SEC~ON ~ ~ ~ ~ ROaNMAN, ,A~CE McNEESE ~ { { LO~LL L. LADE~G MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2 OF 5 BEA~ING5 AeE BASED ON THE ~ST LINE OF ~E 5OUt.ST OUAR~R 0~' '~ ~ ~ FI~NO; ~ ACAD NO: 7803-1C SECTION 2.5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 2,.5 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SKETCH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL (NOT A SURVEY) (SEE SHEET 5 OF 5 FOR DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEl) ASTON GARDENS AT J }--PROPOSED 30' R.O.W., PELICAN MARSH LTD. L.P. ~l I D.E., U,£. AND AND THE VILLAS AT PELICAN MARSH L.L.C. (O.R. 2585, PG. 2788) EAST-WEST ONE-OUARTER Y SECTION LINE 275' PROJECT: NO. 620~1 PROJECT PARC~ NO: TAX PARCEL NO. EAST SCALE: 1" = 250' MATCHLIN[ SEE SHEET ,3 OF 5 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE' SOUTHWEST WP 45' E,.. RGE. 25 E., AS BEING N PREPARED BY: '.--"'"-:D,,~o,., ".- ~. "- ".- "- ."- 13, ,,,~,,, ~ ~. ,.,. AGENDAITEM ....................... S~,,,E-'~T 4 O? : JAN 232001 ' "~: ~ / ~ / l.~d DR~ BY:~ DATE: JAN, 12. 2001 PROJECT: NO. PROJECT PARCEL NO: TAX PARCEL NO. SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF- WAY PARCEL ALL THA7 PART OF SECTIONS 25 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED A5 FOL L 0 W~: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 55, THENCE NORTH 02'C'~'57" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 150.13 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROA[' (C.R, 862) SAID INTERSECTION BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED. THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 02'05'57" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 2518.83 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF 5AID SECTION THENCE NORTH O2'1T'ZS" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 2671.60 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID SECTION THENCE NORTH 02'00'05"' WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 25. A DISTANCE OF 2670.56 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE NORTH 02°06'~J" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 390.22 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS AS DESCRIBED IN QFFICIAL RECQRD BOQK 2385, PAGE 27BB, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SO~JTH 89'15'39" W~ST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, A DISTANCE OF 275.08 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT UTILITY EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOQK 4J2, PACE 720, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE LEAVING SAID SDUTHERLY LINE OF 5AID LANDS .SOUTH EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT, A DISTANCE OF 389. 76 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST-WEST QUARTer SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 02'0D'05" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT, A DISTANCE OF 2670.10 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION THENCE SOUTH 02'11'25" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT, A DISTANCE OF 2559 49 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST- WEST QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH 02'05'57" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT, A DISTANCE OF 2516.78 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WiTH THE NORTHERLY RICHT-OF-W.~Y LINE OF SAID VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD ('C.R, 852): THENCE SOUTH ~g'39'40~ EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 275.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 5207 ACRE5 OF LAND MORE OR LEES. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF,/ SECTION 37, TWP. 4g S., ROE. 26 E., AS BEING N PREPARED BY: .... ~ ....... W., -- i~ /F/HEET 5 OF 5 I ,I DRAW¢.~)'~: ,JAN DATE: ,,/AN. 12. 200~ PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROJECT PARCEL NO: TAX PARCEL NO. SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 2..5 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ? RiGH7 OF WAY PARC£L (NOT A SURVEY) SKETCH 0 - - , .................... ~00' R O ~ I~MOKALEE ' ~ ~ S R~ ~ ~ ' I I i... /YJ , ..... (O.R. 2499, PG. 0359) ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ '~ ~ (O.R. 2642, PC. 1964)' e ; ~1 ~/~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ] I ~ L ~ ~ V ~ . ] I ~ 00~MUNICA~ONS SER~CE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~]o' EASEMENT AGREEMENT 125 COMPANY (O.R. 2326, PG. 2113) (O~ERSHIP SUBJECT TO CURRENT ~[ED Or RECORD ~SS ~ NO~ AN~ ~ST 30' RE~E~ FO~ PUBUC RIGHT-OF-WAY) -~$OU TN LINE iO.R, 2385, PG. 2788 ~ -~ ;; ~ ~ ~IAM A. DONOVAN AND Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~(~ ~A/)(P~C~.~, ~N~O~OVAN) ~ ~ ~ ' R /J PREPARED BY: I ~. :::::~-,, ~IJAN ZI Isc,~:/~ .... p~fea. o~ .~ee. pmn . ad ,u~-- ~ ~ , ~ CHECKF~BT: ~A PROJECT NC.:784!-3 PROJECT: NO..,_ 62061 PROJECT PARC'~-L NO: TAX PARCEL NO. SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER CCUNTY, FLORIDA DE$CRIF~TION OF RIGHT-OF-WA Y PARCEL ALL 77fiAT PART OF SECTION 25. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEINC MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25, THENCE SOUTH 02'05'13' EAST ALONG THE £ASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1216.90 F'gET TO THE POINT 01r B£CJNNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED. THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 02'06'I3' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAiD SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF t062.65 FEET TO T~E SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THOSE LAND5 A50E$CRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2385, PAGE 278B, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE LEAWNG 5AID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, THENCE SOUTH 89'15'39' I, VEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS A DISTANCE OF 275.0B FEET TO AN INTELSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE' OF A FLORID,Z, POWER AND LIGHT EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 452, PAGE 720, PUBLIC RECORD5 OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA: TtffENCE NORTH 02"~6'73' WEST ALONG 5AIO EASTERLY LINE OF 5AID EASEMENT A DISTANCE OF 1062.65 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE' NORTHERLY LINE OF 5AID LANDS: THENCE' NORTNI 89'15'~" EAST ALONG SAID NO~'THERLY LINE A DISTANCE' OF 273.08 F~ET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL H~'RF'IN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING ~.71 ACR£5 OF LAND MORE OR BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHW'~-ST OUAr-fT~R OF SECTION 31, TWF'. 48 S., RGE. 26 E., AS BEING N 02'05'5?" ~,~ PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROJECT PARCEL NO: __ TAX PARCEL NO. SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ SKETCH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL (NOT A SURVEY) .... (SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 FOR DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL) N ~-SOUTH UNE O.R. 1710, PG. 375 N ~9'15'39' E P.O.C. ~ CORNER' OF' ~ECTION 25, TWP. 48 S., NORTH UNE SECTtON 30, SCALE: 1" = 300' RGE. 26 E. O.R, 2577, PG. 2679 S 8g~5'3~' W 275 08 AT PELICAN MARSH ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ COMPANY L~. L.P. AND . . ~ ~ ~ (O.R. 2~26, PG. 2115) (O.R. 2385, PG. 2788) [ ~ ~ PUBLIC ~C~T-OF-W~Y) BEARINGS ARE BA~ED ON ~ ~ST LINE OF 5EC~ON 31 ~. 4~ 5, RGE. 26 E., A5 ~EING N 02'05'57" W. ~'~ 0~ PREPARED BY: ....... ~ . ~ -~ ' ..... , i A~NDA iTEM ~s~o~: .... ~.ou No. ~ ~ / ~ - (O.R. 2499, PG. 0.541) (O.R. 2499, PG. 0339) (O.R. 2642, PG. 1964) PROJECT: NO. 6206'1 PROJECT PARC~'L' NO: TAX PARCEL NO. SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT-OF- WAY PARCEL ALL THAT PART OF SECTION ZS, TOh'VNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANCE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED A5 FOLLOVi~' COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 02'06'13' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF' SAID SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 150.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER O,c' THOSE LANDS AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1710. PACE ,575, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID CORNER BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 02'D~'1,,x" EAST ALONC THE EASTERLY LINE OF 5AID SECTION 25. A DISTANCE OF 1066.86 FEET TO T1-/E SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS A50E$CRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2377, PACE 2679, PU~'LIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 69~5'39' WEST ALONC THE SOUTH LINE OF 5AID LANDS A OISTANCE OF 275.08 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION W~TH THE EASTERLY LINE OF A FLORIOA POWER' AND LIGPfT EASEMENT A5 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK .432, PACE 720, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA; THENCE L£AVINC SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS NORTH D2"0§'73~ WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAiD EASEMENT A DISTANCE OF 1056.86 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION W~TH THE SOUTHER'LY LINE OF THOSE LANDS A5 DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1710, PACE ,575, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA: THENCE NORTH 69~5'~9" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 5AIG LAND5 A DIETANGS OF 2,75.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN D£SCRf~ED, CONTAINING E. 7'¢ ACRE5 OF LAND MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY BEARING5 ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QLIAP, TE~ OF - SCALE: ~ PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROJECT PARCEL NO: TAX PARCEL NO. __ SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SKETCH OF EFFLUENT POND (NOT A SURVEY) (SEE SHEET .3 OF .3 FOR DESCRIPTION' OF EFFLUENT POND,) $.R. 846 IMMOKALEE ROAD-x~ SCALE: ?" = 250' ~ s.. ~. 2~ ~.I I"'1 /7 , ~' ~ s., ~ ~ ~. ' I~o' R.O.~. ~ ~-~ (o.~. '~z~o, ~c. ~z~)/ /i ~ [~1 I ~ ~SEC~ON 30 .... ~°1 I~ ~ x~ ~z~ . z~ ~ ~1~ l o~ ~ 110' I~ 125' 0 ~ ~ 2~5' MA TCHLINE SEE SHEET 2 OF CO~PORA ~ON L.~ C- ~EARIN~S ARE ~ASED ON ~ ~ST LINE OF ~E SOUreST SEC~ON ~1, T~. ~8 S., RGE. 2~ E., AS BEING N PREPARED BY: ~ ~===~.o~ I No. ~-i .~ I~ ~: /~ /' ' JAN 2 3 SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ SKETCH OF EFFLUENT POND (NOT A SURVEY) (SEE SHEET .3 OF 5 FOR DESCRIPTION OF EFFLUENT PON~)) MATCHLINE SEE SHEET I OF ,3 SOUTH LINE G.R. 2585, PG. 2788 2788 L! PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROJECT PARCEL NO: TAX PARCEL NO. ~ EAST SCALE: ?" = 250' EAST-WEST ONE-QUART SECTION LINE 189 · 275' BEARIN_G_S_ ARE BASED ON THE I/¢EST LINE OF THE SOUTHWES- D PREPARED BY' ~,-~.CnON ,3t, TWO. 4B 5., RGE. 26 E., AS BEING N 02'0~ ~2~W~ ~ ..... ~ ' ....~ ._ . ..~EET 2 , 3 ...... I mmmmm v / emmame = 50' ~'~.'~'~'- --'~~~~ .... ~[ [ d ~"'f~: ~N uA~E: JAN 12. 2001 SEC ©N 25, PROJECT: NO. 62061 PROdECT PARCEL NO: .,, TAX PARCEL NO. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAS'T COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION OF EFFLUENT POND ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25, THENCE SOUTH D2'06';3" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 25. A DISTANCE OF 2279.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2385, PAGE 2788, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 25 SOUTH 89"~5'3g~: W~ST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS A DISTANCE OF 275.08 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 432, PAGE 720, PUBLIC RECORDS OF' COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 02'06'1,_t" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT A DISTANCE OF 40.0i' FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CON~]NUE SOUTH 02'0~'13" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF- SAID EASEMENT A D,'STANCE OF 34~.7(5 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST-WEST OUARTER SECTION lINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 02'D0'05" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT A DISTANCE OF 141787 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT NORTH 87'59'04" EAST 70.84 FEET TO TIlE BEGINNING OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CON~AV~' NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS 0~' 35.0G FEET; THENCE EASTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF- SAiD CIRCULAR CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'00'00" AN ARC D{STANCE OF ,54.98 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 02'00'5(5" WEST ~690. D3 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWQSTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF .]5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY AND V~E~ST~RLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CIRCULAR CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANOLE OF BB"43'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 54.20 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY: THENCE SOUTH 89'75'39" WEST 77.~3 FEET TO THE POINT O? BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 4~2(5 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER ~u~ ~ r~_~ 26 E., AS BEING N 02"05'57" PREPARED STANDARD INSURANCE GUIDELINES FOR COUNTY PURCHASES F'--- '~ find listed the proposed insurance guideline for County purchases. The guideline includbs definitions m, .xamples ofvm'ious purchase categories and the insurance requirements associated with each type of purchase. In an effort to condense the infomarion, a matrix reflecting the requirements by category is attached. Departments that obtain their own price quotations are encouraged to refer to the guidelines prior to contacting vendors to determine the appropriate insurance requirements for a given purchase. Please disseminate the enclosed information to appropriate staff members. MINOR TRADE Installation, repair and/or maintenance work (equipment/facilities) where the nature of the work is characterized as follows: a) Duration of contract is two complete working days or less. Does not involve the use of vehicles in the performance (except to and from site). Is performed on County's premises. d) Does not involve unusual risk or high hazard. ~r Office Improvements (i.e. interior office painting, minor tiling, carpeting, resurfacing etc.). Minor Carpentry Minor Plumbing Janitorial Services Ornamental Landscaping Office Equipment (repairs and/or maintenance) Electrical Roofing Tyee Trimming_---./g/?.//t~c Grounds Maintenance Mowing Major Landscaping Lot Clearing Demolition INTE ~MEDIATE TRADE Similar to minor trade category in scope, but applicable to instance where the duration of the work is expected to be between three to 12 working days and costs associated with project which are $25,000 or less. ~: EXCEPTIONS: Minor Office Improvements (i.e. interior office painting, minor tiling, carpeting, resurfacing etc.). Minor Carpentry .Minor Plumbing 'torial Services ,..,mamental Landscaping Electrical Roofing Tree Trimming Grounds Maintenance Mowing Major Landscaping emolition .... A~ENDA ITEM No. ~,~ JAN 2 3 2001' EN~'IRONMENTAL SERVICES: Services directly associated with the removal or replacement ofhazardons chemicals, products or waste or repairs to hazardous chemical storage facilities whereby there is a reasonable likelihood that the provision of services could cause environmental damages to property or persons. Remove/replace of hazardous chemicals or products Asbestos Abatement Fuel Dispensing and Storage Landfill site preparation (i.e. Grading and clearing) Environmental Assessments CONTRACTUAL SERVICES All services, not categorized as trade, professional or environmental where the Contractor is performing work Services where the work performed is characterized as follows: Where the nature of the work includes the use of weapons, tools, high-powered equipment or other items readily capable of causing personal injury. Where the failure to properly perform the services could reasonably result in substantial harrr'~ to persons or property. '.. on County premises. Subcategories: 1. HIGH RISK a) b) Security. Sen, ices Medical Alert response 2. INTERMEDIATE RISK Services where the work performed is characterized as follows: a) Where the nature of the work includes the use of weapons, tools, equipment and other items readily capable of causing personal injury. b) Where the term of the work is five (5) days or less. Temporary Manual Labor 3. X~,~ Other contractual services not considered to be High or Intermediate Risk. Clerical Personnel ' ,~G~'ND/~ ITEM 2 2001 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MA'i'rER OF INFORMATION INSURED N E C INSURANCE P O BOX 537 PACIFIC INC MO 63069 ENERGY RESOURCES 2206 SA24UEL STUART CT CHESTERFIELD MO 63005 ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A N[ARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE B TRINITY UNIVERSAL '-~-~' COMPANY C RELIANCE NATIONAL INSUP~CE CO COMPANY co LTR THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INE JRANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED ~:~'ER: EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POUCIES. UMI'~S SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID C~.MS. PO,MCY EFFECTIVE POUCY EXPlRA/~ON TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER GENERAL LJAB,I ITY 9 CA14 3 8 X i COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY ! ]0 ,MSM E IX!OCOUR [OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT AUTOMOB,LE UABI,, I ANY AuTo A/.L OWNED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS GARAGE I. JABIUTY i ANY AUTO DATE (MM/DI3tYY) 2/ /oo hATE EXCESS L/ABILITY [ UMBRELLA FORM CA979169804 ! OT~ER ~ {At,; UMBRELLA FORbl WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I N-WX 60 ~-~ EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY \ THE PROPRIETOR/ ~ INCL PARTNERS~-.XECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE: , EXCL, I OTHER 97 3/or/oo 3/o /o ABOVE FOR THE POUCY PERIOD WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, UMITS sl,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG sl, 000,000 PERSONAL & ADV ,N~URY $1,0 0 0, 0 0 0 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,00O FiRE DAMAGE (Any one tim)$ , MED EXP (Any one pe~onI COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per BODILY INJURY (Per accociera ) PROPERTY D~AGE AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ X [ WC STATU- , OTH- ~ TORY LIMITS ER EL EACH ACCIDENT EL DiSEASE-POLICY UMIT EL DtSEASE-EA EMPLOYEE DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION~ATION~ICLE~SPEC1AL I~MS COLLIER COUNTY G,GVERNMENT IS ADDED AS PRIlVLARY ADDITIONAL INSURED FOR GENERAL LIABILITY WITH /ESPECT TO WORK PERFORMED BY THE NAMED INSURED ONLY. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION'APPLIES WHERE PERMITTED BY LAW. SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POUCIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE COLLIER ATTN: PURCHASING GENERAL SERVICES NAPLES COUNTY GOVER/JMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING '- ~,;C-,~ENI~ 'ITE M No./~ (}--,, t JAN Pg,, , ,, EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO ". ~ 0 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CER"F~FICATE HOLDER NAMED TO TH BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOT1CE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR UAb,~Y OF ANY ~UPON THE COMPANY, IT'~ AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED/REPI:~.S ENTATIV ~ .~ ~ " :./,,~'~v~',-*'"'"'~',k,~' t,~ : ©ACORD 'CORPORATION 1! $TATE OFFLOI?..IDA COU'NTYOFLF.~ O~T Tl~t$ ~ d~y of . ,2001, I~for~ m~ ~n~ ap~ed V~vl~ N. Cu~nt h.~inc~* .ddr~ and tclcpho~ numb~ is 24301 W~cn C~r ~ivc, Bo~i~ ~prh~Ss, Flor'i~ ~41 ~4 ~c~Jnn~cr "A~a~")~ whn, ~lng duly sworn on ~ ~, does say: 1. This affidavit Ls given a~ an indtmemenz t~ C, OIJ,ri~.R cc~Irl~rTY, a political ~bdivision o~ the ~tate or' Florida. its stu~ar~ur-a trod u.~.~ib, n:~0 L~ re:eclat a cnnv~yanec. of' the real propcery, more particularly described as lhtmv Livbq~tu. mad ri/jhL-o£-way, more l~rrlc. iarly desor/bed as the "WC2 Cm'e Pauc=i" mad #Aparttaunt Si~ Paruol", all .'m main pnrt/oulnrly de~ribed in ~.hiblt "A" attached hereto Claere/zm/ler vuit~tiv=i.v re£~rrud to "Property"). :2. The ~u~l~lt has ey, m~thl~J zx~urd LiLle inFermarbro m the Property ref'erelteo~ 3. The record owners of the Property ar0: aa ~ Um 'WC] P~I~, W~T ~nmm,nifir~% Inc., ~!~ware ~m~on. by ~e of ~at ~in W~rm~ ~ z~u~ in O.R. R~u~k I~OR, Pn~ ~e P~llc Rc~rd.~ of C~lJfcr Coting. ~lo~ M ~ ~le "~tu~a C~ ~1", A~n ~nrden~ ~t PeU0~ ~h, I,td, T,.P. hy vlm~c of thaz ~ C~r~ W~r~ D~ ~o~ ~ O.~ Book 2499, P~ 34 m~d ~ ~ ~a "A~enr SiTe P~l", St. C~ix Ap~ at P~li~ M~sh, ~., u Flori~ uu~t~inn, hy v~ u[* ~at ce~ W~W D~d r~nrdcd in O.R. Oook 237T, Parc 26T~, ~1 ul' U~ Pub]it Ru~rd~ nf 4. 'lhe l~ttiant hn~ e'xnmineaq CO~l~orarc inirormation o~in~ from ~e S~ or ~law~ ~d ~ a co~or~ion m ~e s~t= ui'Deluw~c ~d i, ms~orl~d to do b~incss ~ ~e S~ oi~'lori~ ~d Je~ L. Con~b~on ~eemeat m~d umber m~~ on ~hnl~nf WCY in c~njuncti~ ~ ~e ~nv~ o1' U~ W~ ~l. · ~. The. .Affiant ha.~ c:r~miaed corpvral~ LI3formation obtained from the Stntc offDelaw~ ~d .qmte orFIorlda ~ A~on G~ns at P=hc~ ~'d~ L~., !~.P. amd ha.~ dcr~in~ ~t: A~on ~dens at Pelio~ ~ L~,, L. P. iz c~nt m~d ~fiv= ~ u p~m=~hip in ~c STare ofDe~w~ ~d ~ ~or~d tu 6. 'il~e AL~L~ut hu~ ,=xamlned oorpotatc ~o~on o~n~ ~om fi~e Sm~ or FIn~da ~n St. C~ix Ap~en~ at Pe~¢ma ~h, f.~. nnd has detc~in~ ~: SL Croix Apm'~u~ ~t Pclf~ ~ Ltd. is c~ ~d ~v= ~ ~ p~e~hip in ~c Etarc of Florida ~d is au~o~'~ m dt~ h,Riness ~ ~e S~tc offFlo~; S~ C~Lx A~nm~ at P~]i~ ~a~h, Inc. Is c~t ~d ac~v~ ~ a ~omti~n in the Rrntc of FlnHda ~d is a~or~ to dt~ hu~:inac~ ~ ~ Smtc of Flo~ ~d is &uzau~ ~cr nf ~t. C~ix 7. At~i~nT states that the WCI Parca! i.~ nffeoted 137 .the ruertsar, enomubz.'-,u~ und Iicn.~ d~;~'iL~i in l~xhlhir "R" attached hcr~. 8. AJ~iant states that the Aston Caz'~ Vance! ~ affectre] by the mortgages, cncumbranccs ~ud liens described in ~r, hJbi/"C" uUa~hcd hereto. i :cU~t cr.,~1~iicanmm~tih, sron 3.2. ~U.~u~y. umd J 10. That ~he Affiant fur~_ _--r state.~ that the inforrnar|on ex~ma{ncd in the Afi~clavit i,-* true, ~urrv~t and currcnl ~ ofthc dazc vl~is ~d~idaviz is .~l~en. ¥i~i~u N. Hastia~ $1TA'I'~ OF FLORIDA Th~ foregoing Attorney's A-fftdavi~ was acknowlcdgc4t IIas6mgs. Sb~ is personally known ~o me and did ?akc nn !N'rl'lq~S,~ my hand and offtoia! :,enl thin ~ day of Nutary Publi~; '~i,C.,-~NDA ITEM -- No. 11,/3__,/ . JAN 2 3 2001 Legal Des~ption being a part of S~'tions 25 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 Fast, Collier CountIt, Florida {Pelican Marsh Livin~ton Road Corridor) WCI Communities L.P. Portion All that part of Sections 25 a~d 36, Township 4S South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Section 25; thence along the east line of said Section 25, South 02°07' 14" East 100.03 feet to the south right- of-way line oflmmokalee Road (CR 846) 100 foot right-of. way; thence continue along the east line of said Section 25, South 02007' 14" East 2179.52 feet to the Point.of Beg'tuning; thence continue along' the east line of said Sectled 25 in the following two (2) described courses: 1) South 02o07' 14" East 390.19 feet to the east I/4 comer of said Section 25; 2) South 02°01'00" East 2670.94 fee~ to the northeast comer of said Section 36; thence along the east line of said Section 36 in the following two (2) described courses: 1) South 02°12'I5" East 2671,56 feet to the east 114 comer of said Section 36; 2) South 02°05'40" East 2519,02 feet to the north fight-of-way line of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) 150 foot right-of-way; thence along said north right-of-way line North 89°39'48" West 275.25 feet; thence leaving said north right-of-way line and along the east line era 125 foot FP&L easement as recorded in O.R. Book'432, pages 720-721, Collier County, Florida in the following three (3) described courses:' 1) North 02°06'40" West 2507.04 feet; 2) North 02°12'15" West 2671.79 feet; 3) North 02°0l'00" West 1265.97 feet; thence leaving the east line of said FP&L easement North 87057'47" East 70.99 feet; thence northeasterly 54.98 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 35.00 feet thi'ough a central angle of 90°00'00" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 42057'47" East 49.50 feet; thence North 02°02' 13" West 1690.03 feet; thence northwesterly 54.20 feet along the ~'c of a circular curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 3:~.00 feet through a central angie of 88°43'25" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 46023'55" West 48.94 feet; thence South 89°14'22" West 71.81 feet to the east line of said FP&L easement; thence along the east line ofsaid FP&L easement North 02°07'14" West 40.01 feet; thence leaving the east line of said FP&L easement North 89° 14'22" East 275.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; j-- A(3ENdA fram ! "°' JAN 2 3 21)01 ~,"'~,,,':,,ww.,',l-,,,,,,,lk. .....,,,~Y.T~T~ 1'~'";"l:";'l'l""a'"'"'"'"'"l ........! 13:18 FR WATERMARK LEGAL DEPT B41 498 82?? TO B-?740225 W ILOk. JIN 'i~i' IVI I LLLJT_. Legal Description being a part of Sections 25 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Colli=r County, Florida (Pelican Marsh Livingston Road Corridor) WCI Communities L.P. Portion (continued) Containing 47.82 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of'record. Bearings are based on the east line offsaid Section 25 being South 02°07' 14" East. WILSON, MILLF. R, BARTON & PE~K, INC. . .;R~st,ered Engineers and Land Surveyors Certificate of authorization Ref. 2L-$61, sheet 2 i- A~ENDA ITEM No. ,, /'~, / ..~ JAN 2 3 2001 ,,~_I'I"IAKAI. E£ IIO&D ioo' R/M,/' {C.Ro 8461 50' I I I I I I I · 'l III~ ',Lib' ' ,-"l ',;I Ii ',.81 '~i I~- I I Legal Description being a part of Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Pelican Marsh Livingston Road Corridor) Aston Care P~'ceJ Portion All that part of Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Comment'ms at the northeast comer of said Section 2:5; thence along the east line of said Section 25, South 02007' 14" East 100.03 feet to the south right- of-way line oflmmokalee Road (CR 846) 100 foot right-of-way; thence continue along the east line of said Section 25, South 02~07'14" East 1116.87 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue along the east line of said Section 25, South 02°07' 14" Bast 1062.65 feet; thence leaving the east line orsaid Section :25, South 89°14'22" West 275.08 feet to the east line of a 125 foot FPgcL easement as recorded in O.R. Book 432, pages 720-721, Collier County, Florida; thence along the east line of said FPggL. easement North 02°0?' 14" West 1062.65 feet; thence leaving th.-. east line of said I~&L easement North 89°14'22" East 275.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; Containing 6.71 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Beatings are based on the east line orsaid Section 25 being South 02°07'14" East. WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. Registered Engineers and Land Surveyors · C~'.L:;'''";~,?'/ '', __ - ,j... :d-,z, ... -- [ / .,;, .. r~ _~ot yard u~ess embossed m2h~Professional's '- rt, '~Z" ' ' . ' .....',-:,..C~lfi~te ofauthon~t,on Date seal EXHIBIT ~1~11.:: ',~, MILLEl}., B^i:'ro~ & ["[j.:~<, IN(:. r AGENDA ITEM -- Legal Description being a part of Section 25, Township 48 South, l~mgc 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Pelican Marsh Livingston Road Corridor) Apaxtment Site Portion All that part of Section 25, Township 48 South, ILe~ge 25 :East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Section 25; thence along the east line of said Section 25, South 02°07'14" East 100.03 feet to the south right- of-way linc of Immokalcc Road (CR 846) 100 foot r~ght..of-way and the Point of Begiru'dng; thence continue along the east line of said Section 25, South 02007' 14" East ! 116.87 feet; thence leaving the east linc of said Section 2:5, South 8¢°14'22" West 275.08 fcct to the cast line era 125 foot FP$cL easement as recorded in O.R. Book 432, pages 720-721, Collier County, Florida; thence along the east line of said l~$cL easement North 02°07'I4" West 1116.87 feet to the south right-of-way line of said Immokalee Road; thence along said south right-of-way line North 89°14'22" East 275.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; Containing 7.05 acres more or less. Subject to ca~emcnts and restrictions of record. Bearings are based on the east line of'said Section 25 being South 02007' 14" East. WILSON,,~, tr.r.ER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. - ' .....'~ I ~":.~-.. ~ ', u~eg~sterecl' E~gineers and Land Su~eyors ' ..'~ :".C.' :..~~~~ [~ u~l~ss ;mbos~d ~~Prof~sional'~ C~iflc~t~ ofau~or~tio~ ~LB-43. ~ 2L-~6l, sheet 2 Date seal WJ I..'4t ~N, ]V111.l.lil~,. A EXHIBIT A~NDA No. ...... Fidelity National Title ~SUR~c~ coMe^l~¥ COMMITMENT SCI~DULIg B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Office File Number. B-11094 Schedule B or,he policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction ofthe Company. Defem.% liens, enoumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, tipat appearing in the public records or attarinC subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the Proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by ~his Commitment, All assessments and taxes for the year 2001, and all subsequent years, 2000 taxes were assessed as tellows: Section 25 - Folio#0016544020/3 in the amount of $17,925.46 a. nd for Section 36, Folio0001771600016 in the amount of $617,520.03,, Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter funfished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Any enoroachments, easements, measurements, ¥arJafions in area or content, party walls or other facts which a correct survey of the premises would shown. S. Rights or claims o~'parties in possession not shown by the public records. Easements or claims ol'easements not shown by the public records. 7. Roeall, ways, s:reams, it'any, not shown by the public re, or&, riparian rights and the rifle to any filled-in lands. 8. Phnned Urdt Development Ordinance No. 93-27 as emended. Prelinu~ary Development Agreement as recorded in O.R. Book 1835, Page 375; Notice of ,,ulc/pu0n ot'Dev~,,~pment Orcler u recorded in O.~. Book 2067, Page 18~1; Noti~ of Chan~ of Development Ord-r as r~orded in O.~ Book 2183, ~agc 1972, Pubic Re~rds of Co~er Count, Florida. I0. Imeri_ocsl Agtc.~m~t as recorded in O.R. Book 1921, hge I941; and in O,K. Book2119, Yage 130~; and O.K Book 2125, Page 601, all ofthePublic Re~rds of Coili~ Count, Flofid~ OR-L1 ll. EXHIBIT Cable Service Easement to Colony Cablevision of'Florida as recorded in O.R. Book 7.024, Page 404, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. i AGENDA ITEM No. _. JAN 2 3 2001 O Fidelity National Title t~su~ co~,a~v COMMITMEI~T SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 CONTINUED Commitment No, B-11094 12 Arcms Easement by and between WCI Communities, Inc., a DeJaware Corporation, as Grantor ~d Tiburon Golf Ventures Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, as Grantee, as recorded Zn O.IL Book 2644, l~age 1916, Public ]t. ecords of. Collier County, Florida. 1:3 Grant of Easement by and between WCI Communities, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Tiburon Golf Ventures Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited parmership, as Grantors and' 1%lican Marsh Community Development Dxsmct as Grantee, as recorded in O.IL Book 2700. ?age 1879, l~ublic Recorcls o[Collier Count, Florida. l~otwiths~anding #1 under Schedule B $~ction 2 however this commitment provides the Gap Coverage set forth in Tiedale Statute 627.7841 under the ch'cumstances set forth under that statute. The Company reserves the right to update the title prior to the closing and make ~uch additional requirements ~d/or excep:ions deemed necessary'. Exceptions 1 and 3 through 7.will be deleted from the lrmd Policy upon r,cdpt era fuUy exe,ut,d REidavlt of N'o Liens and Survey certified to First Tide & Abstract. Inc., and Fidelit~ National Title Insuran,e Company and dated within 90 days of'closing. Th, Company reserves the right to add exceptions to Schedule B alter review of the Surv~. R-LI EXHIBIT "8" JRN 12 2001 13:1~ F~ WRTE~MR~K LE~RL ~H~ First American Title Insurance Company scTr _ DULE B SECTION 2, EXCEFrlONS lzsuia~ Offi~ Pile No.: 210-00-0S44 Any p~licy we i.~ue will have the ~ollowiag exceptions, unles~ they ar~ taken car~ of to our sal~acfion. 1. Any riihts, inmrc~ dr d~irn~ of parties in po~ession of the land nol shown by the public records. Any righta, iat~'e~ta or claims tu'Y=ting the land which a correct survey would disclose a~! whir. h are not shown by the public records, Any lien for a=viccs, labor, or materlab in conncc~on wi~ tn~. rovemea~s, repai~ or rcnovarioas provki~ before, on, or ~ Dar~ of Policy. not shown by fi~e public records, Any d/spurn as W the boundaries caus~ by a ~'h~-ge in the location of ~my w~er body with/n or ~djaccut to the hind ~or ~o Dam of Polivy, a~d ~ny adverse d~m m all or ~ of the' Ia~d .that is, a~ Da~ of Policy, or ~ previously, uuder wam~. Tax~ or special a~s~ no! shown as liens in the publi~ records or in ~c recorcLs of ~hc local rex collccdn§ authority, a~ De~e of Policy. Any miner;J: or mineral ri~,hts leased, ~lU:d or rehainai by curtoni or prior owners. T~es ~-da.~es~m~ ~r~¢year 2000 ~dsubscque~tyeare/.w~charcnol~td~ orp~l~. ~OTE: 2000 taxe~ are assessed under #00165440000 but a~e not ye~ due parle. 1999 Real Es=ate T~s ~e paid. 1999 ~o~s t~ ~t $2~,238.%3. and Tax information is accurate only through t~he most Taxes must be verified through the Tax Collectors (941) 732-5660 (Collier County) or (~41} 369-63?7 rsc~nt computer posting. Office prior ~o clo~ing (Lee County}. 8. Any lien provided by Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, in favor of any city, town, village or por~ authority for unpaid service charges for service by any water, sewer or gas system supplyin~ the insured land. 9. Ingress-E~ress Easement in favor of =he villas at Pelican Marsh, LLC recorded in official Records Book 2652, pa~e 2617. See a=Uached Schedule B-2 ~on=inued... EXHIBIT "c" - AC,~_. N bA ITeM JAN 3 2021 , First American Title Insurance Company SCHIgD .(Continued) ^g~"ut,' s File No.: 210-00-0544 C0mmlcmg~t No. FA-CC- FAT-000544 Policy No.: 10. Cost-S~rtng Agreement between St. Croix Apartments at Pelican Marsh, LTD., and Aston Gardens at Pelican Marsh, LTD recorded in Official Records Book 2664, page 11. Bill of Sale in favor of Collier County recorded in Official Records Book 2657~ page 3132. 12. Uitlity Ease=nent in favor of Collier County recorded in Official Records Book 2657, page 3136. 13. Utilities Facilities Warranty Deed in f4wor of Collier County recorded Ln Official Records Book 2657, page 3140. 14. Grant of Utility and Drainage Eas-~ent in favor of WCI Co~u,unities L~ted Partnership recorded in Official Records Book 2377, page 2648. 15. Declaration of General Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Pelican Mars~ recorded in Official Records Book 1891, ~ages 1814 - 1865. 16. In~erloca1 Agreement between Collier County and The Pelican Marsh .-- Communit~ Development District recorded in Official Records Book 1921, page 19%1 ~nd Official ~ecords Book 2125, page 601. 17. Cable Easement recorded in Official Records Book 2024, page 404. 18. Easement to Florida ~ower an~ Light as recorded in Offlcial ~eeor~s Book 160, Page 270, of ~he Public Records of Collier Count~, Florida. Easement to Florida Power and Li9ht as recorde~ in Official Records Book 432, Page 720, of ~he Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 20. Easemen~ to Florida Power and Light as recorde~ in Official Records Book 1710, Page 375, of ~he Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 21. Notice of Adoption of Development Order recorded in Official Records Book 2067, page 1851 and Official Records Book 2183, page 1972. 22. Access Easem~n~ in favor of Aston Care Systems, Inc. recorded Official Records Book 2377, ~age 2640. 23. Easement to Florida Power and Light as recorded in O~ficial Records Boo" 2650, Pa~e 1282, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. EXHIBIT" " AGENDA ITF. M - No. I ~ /9./_ 1 ~ IL,".-~ - JAN ENDO NT ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company Nile No.: 210-00-0544 At'on:her to policy No.: schedule B-Section 2, Exceptions is hereby amended to read as follows: due and payb~e, 2000 Real Esatate are NOT pa~d. Gros~ tax ~un~ $24,463.18. 24. Easement to Florida Power and Li~h~ as recorded ~n Offici~l Records Book 2736, Page 1076, of the Public Reaor~g of Collier Court=y, Florida. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDiTIOl~S REHAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. T~s e~or~emc~[ is made a pa~ oftl~ policy and Is subj~ to ~ of ~e ~ ~d pro~i~ ~=~f ~d of ~y prior cndo~ ~o. ~e~ m ~o ~ent ~pr~sly ~t~d, it ncimer ma~fi~ ~y of ~ ~ ~d p~vbio~ of ~e poli~ ~d my prior ~dors~, nor ~ it ~t~d ~e ~cdve date of ~e policy ~d ~y prior cndon~cn~, no= ~ it in=eue ~e ~e ~[ ~e~f. Company. Issue Dace: First American Tide Insurance Company (lr~crt above line o~m.- of Agent) Au~horh~d $iguatory 130-00-$4S0 First American Title Insurance Company ~,,~g Office Filc No.: 210-00-0545 SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS Any poUcy we issue will have the following exceptions, unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction. 1. Any rig, tits, intorests or claim~ of pani~ in poss~sion of rt~ land not shown by uhe public records. Any rights, interests or claims affec~g the la~d which a con'~ct survey w¢,uld disclose six[ which are not shown by the public records. Any lien for services, labor, or martials in con~ecQon wi~ impmvcm~ts, repairs or re, ovations provided before, on, or after De.to of Policy, not show~ by the public records. Any dispu~ as to the boundaries causal by a change in the locaLion of any water l)ody wi,hl- or adjacent to ~hc land prior m Date of Polk~, ancl any adverse clnim to a~l or pan of the 'land ~hat is, at Da~ of Policy. or w~s previously. under water. Taxes or special assess~uu not shown as liens in Q~c public recor~ or in the _records of the local tax collecting · uthofity, az Daze of Policy. 6. Any minerals or mineral ri~h~s leased. grained or r¢,~ined by current or prior owners. S~-e Taxes and assc~Zl:~enLs for the yenr 2 0 0 0 and subsequent year% which ~re not yet duc or payable. NOTE: 2000 taxes are assessed under #00166440601 .but are not yet due payable. 1999 Real Es=ate Taxes are paid. 1999 gross tax amount ~26,847.47. and Tax information is accurate only through the most recent computer posting. Taxes must be verified through the Tax Collectors Office prior to closing (941) 732-5660 (Collier County) or (941) 369-6377 (Lee Cou~3~y). Any 1ten provided by Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, in favor of any city, t=wn, village or port authority for unpaid service charges for service by any wa~er, sewer or Gas system supplying the insured land. Declaration of General Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Pelican Marsh recorded in Official Records Book 1891, pages 1814 through 1865 inclusive. attached Schedule B-2 continued... 'EXHIBIT" - ' A'c~NbA ITEM jh O First American Title Iasurance Company ~-- SCU~DUL~ B-2 (Continued) Ag~t's File No.: 210-00-0545 Coram~t No. FA-CC- 13 0 - 0 0 - 4. ~, 51 P~ No.: 10. Declaration of Neighborhood Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions for a portion of Pel£c-~ Marsh East, Section 25, Township 48 South, aan~e 25 East. 11. Applicable comprehensive plans, or lelemtns or portions hereof, land development re~ulatlons includin~ zoning ~-d ~ubdtvision ordiu~ces, Pelican Marsh DRI Development Order 95-1 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida pursuant to Resolution No. 95-71 dated January 24, 1995, aevelo~ment per~/~s and other regularlogs and conditions of all governmental agencies concerning the proepr=y. 12. ~he ~elica~ Marsh Pl~e~ Unit Develo~g~ent assigned ordinance number 95-~ as a~ended on December 9, 1997. 13. Compulsory construction re~utremen=s and repurchase rights set forth in ~hat certan De~o~~ Receipt and Sales Agreemen~ between Grantor ~d Grantee dated 12-I~-9~ and Deed recorded in Official Records Book 2377, page 2679. 16. Cable Service Agreement recorded in Official Records Book 2024, ~age 4.0~. 15. Easement in favor of Florida ~ower & Light Company recorded in O£ficial Records Book 160, page 270, as enlarged in Official Records Book 432, page 720. 16. Easement in favor of Callier County recorded in Official Records Book 1710, pa~e 379. 17. Access Easement in favor of Aston Care Systen~, Inc. by WCi Cc~unities Limited Par~nershi~ recorded in Official Recorde ~ock 237~, pa~e 16~0. 18. utility Facilities Btll o~ Sale in favor of Collier County recorded in Official Records Book 2536, page 128. 19. U~tli~y Easement in favor of Collier County recorded in Offici&l Records Book 2536, page 132. 20. ~iltty Facilities Warranty Deed recorded in Official Records Book 2536, page 136. Non-E~clusive, Temporary Construction/Access Easement ~n favor of WCI Communities recorded in Official aecozds Book 2377, See attached Schedule B-2 continued... EXHIBIT ~ · ~ ,_-.-.-3 NO. JAN 2~ ~A,'~..,,6~0 Go,~.,~-78) First American Title Insurance Company ScI:rF. IOULE B-2 ,(Continued) File No.: 210-00-0545 Comm_itmemt No. FA-CC- 130-00-4451 Poli~y No.: 22. Easement to Plotida Power and Light as recorded !~ Official Records Book 2489, Page 2299, of the Public Records o£ Lee County, Florida. 23. Cost-Sharing Agreem~n= between St. Croix Apartments at. Pelican Marsh, LTD., and Aston Gardens a~ Pelican Marsh, LTD, recorded in Official Records Book 2664, page 1006. EXHIBIT" " AGENDA J.'I:F-M No. ~ 'l .1~ JAN 2 3 2001 Pa. Project: T,i vinF~'~n Parc=l; Pol~.ioia o£ S,~utiuJ~ 25 u~d 36, Town.ship 4R fnuth, R.,~,o;,c 2.~ Coili~ Co~U.y, Fludd~ Dolaw~ ~01poz~fioa ~u~u~or by ~gur of W~ Co,,~igca Li~t~d ~c~hip nnd by mc~=r of W~ C~, ..... areibex. inc. (he~ma~e~ called ~e "~r~t~9 to ~~ ~UN'I'Y, a polific~ s~*~io~ of ~ ~t~ of herein the I'~.rrr~ "t ;ranter" and "i.;ra~tee" mcJt~de all the parties to this u~truz~e~t and the appertainleg. TO H. AVE AND TO HOLD e~e same in fee sirriplc forover. ANT~ ~he ~rnn~r~r here. by covtment~ with said Grantee r. ha: ~c ~toz ~ ~y sc~cd of s~d 1~ ~ fee · hupl~; ~L th~ ~t~ h~ V~d :i~t ~d lawr~ au~W to seU ~d conv.y s~d 1~ ~t ~e ~tOT hereby ~11y wa~nm The title rn ~nld lnnd nnd ~11 defend the enrac nEelest The 3a~fi clam of iB petsore whosoever; &bcrvc x~//ttc,L Ir'rLumd Nan4c' - i: pclioa~marsh~dccdc*y.wc~ AC:~NDA J.TE M -- No. i JAN 2 3 2O:1 No. , ~,~/ JRN 16 2001 10:09 FR WATERMARK LEGAL DEPT 941 4~8 8277 TO 9-7748225 P.04/12 Legal Description bring a part of Sectlotto 25 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida 0aelican Marsh Livingston Road Corridor) WCI Communities L.P. Portion All that part of'Sections 25 a~d 36, Township 48 South, l~nge 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particul,arly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Section 25; thence along the east line of said Section 25, South 02°07'14" East 100.0:3 feet to the south right- of-way line of Immokatee Road (CR 846) 100 foot right-of-way; thence continue along the east line orsaid Section 25, South 02'07'14" East 2179.52 feet to the Point.ofBeginnlng; thence continue aJong'th¢ east line of said Sectlot( 25 in the following two (2) described courses: 1) South 02007' 14" East 390.19 feet to the east 114 corner of said Section 25; 2) South 02°01'00" East 2670.94 feet to the northeast comer of said Section 36; thence along the east line of said Section 36 in the following two (2) described courses: 1) South 02°12'15" East 2671.56 feet to the east 1/4 comer of said Section 36; 2) South 02°06'40" East 25.1.9,02 feet to tile north right-of-way line of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) 150 foot right-of-way; thence along said north right-of-way line No/'th 89"39'48" West 275.25 feet; thence leaving said north right-of-way line and along the east line of a 125 foot FP&L easement as recorded in O.K. Book'432, pages 720-721, Collier County, Florida in tile following tlu'ee (3) described courses: l) North 02006'40" West 2507.04 feet; 2) North 02012' 15" West 2671.79 feet; 3) North 02°01'00" West 1265.97 feet; thence leaving the east line orsaid FP&L easement Noah 87°57'47" E~,st 70.99 feet; thence noaheasterly 54.98 feet along the are of a circular curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 35.00 feet th?ough a central angle of 90°00'00" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 42°57'47" East 49.50 feet; thence North 02°02' 13" West 1690.03 feet; thence northwesterly 54.20 feet along the arc era circular curve concave southwes:erly having a radius of 35.00 feet through a central angle of~8°4]'25" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 46°23'55" West 48.94 feet; thence South 89°14'22" West 71.81 feet to the east line of said FP&L easement; thence along the east line ofsaid I:'P&L easement North 02°07' 14" West 40.01 feet; thence leaving the east line of said F'P&L easement North 89~14'22" East 275.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; A C-.-.-~ N DA ITEM No. /~.~2 / ~C/11 .';','N, MII,I.I.:I{, I~..NI{T~N ~t rEEK. [Nt'. '~"~O"PO ...... 2 1 "'"' ....' ''" ....'""' - ............! ' ' .....'P;~ 1 n'F q' Pg' WATERMARK LEP~AL DEPT 941 498 8277 TO 9-7740225 P.05/12 Legal D~scripfion being a part of Sections 25 and ]6, Township ~8 South, Ranize 25 East, Collie' County, Florida ~elican Marsh LNin~ston l~ad Corridor) WCI Communities L.P. Portion {continued) Conf~ining 47.82 acres more or less. Subject to easements and r~trictions of record. B~arings are based on the eazt line of said Section 25 being South 02'07' 14" East. WILSON, MILLElL BARTON & PEEK, INC. ]P.[e.'.gis~,ered Engineers and Land Surveyors Date 2L-56 I, sheet 2 Yessional's seal EXItlBIT "'A" Page 2 of 3 ' AC-.-.-,ENDA ITEM JAN 2 JAN 1G ~001 10:09 FR WATERMARK LEGAL DEPT 941 498 82?? TO 9-?74022S m~,K,M.E~ RO~D 100' Rl~ll IC,R. &iGI JAN 2~ F_,XJ:T.Z,:BT.~ p ^R~,~.T,: ~V~,T ('~mmunitimr., tea. :'C~AP,, A~mAVFr aY cOp.~OR~'nONs c~oradon, succ~sor by m~gor o~WCI Co,,,,~d~ ~tcd P~p ~ by z~r~r o~W~ ~c., ("~o~ra~ou") d~pos~s and 1. T~t Co~zafio= is ~c o~cr of ~ fo~ow~ dcsc~bcd prop~ (the "~e~"), t~ A~AC~D ~TO ~ ~E A PART 2. Rccfi~n 1~ of~c Tnt~l Rcv~ Co~ pra~dc~ ~t u buyur uEu U.S. ~u~ p~p~ty ~tct'c~t ~c ~op c~. 4. 'l'~t ~c ~p~ dcscnbcd is ~c and clear of all h~, ~s ~ ~-~h~cs ~ cla~ of i~ruvcmc~ ~d~ by ~y guvcr~cu~l ~cu~y, w~ch ~c uuL uup~i~ ~N~t fl~c P,'opca~y. li'~ b~. .Don ~e~d, 'l'h. (.:n~n~nn ~hnll p~de nny ~ele~ ~nc~m~} which i~a~c nccc~ rc~rdin~ any hiH~, reg~g fu~e or pending ZonlnE c~gea or ~a~am~t$ f~ ~rovemen~ by ~ gove~entffi ~~~. 7. Atilt r~r~ ~t ~= Prop=~ ~d all us=~ of ~= Pr~ hav~ b~ ~ ~=nfiy ao~l/nnce ~th ~11 Federal, Store nnd ~eal cn~onmcn~l ]a~; thnr no haznrdou~ snbs~noes have be~ l~uwl~d~ of ~ ~ ~ ~nv~u~cnt~ ]uw vio~fion on ~y pro~y uona~uuuu to or ~ ~o viu~Ly of Prnpc~' to hc said ~ ~c t%un~, that thc A~ant h~s nnt rcccivcd nn~cc and nrhc~.~ h~ nn ~nwlcdgc nfa) procce~ or ~ves~gafion r~d~ ~e gene~fion, ~ora~e, ~e~ ~lll or ~r of b~do~ Affiant hcrchy n~cs that it ~al[ indeX, defend. save and hold ~s the Co~ the C:otm~ by LC~O~ UL ~UL~ OUt ul' Umu ~t'U~ClL ul'Alliam's r~s~mqon ~=r Suction 7. ~s pcox~ion ~ut uiv~ ulo~ ~ur auc~t-~[:c ~d is not dme~ ~fi~fled by cnnveynnae nf title. 'l'hat the p~sonal pro~, cq~paat ul' ~lxtm=~, ~ auy, w~h ~ b=~ ~old to ~ Buyer. ~c ainu J~cc aud ut=&r ol'~y ~ ~ lieac, en~mbran0ea, o~ ~ dc~nn~ w~ocvcr. or adverse m~rcs~ wi~ &'cspccL tu flit a~urca~d P:op~y. 1 l. That the Affinnt lcnow.s nf no violahnns of (.)rdmanccs pertainins to the P,'ui~c~ty. m:dncurncnt~chc.~n ma rsll~..ryp. a ~ we i AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3'2001 ]2. 'rhcrc ozc no existing r, nntmcc~ fhr .s~?e m' mnrtEage cornmimings orJ~e~ thau ',hose bc~.R closed GffccfinE £hc m ~c PmD~ b~n ~c ~st abstract c~uu ur UUc ~c com~i~ m~ ~e record~g of ~e wu~ udv~cly a~ thc ~zlc n~ I~T~ ~ be ~d. ~ ~onv~c is o~c nim~l~ ~n~t ~e~ ~ar ~n rh~ e~ ~ ~e~t real cs~c t~es C~, ~*~ a n~w p~ra~ ~d a ~o~x~ct ~ Flupm'Ly ~~t ~H bc ~ upon ~nd. 15. T~t n~ j~nt or ~cc ~ b~n ~rcd in any ~nt~ ofvhis sm~c or ~e U~cd States 1 ~. ~e S~cct ~opc~ is not r~ml 17. ~: ~d~ ~t thin ce~fiaarln~ ~y he di~eln.~ed to the fn~nl ~nuc Sc~ by Buyer and ~at a~y ~lsc ATat~nTs made ~.re c~fid be ptmia~d by f~, imprbonn~L m' bo~. to ~ r~acmaao~ ~de ho~iD, ~ant E~l] ~O~ ~uy~ Of ~ ~es ~ ~csc r~rcscn~fions bcforc the-se ~pre~enta~o~, ~ Colorama a~rccs w ~~ Bayer. i~ atiu~ya ~,! agm~ for ~l ~ges, 1o~, liability. ~]~hz~, uuut~ ~d cApc~ca, ~ludin~ unomcy ~cs, a~inE ~nm or ~q~iarad ~ ~c ~aktng of these ~e ~t~ m bc convcy~ is f~ simplc tn Callice Cn~]n~, a ~liTical snhdi~inn of the ~tatc ot' =~u~ to cov~gc m ~y ~fie i~ce co~enL ~bs~ct prevlo~ly ~she~ or n rifle op~on sm~ f~enz rn he ~elved by ~ollicr C~un~. 20. ~*= ~rm urFkut Tiga ~ Abut, ~c., ~d ~ic~o Title In.rance C~mpafiy and/at ~afio~l Title ~ce Co~y, ~d ic~ cmployc~, ~ wcll ~s any nthet a~ey ~nvolved ~th th~ ~rc ~by au~cd to rcly on ~cse tonguing d~;l~o~ ~d rgp~csen~tio~, ~ Corpol'a~oil will ~ p=~u~ a~d cna/ic~ ~tcd ahoy6 ~T all ~eS) IOSS, cost and expe~e~, ~clu~ ano~y fccs, which i:dom~mem%pello~n mar~h~rygnp,wci lqTATI~, Ol~ WI ~ ~orego~ "GAP" A~vi~ I ly I.~o~ was a.'v,,owl=d~=~ b~roz~ ~ ~s 16~ ~y of Ja~, 2001 hy Vi~cn H. Has~, ~ ~or Vic~ Prosieur o~ WCI ~-~,,~cs, ~c., a Dclawa~ cn~n~on, on be~ of ~ ~utvur~u~ Shc ia pe~naiIy ~ w mo. ' L.c'~al Description b~]ng a part of Sections 25 and 36, Township 4B South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Pelican Marsh Livingston Road Corridor) WCI Communities'L,P. Portion All that part of Sections 25 aM 3~,, Township 48 South, Range 25 least, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of'said Section 25; thence along the east line of said Section 2:5, South 02°07' 14" East 100.03 feet to the south right- of-way llne of Lmmokalee Road (CR 846) 100 foot right-of-way; thence continue along the east line of said Section 2:5, South 02°07'14" East 2179.52 feet to the Point of Begk, mlng; thence continue along' the e~st line of said Sectira{ 2.f in the £ollowin§ two (2) described courses: 1) South 02°07'14" East ]90.19 feet to the east 1/4 corner of said Section 25; 2) South 02°01'00" East 2670.94 feet to the northcast comer of said Section 36; thence along the cast line of said Section 36 in the following two (2) described courses: 1) South 02°12'15" East 2671.56 feet to the east 1/4 comer of said Section 36; 2) South 02°06'40" East 25 t 9.02 feet to the north right-of-way line ofYanderbilt B each Road (CK S62) 150 foot right-of-way; thence along said north right-of'-way line No~th lt9°]9'48" West 2?5.25 feet; thence leavia§ said north right-of'-way line .~nd along the east line o~'a 125 foot FP&L easement as recorded in O.R. Book'432, pages 720-721, Collier County, l:torida in the following tkree (3) described courses: 1) Noah 02°06'40" West 2507.04 feet; 2) North 02°I2'15" West 267'1,79 feet; 3) Horth 02001'00" West 1265.97 feet; thence leaving the east line of said FP&L casement North $7°57'47" East 70.99 £eet; thence noaheasterly 54.92 feet alan§ the arc era circular cur~e concave noahwesterly having a radius of 35.00 feet thi'outh a central an~le of 90°00'00" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 42°$7'4?" East 49.50 feet; thence North 02°02'13". West 1690.03 thence northwesterly 54.20 fee! along the arc' era circular curve concave southwesterly hayinS a radius of'35.00 feet through a central an~le of~8°43'25" and bein~ sub,ended by a chord which bears North 46°23'$$" West 48.94 feet; thence South 89°I4'22" West 71.81 feet to the cas~ line of'said FP&L casement; thence along the east line of said FP&L easement North 0:2007' 14" West 40.01 feet; thence leavia§ the east line of said FP&L easement North ~9°14'22" East 275.0B fee~ to lhe Point of Beginning; I AC-~NDA..ITE. M '~,,111 .-.~.'IN. MII.I,IiR, I~..~.I;TI.~N & J~'I:.EK. INt'. J , oo ,,.,,,..,. ,. .......:,,,,. ,..,,,,.,,.... ,:,,,,.,.,.,,.,,,:.. ,,.,,.,,., '~,,.I, S.,., .. · ' ' .....' ...... '~,v"~'r'~'r~'~ I~ i,('~1, I~ ~ -I ......'.-,' .......... ~'-- JhN 1~:09 FR WRTERMRRK LEu~L DEPT ~41 4~l:1 82?.?? TO 9-??402;,'5 L L E. P. L=g~l Descdption ~ Township ~8 Sout~ ~ge 25 ~ast, Collier Count, ~c~can Marsh LMngston ~o~ Co~idor) WCI Commu~fi~ L.P. Poaion (congnu~d) Containing 47.82 acres more or less. Subject to easements and restrictions of'record. Bearings are based on the east line of said Section 25 being South 02"07' 14" East. WILSON, MILLEtL BAlLTON & PEEK, INC. . :~.'.e/gist,e,red Engineers and Land Surveyors .:.,:...... .'::'"By:' . '~//. Maloney, P.S.M. :N. ot~alid urness embossed wit Cedricate of authorization #LI Re£ 2L-561, sheet 2 Date ;sional's seal EXttlB'I'T "A" Pa~e 2 of 3 AC-~NDA~T~ M JAN 2 3 2001 pg. "-'2 & -g AGENDA ITeM -- No. ~/ ~/ -- F~[H.IB IT "A" 'Pame 3 of M li g JAN 2001 10:10 FR WATERMARK LEGAL DEPT g41 498 82?? TO g-?740225 P. 12/'12 Second Consolidated, Amended and Restated Mortgage and Security ^greement and Notice orl:uture Advance by and bet'ween WCI Co~u~tics, ~c., a Delaw~e Corpo~tion, et al, ~d Fleet NabOhS1B~ ~a Ba~osto~ N.~, ~ r~orded in O.~. Book 2669, Page 1472, et seq., Public Records of Col~er Coumy, Florida. Second Consolidated, Amended and Restated Collateral Assignmen! of Leases and R. cnts as recorded in O.R. Book 2669, P~ge 1757, et seq., all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. UCC Financing Statement by and between ~Bay Colony-dateway, Inc., WCI Communities, Inc. as Debtors and BankBos. to~ N.A., rffk/a Fleet Nations] Bank, as Agent as recorded in O.R. Book 2566, Page 859; as amended by UCC-3 as recorded in O.iL Book 2669, Page 2094, Public Records of'Collier Coun[y, Florida. UCC Finandng Statement by and between Bay' Colony-~-,steway, ~c. and WCI Communiti:s, Lqc., as Debiors aM BankBoston, N.A., ruqc/a ~Fleet l~ational :Bank a.s Agent as recorded in O.R. :Book 2566, Pa,~e ~i70; as smend~d by UCC-3 as recorded in O.R. Book 2669, Page 2096; Public R. ecords o£CoUier County, Florida. Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 93.27 as amended. Preliminary Dcvdopment Agreement as recorded in O.R. Book ] 835, Page 3?5; Notice of Addpl. ion otDev~,~Fment Order as recorded in 0.P,. Book 206?'. Page 1851; Notice or Change o.rDevelopment Ord,,r as recorded in O.1L Book 2! 8'I, ?age 1972, PubLic Records of' Collier Count3,, Florida. Imerl_ocaI Agreement as recorded in O,~. tSouk 1921, Page 1941; and in O.IL Book2119, .['agc 130.s; and O.R. Book 2125, Page 601, all ortho Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Cable Service Easement to Colony Cablevision o£Florida as recorded in O.R. Book 202.4, Page 404, Public Records of'Collier County, Florida. Access ~asemen: by and between WC! Communities, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as Grantor and Tiburon Golf' Ventures Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, as Grantee, as recorded in O.R. Book 2644, Page 1916, Public Records of'Collier County, Florida. .Grant of Euement by and between WCI Corrimunities, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Tiburon 0ol£Ventures Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, ~ · · ~ . -' -"_!' ....../rd~NDA ITEI~I -- Pebcan Marsh Commumty Development g~stri:t as Grantee, as recorded in O.IL ]1ooW~270'0,, , - Page 1879, Public Records of Collier County, l:lofida. This instnunent propared by: Stephen C. Pierca:, Esq., 24301 Walden Center Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34134 GOLF CART ACCESS EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE is made as of the __ day of , 2001, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose post office . ad&ess of 3301 East Tamiarai Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 (the "Grantor"), and TIBURON GOLF VENTURES lIMITED PARTNERSi:IIP, a Delaware limited partnership, whose mailing address is 24301 Walden Center Drive, Suite 300, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (the "Cn'antee"). WITNESSETH: THAT, for and in consideration of the sum ofTEN and No/100 U.S. Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby grants to the C. rrant~, its successors and assi~q, for the benefit of the Crmntee's present and future members, and their tenants, invitees, business invitees, licensees, mortgagees and employees, a non-exclusive easement over, trader, on and through the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the purpose of providing pedestrian and golf can ingress and egress to the lands described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, all such lands being situated in Collier County, Florida. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the easement hereby granted unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns. The Grantee, by acceptance of this easement, agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, not to interfere at any time with the right of ingress or egress of the Grantor, its successors or assigns, or the general public any other party requiring access to any of the real property over which this easemenu is granted. In the event Grantee, its successors and assi~, shall fail to use this easement for the purpose intended, then Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall vacate, cancel and annul said easement or relevant part thereof. Cnantor, its successors or assigns, shall upon said vacation, have the right to require Grantee, its successors or assigns, to remove any structure or improvements which may a~ffect the use of the property. .... No. II /El., JAN 2 3 ,,...,, _, Gran~ hereby covenants and agrees to inclenmiry, save, prot~t and hold harmless Grautor agains~ any loss, damage, injury, debt or expense (including attorney'S fees) claimed or asserted by any p~-son or enti~, arising out of Orant~e's installation or ~e of Crmntee's facilities described above. This easement shall be a covenant nmning with the land and sh.ll be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor ha_e caused these presents to be signed in its name by its Board of County Commissioners acting by the Chairman of said Board, the day and year first above written. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk By: L~lrnamh~zl~a~m~.~.~sS WCI Tiburon 2 .,~GEN DA ITEM JAN 2 JAN 12 2001 11:50 FR WATERMARK LEGAL DEPT 941 498 8277 TO 9-??40225 P.05/08 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COr.r.mR Th~ foregoing Golf Cart Access Easement was ~knowledged before me thisday of · 2001 by , as Chairman of the Board of County Commissionms, Collier County, Florid_-. to me well known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrr~ent and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument in the capacity and for the purposes therein expressed. He is personally known to me. My comm/ssion expires: Notary Public Printed Name of Notary Public Notary Commission Number (SEAL) L~g~elm~s~krRz~,ncnt-~cr;ss WCI Tiburon 3 Leeal description hein[q A p~. of Se¢li~rt 36, Tnw~shlp 48 ~o~th. TlbtJrnn C~tl I-'Rt~ Lase~qellt !t~ Tntl~hG/one Prope~ All that po~ or Section 36, Tnwnshlp 4R Ro.th. Hange 25 E~t. Collier Count, Florida being more paAiculaHy described Clotida: U l~u~e leaving s~id line Noah B3"S9'40" We~l 115. ~3 feet; lhen~e South 5e'4~'~2" Wc~t 8~.~7 f~c~; thence ~out~ %~'4fi'40" Wast 1UU.'/1 feet; ,- thence ~outh 04'24'07" E~=[ 101.~5 thence ~ou~ 22"07'31" West 77.10 lee~; ~nco ~outh fi~*SO'd~" W~t 7O.~fi feel; thnn~n /Jn~h R4'.3~'~4" Wm~t R~ R~ f~nl; Ihence ~outh '~U-4Z'43" We~t 73.01 !hRnne ~lfth ~7'4R'4~" West g~. 1~ feet; U~ence ,Noz'U~ 3~'4~'~" We~t 27.gO fee:. thence Noah 27'46'42" E~t 02,~ f~ct; thence ~ouU1 U4'~0'44" East 106,37 feet; thence ~oulh 81'07'~5" Rn~.t ~ 1 R7 feel; thefica Nu~U, B0"50'43" ~ast 'a2.09 feel; thence Noah 22'O7'31" ~e~l ~7.tB f~cl; thence Noah 04'24'07" W~I 10~,i4 thence Noah E~'40'52" EauL ga.72 IuaL ~ence Gouth 02'0~'40" ~ast 48.R~ ~eet along said section line to the Point of ~ubject to eaeements and ru~tlJctiotlS el rdco~d Bearings are base~ on satd ~ecUon 36, being No~ 02"0~'4U" Weal ~h'l b'l £ "A" AGENDA iTEM' JAN 2 3 2001 AGENDA ITEM JAil oFthe S~ ~ of~e SW 'A, ~d ofthe $E ?, o£tha N'W ~,4, and for public ~, oFSe=tion 31, To~s~p 48 South, ~g~ 26 ~t, ~ollier Co~. Fln~da. MUST SUnMtT OTtlnTN6T. ~O~1~ o_~bv - NO FAXES O~R COpIE~.ACgEP?~'~_~ REQUEST POE TEMPORAY:Y UNDEIIGI1OUND (T.U.G.) ELIgCTIIIC Slg. IlV/CI~. un¢ler~igned hereby requegts that the electric service. for the permit noted above, bo connected nnd ctivnted. Service to the project will ha provided/or use durine construction at'same, ~,&pon ~ueceasful ~spcctinn hy tim Collier County Electrical Inepecmr. mutually t~gtee4 by all parties signing thie request that electric eervico will I)o disconnected by the ]ectrle utility enmpnny if any nr nil of the rollewing enn¢litinnn are present: Upon 4eterminatian by the 13uihling OlT~cinl nr hi,~ designee that conditions exist which are unsafe and/or not in c~mpli~nce with the hdopted Electrical Cml~ nnd OrdinAnces. The strueb~ro hnn heon found ~n he ncm~pied print In the i~stmnco ~fn Certificate of O~upnncy. The pertnit. nnled nlmvo, Im.~ been left in expire nr in n/henvi,~e canceled for cnuao. urthermore. tim yodersilted Electrical Cnntrnclnr cerlil'ie~ that: The activated pnnel will he secured nml properly identified ns enntninini: "Live" electrical ~rvice, All nul hnrized personnel wnrking nn nr about thin pnnel muRt he fully instructed with nn~'~ty precnutior~ nilout working nn /,lie pnnel. tame of General C.ntrnelnr nr PermiHe~ (printed} ignature of Permitlee a. me nF~cCor [printed) nm~ nfOwnr. r (printed) g'nn!ure of Owner ease he advise4 tirol [l~e Builtling OW~cinl hna determined ~l~n~ termination nree~ice nt thi~ Incaflea ust he aretered rnr the following ren~nn: fine,'[: D/lie:. ,, ~g Affidavit Farm 2118107 AC~HbA [TE'/~ JAN 2 3 2001 I~ROJI~OT: I, ivingston PARCEL: FOLIO: 00177201402 GR~NT OF UTILITY EASEMENT rhi5 indenture- made and executed this .. day of January, 2001, by and bctwt:(~rt COLLIER COUNTY, a politic:el subdivision of the ~tate o1' Florida, IL~ ~u~$~r and/or assigns, whnge post o~ce address is 3301 ~ast Tamlami Trail, Naples, Florld~ ~'112, herelna~er referrod 1~ as G~NTOR and TIBURON GOLF VE~URES LIMITED ~ARTNERSHIP, e Delaware lielied pa~ncrshlp, I~ successore and/or ~H~ions. whose post o~ce aad[~ss i~ 24301 Walden Center DHvo, Suite 300, Boni~ Spdngs, Florld~ 34~, hereinafter referred to as G~NTEE. WITNE$$ETH That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dellans ($10.00) ~nd other good and valuable consideration, receipt el which is hRreb¥ acknowledged, ~e ~NTO~ hereby grants [o G~N~E, I~ successors or a~6igns, an axclLIslve easement tot ~e ~n~lruntion, maintenance. use, repair and replacement of effluent-irrigation water holding pond and Imp~vemen~ uvur, under and through the prope~ as met partlc~iarly deskbed on Exhibit "A" a~ched hereto and made a pa~ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the easement hereby grRnted unto saicl GRANTEE, its successors and as~Jgn¢. CRANTE:E, by acceptance ul [his easement GRANTEE agrees for itself, il~ ~lJcc~es.~ors and assigns, Io maintain said easemerit and in no way in[erfere or Impede at any time wi[l~ [he right of inshess o~' egress of GRANTOR. its successors and aR~i!3ns or the public with the use Livingston Road. ORANTEE further a~re~ that It will at all times use exLreme c~arP. to restore all Grounds to as [q(~od or better condition than rnund prior to construction, maintenance: ~ct repair. (~P-,ANTEE agrees by ~.cep~anco of this easement that the ar[luent-ln'lgatlon water hoidln~ pond and related improve~nts shall be usec~ for storage and di~lribution of Irrigation water t~ th~ Tiburon Golf Course and the Tlbu~un Community situated ir~ Collier C, ounty. Florida. GRANTEE flirther agrees by accoplante of the easement that it -~-i~all maintain and adhere to all rules and regulaUons of the state, It~deral and !oC~l ordinances r~lati~B [o the effluent-Irrigation water holdin~ pond and related improvement-:. In the event GRANTEE, its sUC, C~suors nr Rsslgna. shall fad to use thi~ e~scment for the purpose intended, th~n this easement shall automatically revert to (31;b~NTOI~,, its suc~.$sors or ~signs and this easement shaft ten'rlinate. ~P-,~ANTOR, It~ successors or assiGr~. shall upon said VaCation, hav[~ the right to require GRANTEE, it~ su~c*~ssur~ or assigns, to remove any structure or improvements which may .~ffect the uae of the propnr[y. (3P, ANTEE hereby c~venants and agrees ta Indemnify, save, proi,d and hold GRANI'OR harml~n from and agair~t any end all I~ses, damages, ~StS or expenses (Including a~omey's f(:ee) inked by G~NTOR, arising OUt of or r-suiting from, claims by any pe~on or enfi~ in ~r~ne~on With the easement prope~, includJHg but not limited to h~a~ous thatoriels and or environmental h~ards on the easement p~pe~ known at the fim~ ~f entcrlnG into this easement ar that ~N'I'EE is i~=rn~od of at some ~ure time. This ~as~'mgnt may nat be a~signod without prior written approval of Collier C;otJnty. which approval will not be unreasonably Withheld. "XGENDA~ITEM No. [ ~./',/-,/,, ) Dr ~../ JAN 2 3 2001 IN WITNIESS WHEREOF Ihe GRANTOR has caused these presents to be executed in its name by its Board of County Conlmi~-sio~r~ ac(ing by the Chairman of said Board, the day and year first above written. A'I-rEST; DWIGHT E. BROCK · Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Chairman STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COI..L Before me personally appeared Dwi_qht I=. Brook, es Deputy Clerk of Collier County, Florida, on behalf of Collier County, to me well know to b~ thc~ p~.r~on who executed the for~9oing in'--trum~nt, and ack ~owledged to and before me Lhat he exncut~d said Instrument in the capacity and for the purposes therein expressed. lie is personally known to Witness my hand and official seal this day or January, 2001. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Printed Name of Nota,'¥ Public STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIE~ Before me personally appealed . as Chain-rlan of the Board of Courltv Commis~nners Collle~ County, Florida, on behalf'of the r~3mmisslon, tO me well know to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and ac.J<n~wledDed to ~nd before me that he cxocuted said inst~'ument in the ~-~pacity and fo~ the purposes therein expressed. He is p~r~onally known to me. Witness my hanoi and official :~eal this ..... day of January, ;Z0D1. My Commi~.~ion Expires: Notary Publi~ Printed Name of Notary Public '-"-~'~N DA ITEM 2001 J~l',l 11 ~l,..dldl 1~:~-,~ 114 t,JF41L_I,!P'I~11,!~¢. !=.L.L~L- L1L.I*I LI~Z -4%1U U'--"/'/ IU ,_1 'd'd~ldl~'--~., M /' OVOId ..% -- -- -- .-- ..,-~ ..-- ,, ..- . AGE~15-~, iTEI~I JAN 2 3 2[}0~ - WiisPnMi!ler All that part nt'Sectinn 2f. Township 48 South, 12.angc 25 ~amt. tSc]11i,-, C.,,,nry. Florida being more'particularly dcs~rib~l a~ follows: Commencing at the northeast oos'~mr ol'suitl act:lion 2.~; thence ~u-l~ th. eu, m. line, nf.unlrl gee. don 25. South 02007' 14" IZa=t 2279.55 feet; Lhence leaving said ueminn line, ,South 89=14'22" West :'/~,U~ feeL; ~hence South 02°07'14" E~t 4U.U1 feel it) Ih~ Point of]3egimfing; tlmneu Noah ~14'22" East 71 .el Feet; thence southe~crly ~4.20 fccc Mo~]g th: ~ u uf u uir~ul~ cu~e concave southwesterly having ~ radius of 35.00 feet tlu-ough a ue,~tr,zl Iragit: of RR°~3'25" ~d bcing subLe,dcd by a chord wl'fich hem ~: South 46°23'55" East 48,94 fccc thence SoHth 02'02.'13" EaSt 1690.03 feet; thence sou~wcsrerly 54.98 [~=t ~t~ng 1h~ arc. ot'a circular cu~c concave nomhw~t.rly havi~g a radius of 35.00 t~et lhrotl~h n central m~gle of ~0~00'OO" m~d bei.g guhim.i~d by n chord wlfich be~s South 42'57'47" W~[ ~9.50 fueL; thence Souill 87~57'47" Wust 70.99 feet to the e~t l~e ota 125 foot Florida Puw~r and Light -:~.~ent a~ rc~rdcd in O,~, Book 432, pag.s 720 mid 721, (2oilJar ~amn~, Florida; thence along said east Line, Noah 02~02'16" W~t 1761.62 feet to ~he Point of~cginning; Contaiffing 4.27 acres mu~ ~ u~ loss. Subj~G[ [u eas~enta nnd r~tHctions of record. BUnCheS arc based on ~e east 1~= ofs~d 8~ctiu. 25 b~ing ~outh 02~07' 14" En~r WiLSON I~LL, LEt~, INC2. IL~g/uterud l~llgine~,2~nnd .I.and Surveyor, BY~...a:fi¢c T, ' le~C,._l:~4 #5027 Date Nlnr valid uJ~less embossed with the k'rolea~icmal'~ EXHIBIT A AGEHDA J,7, rc.M No. JAN 2 3 2001 GOODLETTE ROAD / PELICAN MARSCH OVERPASS PROPOSED §-LANI NG ROUGH PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE STATION 204+2(t.00 - 226+50.00 ROPOSED ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY updated UNIT COST 29-Oct- 1997 1 O-Jan-2001 TOTAL COST MOBIL17~\TION LS 1.00 530,000.00 CLEARING & GRUBBING AC 4.50 S7,300.00 1.5" TYPE S-I ASPH.CONC SY 12833.00 5375 2' MISC A C.-GUARDRAIL STRIP SY 53.00 $7.50 10" I.IMEROCK BASE {PRIMED) SY 12833.00 57.00 CONC JERSEY BARRIER W.XLE LF 3000.00 $4500 12" ST..XBII IZED SUBGR.kDE SY 12833.00 52.75 RF(;['I AR EXCAVATION CY 54500 54.50 L-MBANKM} NT ('Y 24270.00 56.25 MISC ASPiI..X LT TN ll)0.00 554 Gi -xRDRAII LF 160.00 5180o END .XNCttrIRAGE ASSEMBI Y EA 4.00 GR~SN ;V~[:RING MG 140 51,o00 B X}IIA NOD SY 0000.00 5175 IYPi{ F ('[ RB 1F 3032 Oo 58 O0 t>" R( 1' IF 108.00 521 0o RI:iNt ()R(I!) E-XRIIt WALl SF 32200.0{~ 53600 'IRXI[ 2 t ()NTROi LS 1.00 lX'll'N[~ BRIDGI:I ;z PE[ I('AN MARSCH BLVD) LS 1.00 EXIt ND ('AR'I CROSSIN(} IS 1.0fi $182.250 00 SI 15% CON'I INGENCY lOlll. C 9dyFdes Off~ce'[GoooYette Rd Overpass ".- ! 0-01 xl$]St~eet'l 'Ibis co=t estimate i~ based upon our preliminary estimalc of quantities and year 2000 estimated unil costs. , i ', /; / Danfcl \V Brt!ndaje. PE, Fondu Rc,tI!slr~!on = 18915 Agnoii. Ba:'bcr & l;rundage. Inc __ $30,000.00 532,850.00 $48,123.75 - $397.50 ~-'-~ 589,831.00 S 135,000.00 535.290 75 52.452.50 5151 6~75} 55 4(0 0o S2,g80 52 4 51.40(I 00 $ I 53 528 or 515 S I. I S59 ~ 625 $182,2'~1 ( 52.553.o?2.0o 5382,060 80 $2,936,032.80 / JAN 2 3 2r', al COLLIER COUNTY TR~4,NSPORTATION ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: January 11, 2001 Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson, Assistant County Attorney Mitch Riley, P.E., Senior Project Manager RE: Goodlette Road / Pelican Marsh Overpass Proposed 6 Laning Preliminary Cost Estimate Attached, please find a certified cost estimate for the above referenced project. The quantities and cost for the subject task have been certified by Daniel W. Brundage, P.E., Florida Registration # 18915 CC' Project File AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2[FJI GOODLETTE ROAD / PELICAN MARSCH OVERPASS PROPOSED 6-LANING ROUGH PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE STATION 204"-20.00 - 226+50.00 ROPOSED ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY 29-0ct- 1997 updated 1 O-Jan-200 l LrNIT TOTAL COST COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 2 CLEARING & GRUBBING AC 4.50 3 1.5" TYPE S-1 ASPH.CONC. SY 12833.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 }--:, $7,300.00 $32,850.00 53.75 $48,123.75 ~_~ 4 2' MISC A.C-GUARDRAIL STRIP SY 53.00 5 10" IAMEROCK BASE (PRIMED) SY 12833.00 $7.50 S397.50 }-'-'~ 57.00 $89,831.00 -- 6 CONC JERSEY BARRIER WALL LF 3000.00 $45.00 $135,000.00 7 IT' STABILiZED SUBGILa. DE SY 12833.00 S2.75 $35,290.75 8 RFGULa.R EXCAVATION CY 545.00 S4.50 52.452.50 9 EMBANKMENT CY 24270.00 56.25 l0 MISC ASPHALT TN 10000 S54.00 $5,40000 I 1 GL'A RDIL,\IL LF 16000 S18.00 $2.88000 12 FND ANCHOR,\GE ASSEMBLY EA 4.00 S600.00 $2,400.00 15 GIL\SS WATERING NIG 1.40 $1,00~1 00 $1.400.00 BAHIA SOD SY 600000 $t.75 $10,500.00 t5 TYPE F CURB LF 303200 S~4,-_O.00 IO 15" RCP LF 168.00 $21.00 $3,528 O) CURB INLE[ TYPE 5 EA 6.00 $2.50000 $15,000.00 [8 R[.INFORCED EARTH WALL SF 32200.00 536.00 S1,159,200.00 i~ I RAFFIC CONTROL LS 1.00 530,000.0o 530,000 00 2'~ EXTEND BRIDGE C_~ PELICAN MARSCtI BLVD) LS 1.00 $590.625,00 S590.625.00 21 EXTEND CART CROSSING LS 1.00 $18 ....0.00 $182250.00 SUB-TOTAL S .... 2,0~..00 CONTINGENCY 5382,96080 TOTAL $2.936.032.80 C. ',M>,Files'~Cffice~[Goodlette Rd OverDa$s 1-10-01.xls]$heetl '['his cost esnmate is based upon our preliminary esnmate of quanmms and year 2000 estimated unit costs. / : > ,",': / , ,'I; / ? ./ ~ , · . ~ Dan/d W. Brunda,:e. PE, Forid~ Re~,istra~ion ~ 18915 Abmoli, Barber & Brundagr, Inc AC-,-~IDA IfEM _1 IMPACT FEE CREDIT LEDGER The amount of road impact fee credits awarded to WCI Communities, Inc. for the Land Donation of the Livingston Road Right-of-Way between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road as determined by Collier County', Florida total: $2,336.687.50 WCI Communities, Inc. hereby relinquishes any and all claims to the above-referenced road impact fee credits and said credits shall remain in the possession of Collier County, Florida. By: Date: STATE OF FLORIDA COL,~'TY OF COLLIER BEFORE ME, a duly authorized notary' of the State of Florida, personally appeared , who is personally known to me or produced as identification, and under Oath stated that questions I through 4 were ansxvered correctly and to the best of her knowledge. DATED this day' of ,1997. My commission expires: Notary,, State of Florida Notary Pnnted Name AC.,~_NDA ITEM No. ~ t JAN 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR THE MEDITERRA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Ex-Officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approve an agreement for the Mediterra Planned Unit Development, between Long Bay Partners, LLC, Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., and the Collier County Water-Sewer District. CONSIDERATION: Mediterra is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) along the · Collier/Lee County border which will be comprised of golf courses, single family homes, multifamily homes, and associated facilities. The layout of the development is such that of the 127 planned units, 74 units will be located in Lee County and 53 units will be located in Collier County. In order for the water and wastewater infrastructure to be properly engineered to be economically feasible, limited areas of Collier County units are planned to be served by Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. (Lee County), while there are pockets of units in Lee County that will be served by the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The Collier County and Lee County boundaries will be crossed by the development, therefore a three-party agreement is necessary to protect the integrity of each utility system, while insuring that adequate utility service is provided. Lee County is a "jurisdictional county" in accordance with Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, wherein all nonexempt private utilities operating in Lee County are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Public Service Commission. Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. is a cooperative, exempt from regulation; however should this utility be transferred in the future, to a nonexempt, private entity, it is possible that the utility would lose its exempt status and be subject to regulation. This action was adopted by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority Board on November 27, 2000 through Preliminary Order 00-01 (see attached). FISCAL IMPACT: Costs associated with recording fees will be paid from the County Water-Sewer Operating Fund (408) in Public Utilities Financial Operations and will not exceed $120.00. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approve the agreement related to the Mediterra PUD, authorize the Board of County Commissioners Chairman to sign, and the Clerk to record the agreement in the Official Records of Collier Count},. A~NDA~ ITEM No. it~ (.L~i JAN 2 3 2001 SUBMITTED BY: ~-~i~~ Date: /- ~'-~/ Ann Marie [aylor, Adl~istrative Assistant II APPROVED BYe'. .... ~.,-~-~-~- -- ,..' Date: /t ~James Mudd, P.E., Public Utfimes Administrator AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE MEDITERRA PLANNED.UNIT DEVELOPMENT TH~ AGREEMENT ("Agr~m~nf') is made this __ day of January, 200 lby and among the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE GOVERNING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, (hereinafter referred to as th, "District"), and BONITA SPRINGS UTILITIES~ INC. (bere'mafter refer-red to ~ the 'U~ilirf) and LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC., (hereinafter referred to as "LBP") (LBP, Utility and Disirict h~reinaf~ jointly referred to as the "Panics.') WHEREAS, LBP is developing a Project called 'Mediterra" cornpried of golf course~, single family homes, and multifamily home~, and associat~l facilities located partly in Lee County and partly in Collier County (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, ~his Agro~ment applies only to water a~d wastewater sexyice ('Utility Service*), and the utility facilities referred to in this Agreement mean faciliti~ to provide potable water and w~tr, vater; and; and, WHEREAS, except as provided for herein, that portion ofthe Project located in Lee County will be served by Utility and that portion of the Project located in Collier County will be served by the District; and, WHEREAS, the Project's water and wastewater systems have been designed to achieve economies of scale and efficiencies in the provision of such services and the paxties agr~ ~hat the public health, safety and welfare is best and most efficiently served by having the District provide 1 NO. !~?~ ~ JAN 2 3 2001 service to a small number of lots located m Lee County in Utility's service area and'by having the Utility provide service to a small number of lots located in Collier County in the District's service area; and Wl~,REAS, the Utility is presently regulated by Lee County and the District wishes to ensure that, in the future, should the Utility for any reason become regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission ("PSC"), such regulation cannot and will not result in the exercise of PSC jurisdiction over any utility system or operations within Collier County, unless otherwise authorized by the District. NOW, TI:rEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth or assumed herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Subj oct to approval by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners as set forth herein, Utility agrees to the provision of Utility Serfi_'ce b.v Dismcr.m the area described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("DisU-ict's Lee Service Area"); District agrees to the provision of Utility Service by Utility in the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ('~Utility's Collier Service Area"). Utility shall own, operate and maint~:.a the Utility facilities located in Utility's Collier Service Area, subject to the provisions set forth m paragraph 6 below. District shall own, operate and maintain the Utility facilities located in Dislrict's Lee Service Area, subject to the provisions set forth in paragraph 6 below. The District .and Utility shall charge rates and charges, and apply service rules and regulations, to customers within the District's Lee Service Area and Utility's Collier Service Area respectively on a basis cons/stent with the service provided to other customers in each utilities' service area. 2. . The parties agree that the distribution of umts within the Project affected by this Agreement are as set forth below: 2 'AG£~Da IT£M JAN 2 3 20, I Total number of units to be served by Utility in Utility's Collier Service Area = 9 Total number of traits to be served by District in District's Lee Service Area,,, 17 This distribution of traits may vary slightly as the Projeers final development appwvah ar~ obtained. In the event of a conflict, the ar~as affected by this Agreement r~fer~nc-.,d in Exhibits ' A' and shall control. 3. The parri~ agree that, as to Collier Count-y, Utility shall sa've only within Udlity's Colli~ Service Area and, as to Lee County, District shall serve only within Dis~ct's L~ Service .Area~ and that this Agrccment provides no other author/ry for service outside o~ such ar~a,s d~si~naed. 4. Within thirty days of the execution of this Agreerncnt by all parties, Utility shall file with the Let County Board of County Commissioners ('L~ County")'an application in such form as it d~ras appropriate to obtain approval of the terms of this Agreement which allows the District to provide service to the District's Lee Service Ar~ The parties acknowledge and agree that Uti lity's obligation under this Agreement shall become null and void in the ¢veaxt this Agre~'mcnt is not aleroved by L~ Counvj. Within Thirty days of the execution of this Agreement. by all parties, Disuic~ shall file with the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authorin ('Authority') an application, in such form as it deems appropriate., to obtain approval of the tari~ of this Agrcemcnt so that Utility may provide Utility $ errice to the UdliV/'s Collier Service Area. The 3 [~~ A IT£M c_l ] JAN 2 3 200I parties acknowledge and agree tha~ the Districfs obligation under this Agreement shall become null and void in the eveat thi~ Agmetnent is not approved by the Authority. 5. Developer, by execution hereof, agrees to tbe provision of Utility Service by the parties to the Project in the manner-set forth herein -.all reasonable expe~tses incurred by Uglity in seeking approval of the Agreement by Lee County shall be horne by Developer. 6. The parties agree that it i~ their statexl iment tim this Agreement shall not trig_g. er PSC jtu-isdiction ov~ Utility. Utility warrants and repre~.i that it has no intention by emering into this Agreement to introduce PSC jurisdiction over Utility's operations in Lee or Collier Counties. However, in the event that any one of the following occur: (i) Utility for any mason shall become regulated by *,he Flor/ds Publ/c Service Comxnis~ion, ~d any claim is made by the PSC to jurisdiction within Collier County, then immediately prior to the jurisdiction of the P$C becoming effective over Utility, or within Collier County; (ii) Collier County attempts to regulate Utility Service provided by Utility :m UtilitT's Collier Serric~ Area; or (i/d) ~ County attempts to regulate Utility Service provided by the District in Distriet's Lee Service Area, then the following shall apply: . The Utility facilities within Utility's Collier Service Area shall be deemed owned by, and in fact legal ownership ofsuch fgility shall vest in the District, at no cost to the Digriot. Utility shall continue to provide service to U~ilit'y's Collier Service Area, but ~c,h service shall be provided on ~ bulk service basis with the point of delivery in Lee County immediately north of the County Boundary Line; b. The Dismict facilities within DL-trict's Lee Service Area shall be deemed ow'ned by, ~d in fact legal ownership of such facility shall vest in the Utili~/, at no cost to Utility. District shall conrinse to provide service to District's Lee Service Area, but such service shall be provided on a bulk servic~ basis with the point of delivery in Collier County immediately south of the County BoundaryLinei' i'i i"'i":'"'" 'i' "i:' '" i...' c. Ur/lity and District respectively shall provide Bills of Sate v4~ d~il~ descfip6ons of f~ilities, ~n Assignmere of PmFer~ RiBhts,md such other documents as may be reasonshie requir~t by ~ o~er P~W to effec~vely ve~ ownes~p facilit/e~ in the part/~s as described in th/s paragraph. The parties agree that each shall convey to the other the referenced utility facilities at no cos~ wi~hout ~ny other credit or set off. Utility and Distric~ shall each arrange for billing and collection sel~rices on behalf of the other p~y ~o ensure each parry receives payment for bulk service provided as a result of the provisiom of~i.s pm-agraph. d. In the event the District ~nd UQlity ~ree that the PSC jun.~lictio~ issue will not be affected by service traversing the County Boundary Lira, then the provisions here'm triggering a transfer ofUfi]ity fi~ilities and provision of bulk service shall not apply. 7. This Agreement shall be recorded by the Distri~ in the public records of Collier County in a manner such that it will appear in the chain of title ~ the lots served by U~lity in UQlity's Collier Service Area, and by the Utility in the public r~coxQs of Lee Coun~ in a manner sfieh that it will appear in the chain of title to the lots served by the Distric~ in District's Lee $~'vice Area. 8. Other than as provided in Paragraph 6 her~ir~ unless and until waived or other~s~ voluntarily term/na~ed by the parties, this Agreement shall have perpetual existence and shall be forever binding on the Parties, their respective succ=ssors and assigns. This Agreement shall run with all lands that are affected by this Agreement. 9. Any Notice to be given to or served ~tmn any party hereto, in connecQon h~,~with, mus! be in writing, md may be given by certified mail or guaranteed overnight delivery service, rerum rece/pt requested, and shall be deeme~ to have been given 'and received when a letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage p~a/cL, is deposited in the United JAN 2 3 States ,Mail or when dclive. z~ into the camody of the overnillht drAivery service; if given otherwi~c by c~ficd mail or guazantr. ed overnight delivery service, it shall bc d~l to havc been ~iv~rt wh~-n delivered to and r~cived by the T)arty to whom it is addr~sed. Notices allall be giv~m t~ the partics hereto at the following addresses: BONITA SPRINGS UTILZTIES, I~C G~n~ral Manager 11860 East T~m'y St~¢t Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 LONG ]~AY PARTNERS LLC I~vidH. Graham, Vice-Prcsidmt 3451 Bomta Bay Blvd., Ste. 202 Bonita Springs, Florida 3413~b.~395 COLLIER COLrNTY D~vid C. W¢/~¢1~ Cottory Amarney 3301 E. Tamiarni Trail Naples, Florida ~4112 Either party hereto may, at any time, by giving five (5) clays' written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other addr~s in substitution of the foregoing address to which notice shall be given and other parties to whom copies of all notices hereunder shall bc sent. I 0. This Agreement ~-tabodics and constitutes the entire maderbtanding between the parties with respect to the matters d~scn'b~[ her~im All prior or contemporaneous agl-c~rnents, understandings, rclarCse. ntations and stateraent~, oral or written, ara merged into this Agree:'nent Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be waived, modified, mended, disch~ged, or t~ninated excelat by an instrument in writing signed by the party against which enforcement of such waiver, modification, amendment, discharge or teeruination is sought, and tl~a only to the extent sct forth in such inamzments. 11. of Florida. This Agreement shall be goveme~l by, and con~t]'ued in accordance with, the laws 6 I2. In case any one or more of the provisions hm-eof shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or un~r, fo~eable in any r~p~, such in invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hm'eo f, and th/s Agreement slmli be construed as if such inv~d, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 13. The parties acknowledge that each has played an equal part in the negotiation and drafting of'th/s Agreement, and in the event of ambiguities should be realized in the construction or int~pretation of this Agreement, such ambiguities shall not be construed against either pa.,Tt, y solely on ~c. ount of authorship. 14. The waiver of one or mot= defaults by any party to this Agreement shall not be de=reed a waiver of any subseqaent d~fault of the same or any other provision of this Agreemere unde~ the s~ne or other circumslm~ces. 15. Counletpart~. This Agreement may be executed in separate couaaterpart copies a~d so long as each party executes s~arate counterpart copies or the same copies, this Agreement shall become binding and enforceable as a contract. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI 7 JAN 2 3 20 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LBP, Utility, and the District have entered into this Agreement on the date first written above. WITNESSES: Print name of First Witness e(~)nd Witness Print name of Second Witness LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company BONITA BAY PROPERTIES, INC. a Florida corporation, its Managing Member David H. Graham, Vice-President STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF '"' '? The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_ :7'7 day of /'uTi,~,-//~ b','; 2000, by David H. Graham, Vice-President of Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Managing Member of Long Bay Partners, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the corporation and limited liability company. He is personally well known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC ¢ Name: MIOH/kELE/k-"3OlqE'e (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: WITNESSES: First Wireess p~f Fi~rst ;i'~me is Second Witness Print nam~'~'-Sec~o(ud Witness BONITA SPRINGS UTILITIES, INC, a Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF L ~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by John Mathes, President of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., a Florida ~l~r]For-P/r~fit Corporation, in behalf of the Corporation. He is personally ,'NN~amT2:AR ~y~LIC (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: 9 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~'x I Thomas C. Palfner, Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT. By: James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman lO LU Barraco and Associates, Inc. www.barraco.net Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Consultants Exhibit "A" Description Parcel in Section 11, Township 48 S, Range 25 E Collier County, Florida A tract or parcel of land lying in Section 11, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. Said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: From the northwest corner of Section 11, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, run N 88°57'52"E along the north line of the northwest 1/4 of said Section 11 for 737.25 feet to the Point of Beginning: From said Point of Beginning continue along the north line of said northwest 1/4 N88°57'27"E for 386.79 feet to a point on a non tangent curve; thence run southerly along the are of curve to the left of radius 450.00 feet (delta 34008'54") (chord bearing S09°15'48"E) (chord 264.25 feet) for 268.20 feet; thence run N88°28'46"W for 277.42 feet to a point of curvature; thence run northwesterly along the arc of said curve to the right of radius 120.00 feet (delta 74°30'21") (chord bearing N51°13'36"W) (chord 145.28 feet) for 156.04 feet; thence run N13°58'25"W for 160.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2.07 acres, more or less. Bearings hereinabove mentioned are State Plane for the Florida West Zone (1983/90 adjustment) and are based on the north line of the northwest quarter (SE-1/4) of said section 11 to bear N 88057'27" E. ~-'"--~7' ";~ '?- /-5 Scott A. Wheeler (For The Firm) Professional Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5949 Post Office Drawer 2800 · Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone (941) 461-3170 · Fax (941) 461-3169 Barraco and Associates, Inc. www.ba rraco. net Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Consultants Exhibit "A" Description Parcel in Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E Collier County, Florida A tract or parcel of land lying in Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. Said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: From the northwest coruer of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, run N 88°58'32"E along the north line of the northwest 1/4 of said section 12 for 779.19 feet to the Point of Beginning: From said Point of Beginning continue along the north line of said northwest 1/4 N 88°58'32"E for 220.43 feet to a point on a non tangent curve; thence run southerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 625.00 feet (delta 6o03'20") (chord bearing S22°12'21"W) (chord 66.03 feet) for 66.06 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southerly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 300.00 feet (delta 14o43'30") (chord bearing S17°52'16"W) (chord 76.89 feet) for 77.10 feet to a point of reverse curvature; the run southerly along the are of said curve to the right of radius 255.00 feet (delta 43°34'33") (chord bearing S 32o17'48" W) (chord 189.30 feet) for 193.94 feet; thence run S 54° 05' 05" W for 55.00 feet; thence run N 35°54'55" W for 255.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 55.00 feet (delta 149°34'44") (chord bearing N 69°17'43" E) (chord 106.15 feet) for 143.59 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northerly along the are of said curve to the right of radius 100.00 feet (delta 36014'58") (chord bearing N 12037'50" E) (chord 62.22 feet) for 63.27 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 425.00 feet (delta 1°15'32") (chord bearing N 30007'33" E) (chord 9.34 feet) for 9.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.37 acres, more or less. Bearings hereinabove mentioned are State Plane for the Florida West Zone (1983/90 adjustment) and are based on the north line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said section 12 to bear N 88058'32" E. Scott A. Wheeler (For The Firm) Professienal Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5949 Post Office Drawer 2800 · Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone (941) 461o3170 · Fax (941) 461-3169 NO. ~,~ r' k JAN 2 3 2001 JAN 2 3 Barraco and Associates, Inc. www.barraco.net Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Consultants Exhibit "B" Description Parcel in Section 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E Lee County, Florida A tract or parcel of land lying in Section 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Lee County, Florida. Said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: From the southeast corner of Section 2, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida, run S 88°57'52"W along the south line of the southeast 1/4 of said Section 2 for 889.87 feet to the Point of Beginning: From said point of beginning continue a]ong said south line S 88°57'52"W for 200.27 feet; thence run N 01°51'50"E for 6.38 feet to a point of curvature; thence run northerly along the arc of said curve to the right of radius 725.00 feet (delta 22032'58") (chord bearing N 13°08'19"E) (chord 283.50 feet), for 285.33 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northerly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 200.00 feet (delta 26°14'17") (chord bearing N 11°17'40"E) (chord 90.79 feet) for 91.59 feet; thence run N 82°42'34"E along a non-tangent line for 200.59 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve; thence run southerly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 212.00 feet (delta 04°37'25") (chord bearing S 09°25'51"E) (chord 17.10 feet) for 17.11 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 188.00 feet (delta 09004'07") (chord bearing S 07°12'30"E) (chord 29.73 feet) for 29.76 feet to a point of tangency; thence run S 02°40'27"E for 17.82 feet to a point of curvature; thence run southerly along the arc of said curve to the right of radius 175.00 feet (delta 31°54'13") (chord bearing S 13°16'40"W) (chord 96.19 feet), for 97.44 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 525.00 feet (delta 26°57'22") (chord bearing S 15°45'O6"W) (chord 244.73 feet) for 247.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.84 acres, more or less. Bearings hereinabove mentioned are State Plane for the Florida West Zone (1983/90 adjustment) and are based on the south line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said section 2 to bear S 88 57 52 W. Professional Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5949 21501 Exhibit1 Post Office Drawer 2800 · Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone (941) 461-3170 · Fax (941) 461-3169 iG£~b~ ITEM JAN 2 3 200I .o. 17 Barraco and Associates, Inc. www.barraco.net Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Consultants Exhibit "B" Description Parcel In Sections 1 and 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E Lee County, Florida A tract or parcel of land lying in Sections 1 and 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Lee County, Florida. Said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Section 2, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida run S 88°57'52"W along the south line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said Section 2 for 16.10 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve; thence run westerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 255.00 feet (delta 28°12'41") (chord bearing N 72°58'11"W) (chord 124.29 feet) for 125.56 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run westerly along the are of curve to the left of radius 200.00 feet (delta 41°30'18") (chord bearing N 79°37'00"W) (chord 141.73 feet) for 144.88 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run westerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 770.00 feet (delta 13058'35") (chord bearing S 86°37'09"W) (chord 187.36 feet) for 187.83 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run westerly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 500.00 feet (delta 18°46'33") (chord bearing S 84°13'11"W) (chord 163.12 feet) for 163.85 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run westerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 550.00 feet (delta 22023'46") (chord bearing S 86°01'46"W) (chord 213.62 feet) for 214.99 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve; thence run northerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 475.00 feet (delta 22°25'23") (chord bearing N 18°01'05"E) (chord 184.71 feet) for 185.89 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 225.00 feet (delta 03°52'21") (chord bearing N 27°17'36"E) (chord 15.20 feet) for 15.21 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the are of curve to the right of radius 50.00 feet (delta 58°35'10") (chord bearing N 54°39'01"E) (chord 48.93 feet) for 51.13 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run easterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 330.00 feet (delta 09006'43") (chord bearing N 79°23'15"E) (chord 52.43 feet) for 52.48 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run easterly along the are of curve to the right of radius 720.00 feet (delta 18046'33") (chord bearing N 84°13'10"E) (chord 234.89 feet) for 235.94 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run easterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 550.00 feet (delta 15°31'25") (chord bearing N 85°50'44"E) (chord 148.56 feet) for 149.01 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run easterly along the are of curve to the right of radius 375.00 feet (delta 30001'48") (chord bearing S 86°54'04"E) (chord 194.30 feet) for 196.55 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence run southeasterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 100.00 feet (delta 41°14'51") (chord bearing S 51°15'45"E) (chord 70.45 feet) for 71.99 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run easterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 55.00 feet (delta 158°01'44") (chord bearing N 70°20'49"E) (chord 107.98 feet) for 151.70 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve; thence mn southeasterly Post Office Drawer 2800 · Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone (941) 461-3170 · Fax (941) 461-3169 JAN 2 3 2001 along the arc of curve to the tight of radius 865.00 feet (delta 12039'20") (chord beating S 58°10'28"E) (chord 190.67 feet) for 191.06 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence run southerly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 25.00 feet (delta 80°57'51") (chord bearing S 11°21'53"E) (chord 32.46 feet) for 35.33 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence run southwesterly along the are of curve to the tight of radius 255.00 feet (delta 55053'56") (chord beating S 57°04'01"W) (chord 239.03 feet) for 248.78 feet to an intersection with the south line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 1; thence run S 88°58'32"W along said south line for 19.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 5.04 acres, more or less. Beatings hereinabove mentioned are State Plane for the Florida West Zone (1983/90 adjustment) and are based on the south line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said section 2 to bears o , ,, . ~/~,~.~ 88 5752 W. ~.'~-w-r.~ ~" Scott A. Wheeler (For The Firm) Professional Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5949 21501 Exhibit2 Barraco and Associates, Inc. www.barraco.net Cid41 Engineers, Land Surveyors and Consultants Exhibit "B" Description Parcel In Section 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E Lee County, Florida A tract or parcel of land lying in Section 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Lee County, Florida. Said tract or parcel bein§ more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south 1/4 corner of Section 2, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Lee CounW, Florida, run N.88°57'52"E. along the south line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said Section 2 for 373.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being a point on a curve: From said POINT OF BEGINNING run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 1,225.00 feet (delta 20030'58") (chord bearing N 32°04'57"E) (chord 436.30 feet) for 438.64 feet to a point of tangency; thence run N 42°20'26"E for 176.36 feet to a point of a curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 500.00 feet (delta 11°30'01") (chord bearing N 36°35'25"E) (chord 100.19 feet), for 100.36 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 412.00 feet (delta 00°54'51") (chord bearing N 31°17'50"E) (chord 6.57 feet) for 6.57 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 370.00 feet (delta 00°40'07") (chord bearing N 31°25'12"E) (chord 4.32 feet) for 4.32 feet; thence run S 67°24'12"E along a non-tangent line for 201.43 feet to the point on a non-tangent curve; thence run southwesterly alon§ the arc of curve to the right of radius 570.00 feet (ddta 03°39'32") (chord bearing S 29°55'30"W) (chord 36.39 feet) for 36.40 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 212.0o feet (delta 06021'20") (chord bearing S 28°34'36"W) (chord 23.50 feet) for 23.52 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 188.00 feet (delta 12°55'33") (chord bearing S 31°51'42"W) (chord 42.32 feet) for 42.41 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 575.00 feet (delta 04°00'57") (chord bearing S 40°19'57"W) (chord 40.29 feet) for 40.30 feet to a point of tangency; thence run S 42°20'2C'W for 214.53 feet to a point of a curvature; thence run southwesterly alon§ the arc of said curve to the left of radius 1,025.00 feet (delta 15042'44") (chord bearing S 34°29'03"W) (chord 280.21 feet), for 281.09 feet to an intersection with the south line of the southeast quarter (SE -1/4) of said Section 2; thence run S 88°57'52"W a]on§ said south line for 220.95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 3.14 acres, more or less. Bearings hereinabove mentioned are State Plane for the Florida West Zone (1983/90 adjustment) and are based on the south line of the southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of said Section 2 to bear N 88°57'52"E. .~-~ Post Office Drawer 2800 · Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone (941) 461-3170 · Fax (941) 461-3169 Scott A. Wheder (For The Firm) Professional Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5949 JAN 2 3 2001 Barraco and Associates, Inc. www. barraco.net Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Consultants Exhibit "B" Description Parcel In Section 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E Lee County, Florida A tract or parcel of land lying in Section 2, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Lee County, Florida. Said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the the south 1/4 corner of Section 2, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida, run N 88°57'52"E along the south line of the southeast quarter (SE- 1/4) of said Section 2 for 651.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being a point on a curve: From said POINT OF BEGINNING run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 975.00 feet (delta 14°09'39") (chord bearing N 35°15'36"E) (chord 240.36 feet) for 240.97 feet to a point of tangency; thence run N 42°20'26"E for 214.53 feet to a point of a curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 625.00 feet (delta 05o52'49") (chord bearing N 39°24'O1"E) (chord 64.12 feet), for 64.14 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 188.00 feet (delta 06o28'47") (chord bearing N 39°42'00"E) (chord 21.25 feet) for 21.26 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run northeasterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 212.O0 feet (delta 12°40'46") (chord bearing N 36°36'01"E) (chord 46.82 feet) for 46.92 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence run northeasterly along the are of curve to the left of radius 630.00 feet (delta 02041'24") (chord bearing N 28°54'55"E) (chord 29.58 feet) for 29.58 feet; thence run S 67°24'12"E along a non-tangent line for 124.71 feet to a point of a curvature; thence run easterly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 835.00 feet (delta 05013'42") (chord hearing S 70°01'03"E) (chord 76.17 feet), for 76.19 feet to the point of a non-tangent curve; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 830.00 feet (delta 04°(~7'51") (chord bearing S 28°11'42"W) (chord 59.83 feet) for 59.84 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 412.00 feet (delta 10042'27") (chord bearing S 35°36'51"W) (chord 76.88 feet) for 76.99 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the left of radius 500.00 feet (delta 03021'37") (chord bearing S 39°17'16"W) (chord 29.32 feet) for 29.32 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of curve to the right of radius 825.00 feet (delta 04043'58") (chord bearing S 39°58'27"W) (chord 68.13 feet) for 68.15 feet to a point of tangency; thence run S 42°20'26"W for 214.53 feet to a point of a curvature; thence run southwesterly along the arc of said curve to the left of radius 775.00 feet (delta 05029'35") (chord bearing S 39°35'38"W) (chord 74.27 feet), for 74.30 feet to an intersection with the south line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said Section 2; thence run S o , ,, 88 57 52 W along said south line for 239.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2.62 acres, more or less. Bearings hereinabove mentioned are State Plane for the Florida West Zone (1983/90 adjustment) and are based on the south line of the southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of said Section 2 to bear N 88057'52" E. Scott A. Wheder (Fcr The Firm) Professional Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5949 Post Office Drawer 2800 · Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone (941) 461-3170 · Fax (941) 461-3169 JAN 2 3 2001 .G. o2/ PRELIMINARY ORDER NO. 00-01 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE AUTHORITY'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, FINDING THE THREE PARTY AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE MEDITERRA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, RECOMMENDING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE GOVERNING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, BONITA SPRINGS UTILITIES, INC., AND LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC., ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE MEDITERRA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. %V!tEREAS, Colher County Resolution No. 96-104 rendered Collier County as a Florida Public Service Commission ("FPSC") non-jurisdictional County vis-a-vis Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, whereby Collier County assumed statutory subject matter jurisdiction over non-exempt water and wastewater utilities providing service in unincorporated areas of Collier County and the City of Marco Island, Florida; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 96-6, as amended, established the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority (AUTHORITY) with its powers and duties; and WHEREAS, ColLier County Water-Sewer District (DISTRICT), being a governmental entity, is exempt from the regulatory jurisdiction by the AUTHORITY in Collier County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 367.022(7), Florida Statutes, Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. (UTILITY), a not-for-profit cooperative, is exempt from regulatory jurisdiction by the FPSC; and WHEREAS, Long Bay Partners, LLC CDEVELOPER) is developing a project called "Mediterra", comprised of golf courses, single family homes, multifamily homes, and associated facilities located partly in Lee County and partly in Collier County; and WHEREAS, the project's water and wastewater systems infrastructure have been designed to achieve economies of scale and maximum efficiencies for each service; and WltEREAS, all parties agree that the public health, safety and welfare is best and most efficiently served by having the DISTRICT provide service to a small number ,. ] JAN 2 3 2001 [ of lots located in Lee County and having the UTILITY provide service to a small number of lots located in Collier County in the DISTRICT'S service area; and WHEREAS, Collier and Lee County boundaries will be traversed by the development's water and sewer lines, a three party Agreement is necessary to protect the integrity of each utility system, while at the same time trying to insure that the development is provided with adequate utility service; and WHEREAS, having considered all matters regarding the interests of all parties, provisions of the agreement, and that execution of the agreement by all parties, it is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to approve the subject utility service limited to the specific areas in Collier County. THIS PRELIMINARY ORDER is, therefore, issued by the AUTHORITY, in public meeting assembled, that: Based on the considerations of the AUTHORITY, the AUTHORITY hereby recommends that the Collier County Board of Commissioners, being the Governing Board of the Collier County and as Ex-officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District become a party to the subject Agreement. The three-party agreement is subject to approval by the Lee County Board of Commissioners. This Preliminary Order adopted this 2..'~'~4day of November, 2000, alter motion, second and majority vote favoring same. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING OF BIG CYPRESS BASIN, COLLIER COUNTY OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached contract with the South Florida Water Management District (Contract No. C- 12250). CONSIDERATION: The scope of the contract complies with and is consistent with the Pollution Control & Prevention Department's efforts relative to surface water quality monitoring and contributes to the implementation of objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. With this agreement, Pollution Control & Prevention and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) agree to continue cooperating in the surface water quality monitoring network and sharing of water quality monitoring data as a part of the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Consortium (Exhibit I). Contract requirements are located in the attached Contract C-12250. Count), staff shall provide quarterly /,,r. eports and a comprehensive data summary at the completion of the said project. _xpenditures will include the following: Other machinery and equipment $25,000, for the purchase of a spectrophotometer, pH meter, microbiology oven and a dissolved oxygen probe. Also included is an increase of $15,000 in regular salary for a part-time employee, $5,000 for repair of laboratory and field equipment, and $15,000 for laboratory analysis that cannot be performed in-house. FISCAL IMPACT: SFWMD will fund the County up to $60,000 annually for three years for the service~ conducted effective October 1, 2000. Funds were not budgeted in FY 01, so additional revenue of $60,000 will be recognized through a budget amendment in the Pollution Control & Prevention Department's Water Pollution Control fund (i 14). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The approval of this contract will significantly contribute to the implementation of many of the goals of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: (1) Approve the attached Contract C-12250 with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) which will provide the County with funds; not to exceed $60,000 per ,~'~r, for three years, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract effective October 1, 2000. t Authorize staff to process budget amendments. (3) Authorize staff to recruit part-time staff, if necessary, for the implementation of 2nnlr~cr C~ 12250, A(~NDA GEM No.~_l (~ C~2. , · JAN 2 3 2001 year, for three years, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract effective October 1, 2000. (2) Authorize staff to process budget amendmeres. (3) Contract C- 12250. Cor~lisse, Clerical Supervisor Pollution Control & Prevention Department REVIEWED BY: R~~g~' Date: Director Poll~aim~ontrol & Prevention Department es . u d, .., dministrator Public Utilities Division Authorize staff to recruit part-time staff, if necessary, for the implementation of SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMEN C AGREEMENT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ~ r~'erred to m DISTRICT) FI~J~,By F,,NTE~ INTO T!~,q AGRE!~IENT WITH: Name: COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CON'I~OL & PREVENTION Address: 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Building H, 3rd Floor -. Naples, FL 34112 Proje~ Mamiger: George Yilmaz Telephone No: (941) 732-2502 Fax No: (941) 732- 2574 Hereinafter referred to a~: AGENCY This number mu~ appear on all luvz/cm and Carrmpomieme C-12250 M/WBE Goal: 0% PROJECT TITLE: COLI]~TION AND ANALYSES OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLF~ FROM THE CYPRESS BASIN WATERSI~ AND ADJACENT COASTAL.WATERS IN CO~ COUNTY The following i~.~hihits are attached hereto and nmde a part of this AGREi~iENT: ?Exhibit "A" - Not Applicable {'Exhibit "B" - General Tea-ms and Conditions Exhibit ~C* ~ $tste~nent of Work Exhibit "D~ - Payment and Deliverable Schedule Exhibit *E" - Not Applicable Exhibit ~F' - Not Applicable Exhibit "G~ - Not Applicable TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT: $180,000.00 Multi-Year Flmding (If Applicable) ~ Year: Oc~ol~ 1, 2000-Scpu:mber 30, 2001 $60,000.00 Flsral Y~ar: Octo{~ 1, 2001-Septemb~ 30, 2002$60,000.00* ~ Ye~': October 1, 2002-September 30, 2003 $60,000.00* · S~lbje~t to Distl'ic:t GOVernin~ Board Arereal Budk~ Approval Exhibit "H" - Exhibit "I" Exhibit Exhibit "K' - Exhibit "L" Exhibit "M" - Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable AGRgI~iENT TYPE: Fiscal Year:. Fisol Year: Not-to-Exceed AGItEEMENT TERM: 1 year Plus 2 Option Years District Project Manager: Cecilia Weaver Telephone No: (305) 377-7274 Fax No. (305) 377-7293 SUBMIT INVOICES AND NOTICES TO THE DISTRICT AT: South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Attention: Procurement Division EFFECTIVE DATE: Last Date of Execution by the Parties Distri~ Contra~ Admint~rntor: Gabriel Oc~mio-Davila (561) 682-2181 Fax No,: (561) 682-6397 or (561), 681-6275 SUBMIT NOTIC'F~ TO THE AGENCY AT: COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CONq~OL & PREVENTION 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Building H, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 Attention: George Y'dmaz IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the amhorized representative he~by executes this AGRI~A~.M~NT on this date, and accepts all Terms and Conditions under which it is issued. COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL & PREVENTION AccqXed By: James D..Carter, Ph.D,, Chairman Board of. County Commissioners ~ltle: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAG~ DISTRICT BY ITS GOVERNING BOARD A~ By: t~ Dam: Attest as to Chairman s sign re only. Attest 1 By' SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXltlBIT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE 1 - STATEMENT OF WORK 1.1 The AGENCY shall, to the satisfaction of the DISTRICT, fully and timely perform all-work items described in the "Statement of Work," attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and made a part of this AGREEMENT. 1.2 As part of the services to be provided by the AGENCY under this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall substantiate, in whatever forum reasonably requested by the DISTRICT, the methodology, lab analytical examinations, scientific theories, data, reference materials, and research notes. The AGENCY shall also be required to substantiate any and all work completed, including but not limited to, work completed by subcontractors, assistants, models, concepts, analytical theories, computer programs and conclusions utilized as the basis for the final work product required by the AGREEMENT. This paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT. 1.3 The parties agree that time is of the essence in the performance of each and every obligation under this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION/ CONSIDERATION 2. ! The total consideration for all work required by the DISTRICT pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the amount as indicated on Page 1 of this AGREEMENT. Such amount includes all expenses which the AGENCY may incur and therefore no additional consideration shall be authorized. 2.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount expended under this AGREEMENT shall be paid in accordance with, and subject to the multi-year funding allocations for each DISTRICT fiscal year indicated on Page 1 of this AGREEMENT. Funding for each applicable fiscal year of this AGREEMENT is subject to DISTRICT Governing Board budgetary appropriation. In the event the DISTRICT does not approve funding for any subsequent fiscal year, this AGREEMENT shall terminate upon expenditure of the current funding, notwifl'::,tanding other provisions in Page 1 of 9, Exhibit "B" this AGREEMENT to the contrary. The DISTRICT will noffy the AGENCY in writing after the adoption of the final DISTRICT budget for each subsequent fiscal year if funding is not approved for this AGREEMENT. 2.3 The AGENCY assumes sole responsibihty for all work which is performed pursuant to the Statement of Work, Exhibit "C". By providing funding hereunder, the DISTRICT does not make any warranty, guaranty, or any representation whatsoever regarding the correctness, accuracy, or reliability of any of the work performed hereunder. 2.4 The AGENCY by executing this AGREEMENT, certifies to truth-in-negotiation, specifically, that wage rates and other factual unit costs supporting the consideration are accurate, complete, and current at the time of contracting. The AGENCY agrees that the DISTRICT may adjust the consideration for this AGREEMENT to exclude any significant sums by which the consideration was increased due to inaccurate, incomplete, or non-current wage rates and other factual unit costs. The DISTRICT shall make any such adjustment within one (1) year following the expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 3 - INVOICING AND PAYMENT 3.1 The AGENCY's invoices shall reference the DISTRICT's Contract Number and shall be sent to the DISTRICT's address specified on Page 1 of this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY shall not submit invoices to any other address at the DISTRICT. 3.2 The AGENCY shall submit the invoices on a completion of deliverable basis, pursuant to the schedule outlined in the Payment and Deliverable Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and made a part of this AGREEMENT. In the event the schedule does not specify payment on a completion of deliverable basis, all invoices shall be substantiated by adequate supporting documentation to justify hours expended and expenses incurred within the not- to-exceed budget, including but not limited to, copies of approved timesheets, payment vouchers, expense reports, receipts and subcontractor invoices. / I Contract File:antagyml~toc JA 10 3 2001 O SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 3.3 The DISTRICT shall pay the full amount of the invoice within thirty (30) days following DISTRICT acceptance of services and/or deliverable(s) required by this AGREEMENT. However, failure by the AGENCY to follow the foregoing instxuctions and submit acceptable services and or deliverables(s) may result in an unavoidable delay of payment by the DISTRICT. 3.4 Unless otherwise stated herein, the DISTRICT shall not pay for any obligation or expenditure made by the AGENCY prior to the commencement date of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 4 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ NOTICE 4.1 The parties shall direct all technical matters arising in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT, other than invoices and notices, to the attention of the respective Project Managers specified on Page 1 of the AGREEMENT for attempted resolution or action. The Project Managers shall be responsible for overall coordination and oversight relating to the performance of this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY shall direct all administrative matters, including invoices and notices, to the attention of the DISTRICT's Contract Administrator specified on Page 1 of the AGREEMENT. All formal notices between the parties under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and shall be deemed received if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respective addresses specified on Page 1 of the AGREEMENT. The AGENCY shall also provide a copy of all notices to the DISTRICT's Project Manager. All notices required by this AGREEMENT shall be considered delivered upon receipt. Should either party change its address, written notice of such new address shall promptly be sent to the other party. All correspondence to the DISTRICT under this AGREEMENT shall reference the DISTRICT's Contract Number specified on Page 1 of the AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 5 - INSURANCE 5.1 The AGENCY assumes any and all risks of personal injury, bodily injury and property damage attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of the AGENCY and the officers, employees, servants, and agents thereof. The AGENCY warrants and represents that it is self-funded for Worker's compensation and liability insurance, covering at a minimum bodily injury, personal injury and property damage with protection being applicable to the AGENCY's officers, employees, servants and agents while acting within the scope of their employment during performance under this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY and the DISTRICT further agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted as (1) denying to either party any remedy or defense available to such party under the laws of the State of Florida; (2) the consent of the State of Florida or its agents and agencies to be sued; or (3) a waiver of sovereign immumty of the State of Florida beyond the waiver provided in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. 5.2 In the event the AGENCY subcontracts any part or all of the Work hereunder to any third party, the AGENCY shall require each and every subcontractor to identify the DISTRICT as an additional insured on all insurance policies as required by the AGENCY. Any contract awarded by the AGENCY for work under this AGREEMENT shall include a provision whereby the AGENCY's subcontractor agrees to defend, indemnify, and pay on behalf, save and hold the DISTRICT harmless from all damages arising in connection with the AGENCY's subcontract. ARTICLE 6 - TERMINATION/REMEDIES 6.1 If either party fails to fulfill its obligations under this AGREEMENT in a timely and proper manner, the other party shall have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT by giving written notice of any deficiency. The party in default shall then have ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice to correct the deficiency. If the defaulting party fails to correct the deficiency within this time, the non-defa-~i,,g ?~n~,c~c;d XTtn Page 2 of 9, Exhibit "B" ContractFileAIntagyml.doc[ 11~ 2 ~ 2001 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS shall have the option to terminate this AGREEMENT at the expiration of the ten (10) day time period. Shotfid the DISTRICT elect to terminate for default in accordance with this provision, the DISTRICT shall be entitled to recover reprocurement costs, in addition to all other remedies under law and/or equity. 6.2 The DISTRICT may terminate this AGREEMENT with or without cause at any time for convenience upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the AGENCY. The performance of work under this AGRF~MENT may be terminated by the DISTRICT in accordance with this clause in whole, or from time to time in part, whenever the DISTRICT shall determine that such termination is in the best interest of the DISTRICT. Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to the AGENCY of a Notice of Termination specifying the extent to which performance of work under the AGRF~MENT is terminated, and the date upon which such termination becomes effective. In the event of termination for convenience, the DISTRICT shall compensate the AGENCY for all authorized and accepted deliverables completed through the date of termination in accordance with Exhibit "C", Statement of Work. The DISTRICT shall be relieved of any and all future obligations hereunder, including but not limited to lost profits and consequential damages, under this AGREEMENT. The DISTRICT may withhold all payments to the AGENCY for such work until such time as the DISTRICT determines the exact amount due to the AGENCY. 6.5 The DISTRICT may order that all or part of the work stop if circumstances dictate that this action is in the DISTRICT's best interest. Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to, unexpected technical developments, direction given by the DISTRICT's Governing Board, a condition of immediate danger to DISTRICT employees, or the possibility of damage to equipment or property. This provision shall not shift responsibility for loss or damage, including but not limited to, lost profits or consequential damages sustained as a result of such delay, from the AGENCY to the DISTRICT. If this provision is invoked, the DISTRICT shall notify the AGENCY in writing to stop work as of a certain date and specify the reasons for the action, which shall not be arbitrary or capricious. The AGENCY shall then be obligated to suspend all work efforts as of the effective date of the notice and until further written direction from the DISTRICT is received. Upon resumption of work, if deemed appropriate by the DISTRICT, the DISTRICT shall imtiate an amendment to this AGREEMENT to reflect any changes to Exhibit "C", Statement of Work and/or the project schedule. 6.6 The DISTRICT anticipates a total project cost as indicated on Page 1, with the balance of matching funds and/or in-kind services to be obtained from the AGENCY in the amount as specified on Page 1 of this AGREEMENT. In the event such AGENCY matching funding and/or in-kind services becomes unavailable, that shall be good and sufficiem cause for the DISTRICT to terminate the AGREEMENT pursuant to Paragraph 6.2 above. 6.3 If either party initiates legal action, including appeals, to enforce this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee, based upon the fair market value of the services provided. 6.4 In the event a dispute arises which the project managers cannot resolve between themselves, the parties shall have the option to submit to non-binding mediation. The mediator or mediators shall be impartial, shall be selected by the parties, and the cost of the mediation shall be home equally by the parties. The mediation process shall be confidential to the extent permitted by law. ARTICLE 7 - RECORDS RETENTION/ OWNERSraP 7.1 The AGENCY shall maintain records and the DISTRICT shall have inspection and audit rights as follows: A. Maintenance of Records: The AGENCY shall maintain all financial and non-financial records and reports directly or indirectly related to the negotiation or performance of this AGREEMENT including supporting documentation for any service rates, expenses, research or reports. Such records shall Page 3 of 9, Exhibit "B" Con. actFile:a.tagy. .doc 2 3 2001 PG,_ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXI-IIBIT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS be maintained and made available for inspection for a period of five years from completing performance and receiving fmal payment under this AGREEMENT. B. Examination of Records: The DISTRICT or its designated agent shall have the right to examine in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards all records directly or indirectly related to this AGREEMENT. Such examination may be made only within five years from the date of final payment under this AGRF, FMENT and upon- reasonable notice, time and place. C. Extended Availability of Records for Legal Disputes: In the event that the DISTRICT should become involved in a legal dispute with a third party arising from performance under this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall extend the period of maintenance for all records relating to the AGREEMENT until the final disposition of the legal dispute, and all such records shall be made readily available to the DISTRICT. 7.2 The DISTRICT shall retain exclusive rifle, copyright and other proprietary rights in all work items, including but not limited to, all documents, technical reports, research notes, scientific data, computer programs, including the source and object code, which are developed, created or otherwise originated hereunder by the AGENCY, its subcontractor(s), assign(s), agent(s) and/or successor(s) as required by the Exhibit "C", Statement of Work (the "Work"). In consideration for the DISTRICT entering into this AGREEMENT, and other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency and receipt in full of which is hereby acknowledged by the AGENCY, the AGENCY hereby assigns, transfers, sells and otherwise grants to the DISTRICT any and all rights it now has or may have in the Work (the "Grant"). This Grant shall be self-operative upon execution by the parties hereto, however the AGENCY agrees to execute and deliver to the DISTRICT any further assignments or other instruments necessary to evidence the-Grant, without the payment of any additional consideration by the DISTRICT. The AGENCY may not disclose, use, license or sell any work developed, created, or otherwise originated hereunder to any third party whatsoever. This paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration Page 4 of 9, Exhibit "B" of this AGREEMENT. 7.3 The AGENCY represents and warrants that proprietary software, if any, to be provided to the DISTRICT by the AGENCY hereunder, as specifically identified in Exhibit "C", Statement of Work shall have been developed solely by or for the AGENCY, or lawfully acquired under license fi'om a third party, including the right to sublicense such software. The AGENCY shall include copyright or proprietary legends in the software and on the label of the medium used to transmit the software. The AGENCY shall grant to the DISTRICT a perpetual, non-transferable, non-exclusive right to use the identified software without an additional fee. The DISTRICT acknowledges that title to the software identified in Exhibit "C" shall remain with the Licensor. 7.4 Any equipment purchased by the AGENCY with DISTRICT funding under this AGREEMENT shall be returned and title transferred from the AGENCY to the DISTRICT immediately upon termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT upon the written request of the DISTRICT not less than thirty (30) days prior to AGREEMENT expiration or termination. Equipment is hereby defined as any non-consumable items purchased by the DISTRICT with a value equal to or greater than $500.00 and with a normal expected life of one (1) year or more. The AGENCY will maintain any such equipment in good working condition while in its possession and will return the equipment to the DISTRICT in good condition, less normal wear and tear. The AGENCY will use its best efforts to safeguard the equipment throughout the period of performance of this AGREEMENT. However the DISTRICT will not hold the AGENCY liable for loss or damage due to causes beyond the AGENCY's reasonable control. In the event of loss or damage, the AGENCY shall notify the DISTRICT in writing within five (5) working days of such occurrence. 7.5 The DISTRICT has acquired the right to use certain software under license from third parties. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, the DISTRICT may permit the AGENCY access to certain third party owned software on DISTRIC'~ ,.,,,.,,,,,,t,~,. ' AG£NDA IT£~ _ ~m~ .o.[ ContractVile: n.g .d hoSbo 3 ,?,, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS systems. The AGENCY acknowledges the proprietary nature of such software and agrees not to reproduce, distribute or disclose such software to any third party. Use of or access to such software shall be restricted to designated DISTRICT owned systems or equipment. Removal of any copy of licensed software is prohibited. The DISTRICT, in the event of such termination, shall not incur any liability to the AGENCY for any work or materials furnished. 8.5 The AGENCY shall be responsible and liable for the payment of all of its FICA/Social Security and other applicable taxes resulting from this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 8 - STANDARDS OF COMPLIANCE 8.1 The AGENCY, its employees, subcontractors or assigns, shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to the performance of this AGREEMENT. The DISTRICT undertakes no duty to ensure such compliance, but will attempt to advise the AGENCY, upon request, as to any such laws of which it has present knowledge. 8.2 The AGENCY hereby assures that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, creed, national origin, handicap, age, or sex, in any activity under this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY shall take all measures necessary to effectuate these assurances. 8.3 The laws of the State of Florida shall govern all aspects of this AGREEMENT. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal action regarding this AGREEMENT, venue shall be in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for clam under state law and in the Southern District of Florida for any claims which are justiciable in federal court. 8.4 The AGENCY, by its execution of this AGREEMENT, acknowledges and attests that neither it, nor any of its suppliers, subc. on~actors, or AGENCY's who shall perform work which iz intended to benefit the DISTRICT is a convicted vendor or, if the AGENCY or any affiliate of the AGENCY has been convicted of a public entity crime, a period longer than 36 months has passed since that person was placed on the convicted vendor list. The AGENCY further understands and accepts that this AGREEMENT shall be either void by the DISTRICT or subject to immediate termination by the DISTRICT, in the event there is any misrepresentation or lack of compliance with the mandates of Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Page 5 of 9, Exhibit "B" 8.6 The AGENCY warrants that it has not employed or retained any person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the AGENCY, to solicit or secure this AGRI*~,MENT. Further the AGENCY warrants that is has not paid or agreed to pay any person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the AGENCY, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the awarding or making of this AGRF~EMENT. For breach of this provision, the DISTRICT may terminate this AGREEMENT without liability and, at its discretion, deduct or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration. 8.7 The AGENCY shall allow public access to all project documents and materials in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Should the AGENCY assert any exemptions to the requirements of Chapter 119 and related Statutes, the burden of establishing such exemption, by way of injunctive or other relief as provided by law, shall be upon the AGENCY. 8.7.1 Pursuant to Sections 119.07(3)(o), and 240.241 Florida Statutes, data processing software obtained by an agency under a license agreement which prohibits its disclosure and which software is a trade secret, as defined in Sections 812.081(c), Florida Statutes is exempt from the disclosure provisions of the Public Records law. However, the parties hereto agree that if a request is made of the DISTRICT, pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statute, for public disclosure of proprietary property being licensed to the AGENCY (Licensec) hereunder, the DISTRICT shall advise the AGENCY (Licensec) of such request and, as between the DISTRICT and the AGENCY (Licensec), it shall be the AGENCY's (Licensec's) sole burden and responsibility to immediately seek and obtain such injunctive or other ContractFile' ntagym .d f3 2001 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS relief from the Courts and to immediately serve notice of the same upon the Licensor to protect the Licensor's claimed exemption under the Statute. 8.8 The AGENCY shall make reasonable efforts to obtain any necessary federal, state, local, and other governmental approvals, as well as all necessary private authorizations and permits, prior to the commencement of performance of this AGREEMENT. A delay in obtaining permits shall not give rise to a claim by the AGENCY for additional compensation. If the AGENCY is unable to obtain all necessary permits in a timely manner, either party may elect to terminate this AGREEMENT, each party to bear its own costs, notwithstanding other provisions of this AGREEMENT to the contrary. 8.9 Pursuant to Section 216.347, ES., the AGENCY is prohibited from the expenditure of any funds under this AGREEMENT to lobby the Legislature, the judicial branch, or another state agency. 8.10 The DISTRICT is a governmental entity responsible for performing a public service and therefore has a legitimate interest in promoting the goals and objectives of the agency. The work under this AGREEMENT involves a project consistent with these goals and objectives. Consequently, the DISTRICT is desirous of satisfactorily completing and successfully promoting this project with the cooperation of its AGENCY. Therefore, as the DISTRICT'S AGENCY for this project, the AGENCY assures the DISTRICT that the AGENCY, its employees, subcontractors and assigns will refrain from acting adverse to the DISTRICT'S legitimate interest in promoting the goals and objectives of this project. The AGENCY agrees to take all reasonable measures necessary to effectuate these assurances. In the event the AGENCY determines it is unable to meet or promote the goals and objectives of the project, it shall have the duty to immediately notify the DISTRICT. Upon such notification the DISTRICT, in its discretion, may terminate this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 9 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES 9.1 The AGENCY shall be considered an independent contxactor and neither party shall be considered an employee or agent of the other party. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall be interpreted to establish any relationship other than that of independent contractor between the parties and their respective employees, agents, subcontractors, or assigns during or after the performance on this AGREEMENT. Both parties are free to enter into contracts with other parties for similar services. 9.2 It is the intent and understanding of the Parties that this AGREEMENT is solely for the benefit of the AGENCY and the DISTRICT. No person or entity other than the AGENCY or the DISTRICT shall have any rights or privileges under this AGREEMENT in any capacity whatsoever, either as third-party beneficiary or otherwise. 9.3 The AGENCY shall not assign, delegate, or otherwise transfer its rights and obligations as set forth in this AGREEMENT without the prior written consent of the DISTRICT. Any auempted assignment in violation of this provision shall be void. 9.4 The AGENCY shall not pledge the DISTRICTs credit or make the DISTRICT a guarantor of payment or surety for any contract, debt, obligation, judgement, lien, or any form of indebtedness. 9.5 The DISTRICT assumes no duty with regard to the supervision of the AGENCY and the AGENCY shall remain solely responsible for compliance with all safety requirements and for the safety of all persons and property at the site of contract performance. ARTICLE 10 - M/WBE PARTICIPATION 10.1 The AGENCY hereby acknowledges that no Minority and Women Business Enterprises (M/WBE) participation goal has been established for this AGREEMENT; however, both parties agree to provide the other advance notice of competitive contracts that may result from this AGREEMENT -AG,~:NOA Page 6 of 9, Exhibit "B" SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS along with timelines for public notice and award of such contracts. In the event subsequent competitive contract awards do result in M/WBE participation, such participation shall be reported to the.other party. Both the AGENCY and the DISTRICT will ensure compliance with the provisions of their respective program, laws, ordinances and policies and will support the other's initiatives to the extent allowed by law. ARTICLE 11 - YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE In the event that the AGENCY's performance, as required by this AGREEMENT, involves the use and/or delivery of a software, f'u~nware and/or hardware product of any kind, the following language in this Article 11 shall apply: 11.1 AGENCY represents and warrants that the software, firmware and/or hardware is designed to be used prior to, during, and after the calendar year 2000 A.D., and that the software, firmware and/or hardware will operate during each such time period without error relating to date data, specifically including any error relating to, or the product of, date data which represents or references multiple centuries. 11.2 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, AGENCY further represents and w~Lrrants: 1) that the software, fLrmware and/or hardware will not abnormally end or provide invalid or incorrect results of date data, specifically including date data which represents or references multiple centuries; 2) that the software, firmware and/or hardware has been designed to ensure Year 2000 Compliance, including, but not limited to, date data century recognition, calculations which accommodate same century and multiple century formulas and date values, and date data interface values that reflect the century; and 3) that the software, firmware and/or hardware includes Year 2000 Compliance. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, Year 2000 Compliance also means that the software, firmware and/or hardware will: (i) manage and manipulate data involving dates and leap year calculations, including single century formulas and multi-century formulas, and will not cause an abnormally ending scenario within the application or generate incorrect values or invalid results involving such dates; and (ii) provide that all date-related user interface funcfionalities and data fields include the indication of century. 11.3 Included as part of this Year 2000 Compliance Warranty, AGENCY shall provide to the DISTRICT, at no additional charge with, (i) fixes, corrections and updates to the software, firmware and/or hardware that are necessary to ensure Year 2000 Compliance as defined herein, and (ii) advice, consultation and assistance to use the software, f'u'mware and/or hardware and diagnose and correct Year 2000 Compliance problems that may exist with either the software, funnware and/or hardware, (iii) and, if deemed necessary by the DISTRICT, replacement software, fu-mware and/or hardware which is compliant with this Year 2000 Compliance Warranty. 11.4 If this AGREEMENT involves the purchase and/or license and/or receipt of a software, fu'mware and/or hardware product of any kind previously developed by the AGENCY or other third party, and in the event fixes, corrections and updates of the software are not technically feasible, the AGENCY shall accept the return of the software, fLrmware and/or hardware if this Year 2000 Compliance Warranty is breached, and terminate any and all applicable Schedules and/or License Agreements. Further, the AGENCY shall refund to the DISTRICT the full amount of the License Fee actually paid to the AGENCY for the software; and, in the case of hardware return, the AGENCY shall refund to the DISTRICT the full amount of the hardware actually paid to the AGENCY by the DISTRICT. In addition to the foregoing, the AGENCY shall refund to the DISTRICT all maintenance fees paid by the DISTRICT, if any, for on-going support, new software releases and product updates. All such refunds shall be made to the DISTRICT. Notwithstanding any other provision in the AGREEMENT to the contrary, the DISTRICT hereby reserves all rights to obtain all remedies to the fullest extent of the law, without any limitation whatsoever, as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction (including damages and Page 7 of 9, Exhibit "B" Contract File:\Intagyml.d[c ~1~/0~ OSOUTH FLORIDA WATER N. AGEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS equitable relief). 11.5 The term Year 2000 Compliance Warranty shall mean, collectively, the warranties set forth herein. This Article 11, in its entirety, shall survive the expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 12 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 12.1 Notwithstanding any provisions of this AGREEMENT to the contrary, the parties shall not be held liable for any failure or delay in the performance of this AGREEMENT that arises from fires, floods, strikes, embargoes, acts of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, outbreak of war, restraint of Government, riots, civil commotion, force majeure, act of God, or for any other cause of the same character which is unavoidable through the exercise of due care and beyond the control of the parties. Failure to perform shall be excused during the continuance of such circumstances, but this AGREEMENT shall otherwise remain in effect. This provision shall not apply if the "Statement of Work" of this AGREEMENT specifies that performance by AGENCY is specifically required during the occurrence of any of the events herein mentioned. 12.2 In the evem any provisions of this AGREEMENT shall conflict, or appear to conflict, the AGREEMENT, including all exhibits, attachments and all documents specifically incorporated by reference, shall be interpreted as a whole to resolve any inconsistency. 12.3 Failures or waivers to insist on strict performance of any covenant, condition, or provision of this AGREEMENT by the parties, their successors and assigns shall not be deemed a waiver of any of its rights or remedies, nor shall it relieve the other party from performing any subsequent obligations strictly in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. No waiver shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Such waiver shall be limited to provisions of this AGREEMENT specifically referred to therein and shall not be deemed a waiver of any other provision. No waiver shall constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing states otherwise. 12.4 Should any term or provision of this AGREEMENT be held, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, as against any person, entity or circumstance during the term hereof, by force of any statute, law, or ruling of any forum of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other term or provision of this AGREEMENT, to the extent that the AGREEMENT shall remain operable, enforceable and in full force and effect to the extent permitted by law. 12.5 This AGREEMENT may be amended only with the written approval of the parties hereto. 12.6 This AGREEMENT states the entire under~ standing and agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all written or oral representations, statements, negotiations, or agreements previously existing between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY recognizes that any representations, statements or negotiations made by DISTRICT staff do not suffice to legally bind the DISTRICT in a contractual relationship unless they have been reduced to writing and signed by an authorized DISTRICT representative. This AGREEMENT shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties, their respective assigns, and successors in interest. ARTICLE 13 - SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 13.1 The AGENCY shall require appropriate personal protective equipment in all operations where there is exposure to hazardous conditions. 13.2 The AGENCY shall instruct employees required to handle or use toxic materials or other harmful substances regarding their safe handling and use, including instruction on the potential hazards, personal hygiene and required personal protective measures. A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) shall be provided by the AGENCY to the DISTRICT on each chemical product used. 13.3 The standards Occupational (OSHA), the Page 8 of 9, Exhibit "B" AGENCY shall comply with the and regulations set forth by the Safety and Health Administration Florida Department of Labor and Contract FileAIntagyml. oc P6. // SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT E IT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Employmere Security and all other appropriate federal, state, local or DISTRICT safety and health standards. 13.4 It is the AGENCY'S sole duty to provide safe and healthful working conditions to its employees and those of the DISTRICT on and about the site of AGREEMENT performance. 13.5 The AGENCY shall initiate and maintain an accident prevention program which shall include, but shall not be limited to, establishing and supervising programs for the education and training of employees in the recognition, avoidance, and prevention of unsafe conditions and acts. 13.6' The AGENCY shall erect and maintain, as required by existing conditions and performance of the AGREEMENT, reasonable safeguards for safety and protection, including posting of danger signs and other warnings, against hazards. 13.7 The AGENCY shall take reasonable precautions for safety of, and shall provide reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury, or loss to: 13.7.1 employees on the work and other persons who may be affected thereby; including pedestrians, visitors, or traveling public; 13.7.2 the work, materials, and equipment to be incorporated therein; whether in storage on or off the site, under care, custody or control of the AGENCY, or the AGENCY's subcontractors; and 13.10 Emergencies: In emergency affecting safety of persons or property on or about the site or as a result of the work; the AGENCY shall act, timely and with due diligence, to prevent threatened damage, injury, or loss. 13.11 Environmental: When the AGENCY, AGENCY's subcontractors, or subcontractors, use petroleum product& hazardous chemicals, or any other chemicals used on or about the site, the AGENCY shall be responsible for handling these chemical constituents in accordance with federal, state and local regulations during the terms of the AGREEMENT. For accidental discharges or releases onto the floor, air, ground, surface waters, ground waters, it shall be the AGENCY's sole responsibility to respond immediately to clean the site, at his expense, to the complete satisfaction of federal, state, local regulatory agencies and to the DISTRICT requirements. 13.12 The DISTRICT may order the AGENCY to halt operations under the AGREEMENT, at the AGENCY's expense, if a condition of immediate danger to the public and/or DISTRICT employees, equipment, or property exist. This provision shall not shift the responsibility or risk of loss for injuries or damage sustained from the AGENCY to the DISTRICT; and the AGENCY shall remain solely responsible for compliance with all federal, state and local safety requirements, provisions of this section, and safety of all persons and property on or about the site. 13.7.3 other properties at the site or adjacent thereto; such as trees, shrubs, lawns, walks, utilities, pavement, roadways, structures, building, vehicles, and equipment not designated for removal, relocation or replacement in the course of work. 13.8 The AGENCY shall provide first aid services and medical care to its employees. 13.9 The AGENCY shall develop and maintain an effective fire protection and prevention procedures and good housekeeping practices on the work site throughout the AGREEMENT. Page 9 of 9, Exhibit "B" EXHIBIT "C" STATEMENT OF WORK C-12250 Collection and Analyses of Surface Water Quality Samples from the Big Cypress Basin Watershed and Adjacent Coastal Waters in Collier County 1.0 INTRODUCTION The natural flow of freshwater is key to the survival of the Big Cypress watershed and Everglades National Park as well as to preserving the integrity of the entire southwest Florida ecosystem. The southwest coast of Florida has experienced the most rapid growth and development of any area in Florida over the past ten years. The Naples metropolitan area grew in population by 23% between 1990 and 1996 - the fifth largest increase in the United States. This growth has been in the form of both agricultural and urban-suburban development. A major concern of this rapid growth is its effect on water quality. Other important components that may affect water quality in this area are restoration activities in the Caloosahatchee River watershed and modified water deliveries projects proposed in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Ecosystem Restoration Working group for this area (Subregion 5) lists restoration of more natural distribution, timing and quantities of fresh water into coastal areas as one of its seven major restoration objectives. Unfortunately, there is a scarcity of baseline water quality data for southwest Florida water bodies. The biggest hindrance to solving water quality issues in this region has been the lack of available data. There is an immediate need for a tmified sampling program that provides data to address southwest Florida water quality issues. Strategies to address these issues include both systematic and investigative monitoring. Long-term, systematic monitoring is a powerful tool used to identify problem areas and provide a clear understanding of baseline conditions. This project will employ both strategies to gather information. Additionally, this project will complement and be coordinated with the existing estuarine water quality monitoring program conducted in Collier County coastal waters by Florida International University (FIU) under District contract {C-10244). This project will utilize analytical methods and field sampling protocol comparable with those used by FIU. This unified sampling effort is imperative to comprehensively examine water quality trends. Continuity and comparability of data are integral to identify the current status of the southwest Florida ecosystem and to detect its responses to changes in upstream water management practices. Page 1 of 1 i, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11725 JAN 2 3 2001 In 1998, the District and the Collier County Pollution Control Department entered into District Contract No. C-9704 for monitoring surface water quality in the drainage basins and receiving waters of the Big Cypress Basin. A subsequent cooperative agreement (District Contract No. C-11752) expanded the monitoring to include 15 additional sites in 1999. This three-year cooperative agreement refines the existing monitoring network and continues the project through September 30, 2002, at an annual cost of $60,000. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The County will continue to collect and analyze surface water samples from six canal outfall sites in the Big Cypress Basin estuarine system, 15 complementary inland locations, and 22 sites within the Big Cypress Basin. County field staff will be certified by a District~approved entity to collect water quality samples. The County will maintain Florida Department of Health (FDOH) certification of its laboratory for the duration of this contract. The analytical parameters and sampling frequencies have been modified to provide a more comprehensive and cost-effective assessment of water quality (Tables 1 and 2). Page 2 of '1 '1, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11725 JAN 2 3 2001 3.0 WORK BR~ART~OWN STRUCTURE Task 1. Approved Comprehensive Q~,allty Assurance Plan (CQAP) An FDOH-approved CQAP will be submitted to the District upon execution of this agreement. The County will maintain an FDOH-approved CQAP for the duration of this contract and will submit Plan revisions to the District upon approval by FDOH. The District may request to review analytical methods, field sampling protocols and quality assurance/quality control procedures. District staff may conduct laboratory and field quality control audits as desired. The County laboratory will participate in Round Robin and certification laboratory exercises at the District's request. Task 2. Monthly Surface Water Quality Field Measurements Surface and bottom measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, specific conductance, and temperature will be measured monthly at each site. Secchi depth, sample depth and total depth will also be recorded for each site monthly. Task 3. Monthly Surface Water Sample Collection and Analyses The County will collect samples from the 43 sites listed in Table 1 during monthly surveys. Exact coordinates of each monitoring site will be provided to the District in the first quarterly report. Surface water saraples will be analyzed for physical variables, nutrient content, major ions, trace metals, and biological parameters at the sites and frequencies noted in Table 1. Physical variables analyzed monthly at all sites include color, hardness, turbidity (NTU), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total suspended solids (TSS). Dissolved nutrients analyzed monthly at all sites include nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2-), nitrate + nitrite (NOx-}, ammonia (NH4+), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and ortho phosphorus (OrthoP). Total concentrations of nitrogen (TN), Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), organic nitrogen (TON), phosphorus (TP), and organic carbon (TOC) are also measured monthly. Four biological parameters measured monthly are total coliform (TotCol), fecal coliform (FecCol), chlorophyll a (Chl a), and phaeophytin (Phae). The major ions analyzed quarterly are alkalinity (Alka), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), fluoride (F), chloride (C1), silicate (Si(OH)4), and sulfate (804). The trace metals analyzed quarterly include zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), and chromium (Cr). Some parameters will not be measured directly, but calculated by difference. Total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) will be calculated as NOx- + NH4+. Total organic nitrogen (TON) will be defined as 'IN - DIN. NOx- will be calculated as NO3- + NO2-. Sampling and analysis will be performed as described in the CQAP. Task 4. Data Reports All data and progress reports will be transferred electronically to the District quarterly according to the Deliverables Schedule {Exhibit D) or upon demand. Page3ofll, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11725 [ NO. !(~ ~ ~- [ JAN 232001 I /.6". Quarterly reports will 1) identify activities undertaken during the reporting period, 2) state any problems encountered, 3) attest to the validity of the data, and 4} include all quality assurance statistics and reports (i.e. the results of field blanks, equipment blanks and precision as percent relative standard deviation). The County will validate the data in accordance with the data quality objectives stated in the CQAP. Annual calendar year reports will include statistical and graphical summaries of all data collected since the inception of the program, evaluations of the observed data trends, and overall project conclusions and recommendations. All data submittals must conform to the following guidelines or other format as desired by the District: 1) Data ~es must be transferred electronically to District Project Manager using a consistent file naming convention, e.g. 10- 1200.txt. 2) Files are to be of ASCII type in a comma delimited format. The fields and the required order are described in the table below. 3) Character fields should be left justified within the file and numeric fields should be right justified. Page 4 of 3. 3., Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C- 11725 2001 , Field Name -ize / Format o£ Field I Example *Project code 1 to 4 characters MBLS *Field Number 1 to 13 characters P-123333 'Station Code 1 to 10 characters MBL$18 Program Type l'to 4 characters MON Collect Method 1 to 4 characters NET Matrix FQC Code (Field *San~ling Date *Sampling Time *San~ling Depth *Parameter Name *$toret Code *Method Name Analysis Date Analysis Time Practical Quantitation Lim/t *Method Detection Limit *Result *Units Remark Code 1 to 4 characters SAV 1 to 10 characters EB 8 digits YY%~/MMDD 20000119 4 digits ~ {Military) 1305 1 to 4 digits 0.1 t to 8 characters TPO4 5 digits. If code is <5 digits, 34567 then leading zeros must be used 1 to 20 characters SM303.3 8 digits YYYY)9~DD 200000620 1400 digits H~4M (Military) 9 digits total, 4 decimals (F9.4) 0.004 9 digits total, 4 decimals (F9.4) 0.003 9 digits total, 4 decimals (F9.4). 0.05 A minus(-) sign must lead values below the detection limits 1 to 8 characters mg/L 1 to 3 Characters (as specified in F. A. C. 17-160 Quality Assurance; only one code is reported according to hierarchy given in 17 160.700 Table 7 Data Qualifiers;. When remark code 'U" is used to denote a value below detection limit, a minus sign (-) shall lead the value for the result. Field, Station, ProgramTy~e, CollectMethod, Matrix,FQC, Lab (LIMS) Number 1 to 13 characters L-2555-20 Comments 1 to 240 characters E~'a~!~_le C'~ DelimiC~ DaCe Fi Project, Large a/nount of suspended solids in the sample SamplingDate, San~lingTime, Depth, Parameter, Storet, Method, AnalysisDate, AnalysisTime, PQL, MDL, Result, Units, Remark, LabNumber, Coua~--nts ENRR, P-123333, S5A,MON , , $AV, EB, 19991119, 1305, 0.1, TOTFE, 34567, SM303.3, 19990620, 1400, 0.20, 0.10, 20.2, rr~J/1, Q, L-2555-20, Large amount of suspended solids in the senile E/~RR, P-123334, S332,MON .... 19991119, 0800, 0.1, TPO4, 02345, EPA330.4, 19991120, 1600, 0.008, 0.004, 0.004, m~/1, U, L-3704-21, ENRR, P-123335, S332,MON, ,SS, 19991119, 0800, 0.1, TPO4, 00345, EPA330.4, 19991120, 1405, 0.008, 0.004, 0.004, m~3/1, ,L-1222-12, "' There are six permissible field quality control (FQC) codes: E~=equiDment blank; FB=field blank; FD=field duplicate; RS=replicate samples; SS = split sart~le; and TS =trip spike, SAMP = san~le. Page 5 of 11, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11752 _ JAN 2 3 2001 /7 4.0 CONTINGENCIES Every effort will be made to complete all tasks as described; however, it is recognized that samples may be missed due to inclement weather or unforeseen unsafe working .conditions. The District may amend this contract for a time extension in the event of a natural disaster or major storm. Expedient monitoring may be requested during or after unusual weather events that may affect water-related resources. While every effort will be made to accommodate such requests, unscheduled monitoring will be conducted based on County staff avafiability and it is understood that some requests may not be tifffilled. Page 6 of 1 'L, Exhibit "/2", Agreement No. C-11725 .o%....I (,~ C ~ _ JAN 2 3 2{301 Table 1. Water Quality Monitoring Station/Parameter/Frequency Matrix for the Big Cypress Basin Watershed and Adjacent Coastal Waters in Collier County 43 Sites in Pro ect Code: Channel marker 38 in Naples Bay ~ust inside the mouth of[ Rock Creek gordon River ~xt. at mouth of c~l leading :o ~in Pos~ ~s::e~ of wei: in ~in ~ld~ ~:e C~al across ~:~ Bee: ' s Paw C~:~ CI~ B~idge at in:e:section of ~ld~a- Creek ~d Bayshore Dr. ~s=ro~ of weir in Henderson Creek south of US 41 E F~a ~ion C~i a~ wes= ~nd of MorriC= C~I at east bo~ of UTs Miller C~al a~ intersection of 1- 75 F~a ~ion C~al at in~ersoction of 1-75 (F~UC75) Merritt C~1 a= intersection of 1- 75 Prairie CA--a1 a= ~ho end of 82~ A~. S.E. ~stro~ of ~ir in T~hlee ~. C~1 ~s~ of ~ver BI~. ~kaloo ~. C~al at intersection of Pa~ ~vor Bi~. ~r~ R~. C~i at entr~ce to s~' s c1~ Bridge ~84 on US Bridge ~86 on US Core Lab Monthly X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Quarterly Quarterly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Page 7 of 1 1, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11725 JAN 2 3 2001 t73 on US Bridge J69 on US Bridge JSR on US Br~dgo #55 on US 4~E (T~55) ~ug~ S~a~on Noah o~ ~nto~sect~ US4~ ~ H~e~son ~ook (~) ~nte~sect~on of ~n ~ld~ B~dge J3022~ on 75 B~i~go ~ust ~. on ~ 858 ~n C~ Eea~s St~d ~te~sect~ of 95~ c~ ~d Coco~tchee at US 41 site at ~1 s~ge ~t ~nte~sect~on of ~ Coconut ~ver Brid~e a= intersection of ~clid Ave. C~o~t~ee River, eas~ of ~31 Bri~e at in~ersec=ion of Corkscrew ~ CR846 B~idge ~t inte~section ~ld~ ~te C~al ~ ~858 B~idge at ~nte~sect~on o~ ~den ~te ~st~e~ o~ gate at ~nte~seot~ o~ US4~ ~ ~a~d~ C~eek x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Page $ of 11, Exhibit "C", Agreemere No. C-11725 intersection of US4~ and I~ly Nain C~ · t entree to Po~ of t~ Isl~ds ~rina ~uging nor=h of ~ir =he in=ersection of US41 ~on C~l S~th side of bridge ~on C~al ~858 Off dock Sheriff ' s~sCat~on on co~er of US ~ 29 Okaloac~chee Sl~gh crossing on ~ 858 Bridge 30090 on US41E Bridge 30096 intersection of US41 ~ ~op Roa~ North side of bridge 105 on US41 Eas~ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 9 of 11, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11725 JAN 2 3 2001 pH T~m~_erature Dissolved Oxygen S~eci~ic Conductance Salinity Secchi Depth Total Depth Phaeoph~ Fecal Col££o~m Total Copper Iron Lead Zinc Turbidity Total Suspended Solids Total Dissolved 'Solids Hardness Nitrate Nitrite Nitrate + Nitrite ITotal,, Phosphorus Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Nitrogen Total Organic Nitrogen Total Organic Carbon Magnesium IChloride Fluoride Alkalinity ,Silicate Sulfate Page 10 of 11, Exhibit '~", Agreement No. C-11725 Table 2.0 Consolidated Parameter List Laboratory Method MDL Parameter 3111 B 0.05 mg, n Ammonia EPA 3503 0.01 rag/! Lead SM 3113 B 1.0 ug/I Total Phosphorus SM 4500 PE 0.01 mg/I Turbidity SM 2!.30 .B , 0.10 NTU Ortho Phosphate SM 4500 PE 0.01 mg/i ChlorophyH-a SM 10200 H 3.0 mg/m3 Nitrite SM 4500 NO2 0.01 mg/! Nitrate SM 4500 NO3 0.01 rag/! Total Suspended Solids SM 2540 D 4.0 mg/l Arsenic SM 3113 B 1.0 ug/l Calcium ......SM 3111 B 0.2 ~ Magnesium SM 3111 B 0.02 mg/l Total Coliform SM 9222B 1 cfu/100ml Fecal Coliform SM 9222 D 1 cfu/100 ml Cadmium SM 3113 B 0.5 ug/! Fluoride S,M 4500 F-C 0.20 mg/! Chloride SM 4500 CI-C 1.0 n~l Iron SM 3111 B 0.3 rag/! Phaeophytin SM 10100 H 3.0 rag/m3 Sulfate EPA 375.4 5.0 rag/1 Chromium SM 3113 B 5.0 NOx EPA 353.2 0.01 .n~/I. Total Organic Carbon EPA 415.1 1.0 ~ . Total Nitrogen EPA 353.2/ 0.01 rag/! EPA 351.2 Color EPA 110.2 1 cu A~ty EPA 310.1 1.0 m~n TKN EPA 351.2 0.24 m~l TDS SM2540C 4.0 mg/l Hardness EPA 130.2 3.3 tng/I Silica~ Dissolved SM 4500Si-D 0.1 ~ Page 11 of 3. l, Exhibit "C", Agreement No. C-11725 JAN 2 3 2001 EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES AND PAYMENT Collection and Analyses of Surface Water Quality Samples From the Big Cypress Basin Watershed and Adjacent Coastal Waters in Collier County 1.0 DELIVERABLES The County shall provide quarterly data reports for the duration of the contract. At the end of the each contract year the County shall also provide a comprehensive data summary and an assessment of the project. 2.0 PAYMENT SCHEDULE The County project manager shall verify in writing that the work has been completed. For each contract year the County shall submit three invoices in equal quarterly installments the not-to-exceed amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) .following delivery of each quarterly data report. A contract year final invoice in the not- to-exceed amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) shall be submitted upon the yearly project completion and submission of the annual comprehensive data summary and assessment project report. Each invoice shall be substantiated by adequate supporting documentation to justify hours expended and expenses incurred within the not-to-exceed budget, including, but not limited to copies of approved timesheets, payment vouchers, expense reports, receipts and any subcontractor invoices. Page 1 of I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REJECT BID #00-3042 - PURCHASE ONE PORTABLE 500 GALLON SELF CONTAINED VACUUM UNIT OBJECTIVE: To have the Board reject bids received on the Bid #00-3042 - Purchase One Portable 500 Gallon Self Contained Vacuum Unit so that the Wastewater Collections Locate Unit may purchase equipment better suited to its requirements to serve the citizens of Collier County. CONSIDERATION: 1. Bid #00-3042 was posted on February 1, 2000. Sixty-six (66) inquiries were sent to vendors. Four (4) packages were received. The bid was awarded to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder, Vantage Equipment. The vacuum unit was delivered on September 1, 2000, but did not meet ten (10) specifications of the bid. The vendor agreed to correct nine (9) of the ten (10) irregularities or take return of the unit. The Locate Unit determined to return the vacuum unit. The second lowest bidder had taken unacceptable exception to the bid specifications. The third lowest bidder did not meet specifications, and the fourth lowest bidder was over budget. Research by staff has determined that a vacuum excavation unit equipped with water and air digging capabilities offers advantages over the water only vacuum on Bid #00- 3042. A unit equipped with air is a multi-use tool and can be used for soft dig excavation, valve box cleaning, and valve maintenance and repair. A truck-mounted system would improve mobility in urban environments. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: impact. There is no growth management RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners reject Bid #00-3042 - Purchase of One Portable Self-Contained Vacuum Unit. J/ N 2 3 2001 SUBMITTED BY: AI Vander Muelen, Locate Department Supervisor REVIEWED BY: , ,,~{f/:~, .~/(75 Date: Steve ~hD;, Cdljections Supervisor REVIEWED BY: J~Cheatham, Wastewater Director Date: REVIEWED BY: ~:'2'~, :'~,.~(" ~ (4- .... //Z Date: .[ si:Phen'/Y. C'arndl, Purchasing/General Services Director .- :,~ ,",//:.? .:/ APPROVED BY: ......Fr~ ,..., , ~ , Date: Ja~es V. Mudd, Public Utiliiies Administrator be.o/ /, _ .: / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE SELECTION OF FIRM FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-AT- RISK SERVICES TO EXPAND THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, RFP 00-3171, PROJECT 73949 OBJECTIVE: To expand the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) to meet growing demand for sewer service in the South County Sewer Service Area. CONSIDERATION: On November 8, 2000, the Purchasing Department distributed announcements to 332 firms. Sixteen (16) firms requested the full copy of the Request for Proposal. Six (6) firms returned proposals on or before the established deadline of December 8, 2000. All firms submitted responsive proposals and are well qualified. The Selection Committee was empowered by the County Administrator on August 16, 2000. The Committee short-listed three firms, and after interviews, selected by consensus Montgomery Watson, Black & Veatch, and CDM Engineers & Constructors, Inc., in this order. Montgomery Watson was ranked higher because their approach, comprehensive team, and experience on similar work more fully reflected the requirements of this project. A copy of the Ranking Form is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to this Board action. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, CIE 916 and also the 201 (Wastewater) Master Plan Update adopted by the Board on July 22, 1997 under items 12(C)4 and 12(C)5. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approve the final ranking as recommended by the Selection Committee to provide construction management-at-risk services related to the SCWRF Expansion, Project 73949. SUBMITTED BY: . %'4-xx Date: \ - ~.-. c,~ \ Alicia Abbott, Project Manager Public Utilities Engineering Department ~'>w, ~- ' ,, : ~ ("~ Date: REVIEWED BY:, 7- ,"~-~J-' '-' x._., ; Stephen Y. Carnell, Purchasing Director Karl W Boyer, P E, Interim Utilities Engineering Directo/r APPROVED BYi ~,~~ ( ~(-~'~:"'/-~'( Date: -J~es V. Mudd, P.E., Public Utilities Administrator ,,,o.Ae C'-.t. _ J JAN 232001 J o I Z o .... AG~N15AITEI~ I JAN~32001 J 0 z~. EXECUTIVE SLIMMARY OBTAIN BCC ACCEPTANCE OF COMMUNITY & LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY ACCESS PARTNERSHIP GRANT OBJECTIVE: Obtain signature of BCC Chairman on the CommuniO, and Library Technology Access Partnership Grant Agreement and approval for any necessary budget amendments. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 28, 2000, the BCC approved the Library's application for a Community & Library Technology Access Partnership Grant, available through the State Library of Florida. The Library has been notified that our application was accepted and the Grant Agreement needs to be signed in order for Staff to start work on this project. This grant provides funds to Florida public libraries that partner with community and faith-based organizations. The partnership provides technology access and training to those affected by the 'Digital Divide'. The partnership concept builds on the strengths and assets of public libraries and community and faith-based organizations. Grant funds totaling $23,819 will provide computers and instruction to users of the River Park Recreation Center, partnering with both the City of Naples Recreation Department and the Macedonia Baptist Church. The Library will use the facilities to extend Library services to a population that generally does not use public libraries, to draw children into standard public library activities, and to encourage the children to become life-long library users: Adults will also be able to use the computers to learn work skills, produce resumes, and for research. FISCAL IMPACT: This grant does not require any local matching funds. Library Staff time and minor equipment and supplies will come from the Library's current FY01 appropriation. No special funds will be requested to support this project. After the project time period, the Library partners will assume responsibility for maintaining and replacing the equipment when needed. Grant moneys in the amount of $23,819 will be placed in Library Grant Fund(129) budgets. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This item has no Growth Management impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the Grant Agreement, authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement, and approve the necessary budget amendment. Prepared by: _~c~/(/~/h. /¢.~, DATE:/-//' Sus~ ,Petr, Chi!~en's Librarian Prepared bye...~. ~.%, 7~_j _,~,. Andrea Tayloq, Children s Librarian Reviewed and k (~"') ~' Approved b~5 ~ ~ ~~ W ~ne~ib~~irector Reviewed and ~(~ ~'~~ Approved by: ~~/:~. Leo Ochs, Jr(;~l~ Se~ices Administrator DATE:/' I/-(_.)t DATE: /-/{ 'Or DATE: I Ill Agend& Item JAN 2 3 2001 PROJECT NUMBER 01-CLTA-02 Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services COMMUNITY AND LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY ACCESS PARTNERSHIP GRANT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT executed and entered into , BETWEEN the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, hereinafter referred to as the DIVISION, and the GRANTEE: Collier County Board of County Commissioners for and on behalf of Collier County Public Library the PROJECT: River Park Community Center Grant the GRANT AMOUNT: Twenty-three thousand eight hundred nineteen dollars ($23,819) released in two equal payments by the DIVISION by June 30, 2001. The project period ends September 30, 2001. Unless there is a change of address, any notice required by this agreement shall be delivered to the DIVISION, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250, for the State, and to Collier County Public Library, 650 Central Ave., Naples, FL, 34102, for the GRANTEE. In the event of a change of address it is the obligation of the moving party to notify the other party in writing of the change of address. The DIVISION, as administrator of state funds authorized under Section 257.191, Florida Statutes, is desirous of providing a grant. The GRANTEE agrees to meet all state requirements. The parties agree as follows: The GRANTEE agrees to: a. Administer all funds granted to it by the DIVISION to carry out the project as described in the project proposal and revisions submitted to and approved by the DIVISION. The project proposal and revisions are incorporated by reference. b. Provide the DIVISION with statistical, narrative, financial and other evaluative reports as requested. c. Retain and make available to the DIVISION, upon request, all financial and programmatic records, supporting documents, statistical records, and other records for the project. d. Retain all records for a period of 5 years from the date of submission of the final project report. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 5 year period, the records shall be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it, or until the end of the regular 5 year period, whichever is later. e. Pay out all project funds on or before the project ending date. f. Use and maintain adequate fiscal authority, control, and accounting procedures that will assure proper disbursement of, and accounting for project funds. g. Perform all acts in connection with this agreement in strict conformity with all applicable State laws · and regulations. h. Not discriminate against any employee employed in the performance of this agreement, or against any applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, handicap or marital status. The GRANTEE shall insert a similar provision in all subcontracts for services by this agreement. Expend all grant funds received under this Agreement solely for the purposes of the proje funds will not be used for lobbying the legislature, the judicial branch, or any state agent5 the DIVISION any and all fi~nds not thus expended. Page 1 of 4 Notify the Florida Deparm~ent of State's International Office of any international travel for a presentation, performance, or other significant public viewing, including and organization associated with a college or university. The notification shall be made at least 30 days prior to the date the international travel is to commence pursuant to Section 15.182, Florida Statutes. In the event that the GRANTEE expends a total amount of State awards (i.e., State financial assistance provided to the GRANTEE to carry out a State project) equal to or in excess of $300,000 in any fiscal year of such GRANTEE the GRANTEE must have a State single or project-specific audit for such fiscal year in accordance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes; applicable rules of the Executive Office of the Governor and the Comptroller, and Chapter 10.600, Rules of the Auditor General. In determining the State awards expended in its fiscal year, the GRANTEE shall consider all sources of State awards, including State funds received from the Department of State, except that State awards received by a nonstate entity for Federal program matching requirements shall be excluded from consideration. In connection with the audit requirements addressed in Part k, paragraph 1, the GRANTEE shall ensure that the audit complies with the requirements of Section 215.97(7), Florida Statutes. This includes submission of a reporting package as defined by Section 215.97(2)(d), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10.600, Rules of the Auditor General. If the Grantee expends less than $300,000 in State awards in its fiscal year, an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, is not required. In the event that the GRANTEE expends less than $300,000 in State awards in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, the cost of the audit must be paid from non-State funds (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from GRANTEE funds obtained from other than State entities). II. The DIVISION agrees to: a. Provide a grant in accordance with the terms of this agreement in the amount and frequency as stated above in consideration of the GRANTEE's performance hereinunder, and contingent upon funding by the Legislature. The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this agreement is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature. In the event that the state funds on which this agreement is dependent are withdrawn, this agreement is terminated and the state has no further liability to the GRANTEE beyond that already incurred by the termination date. In the event of a state revenue shortfall, the total grant may be reduced accordingly. b. Provide professional advice and assistance to the GRANTEE as needed, in implementing and evaluating the project. c. Review the project during the grant period to assure that adequate progress is being made toward achieving the project objectives. III. The a. GRANTEE and the DIVISION mutually agree that: This instrument embodies the whole agreement of the parties. There are no provisions, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein; and this agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties. No amendment shall be effective unless reduced in writing and signed by the parties. The agreement is executed and entered into in the State of Florida, and shall be construed, performed, and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida. Each party shall perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. If any term or provision of the agreement is found to be illegal and unenforceable, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect and such term or provision shall be deemed stricken, No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to either party upon breach or default by either party under this Agreement shall impair any such right, power or remedy of either party; nor shall such delay or omission be construed as a waiver of any such breach or default, or any similar breach or default. This agreement shall be temfinated by the DIVISION because of failure of the GRANTEE to fulfill its obligations under the agreement in a timely and satisfactory manner unless the GRANTEE demonstrates .... good cause as to why it carmot fulfill its obligations. Satisfaction of obligations by the GI~ ~NTE~I~I& I~;em be determined by the DIVISION based on the terms and conditions hnposed on the GRA~ FEE iN~lxis~!j~_~ _~ Page 2 of 4 JAN 2:3 2001 agreement and compliance with the program guidelines. The DIVISION shall provide GRANTEE a written notice of default letter. GRANTEE shall have 15 calendar days to cure the default. If the default is not cured by the GRANTEE within the stated period, the DIVISION shall terminate th/s agreement, unless the GRANTEE demonstrates good cause as to why it cannot cure the default within the prescribed time period. For purposes of this agreement, "good cause" is defined as circumstances beyond the GRANTEE's control. In the event of termination of this agreement, the GRANTEE will be compensated for any work satisfactorily completed prior to the notification of terrnination. f. The DIVISION shall unilaterally cancel this agreement if the GRANTEE refuses to allow public access to all documents or other materials subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. g, Surplus funds must be temporarily invested and the interest earned on such investments shall be returned to the State quarterly. h. Bills for services or expenses shall be maintained in detail sufficient for proper preaudit and postaudit. i. Any travel expenses must be maintained according to the provisions of Section 112.061, Florida Statutes~ The DIVISION shall not be liable to pay attorney fees, interest, late charges and service fees, or cost of collection related to the grant. k. The DIVISION shall not assume any liability for the acts, omissions to act or negligence of the GRANTEE, its agents, servants or employees; nor shall the GRANTEE exclude liability for its own acts, omissions to act or negligence to the DIVISION. In addition, the GRANTEE hereby agrees to be responsible for any injury or property damage resulting from any activities conducted by the GRANTEE. 1. The GRANTEE, other than a GRANTEE which is the State or agency or subdivision of the State, agrees to indemnify and hold the DIVISION harmless from and against any and all claims or demands for damages of any nature, including but not limited to personal injury, death, or damage to property, arising out of any activities performed under this agreement and shall investigate all claims at its own expense. m. The GRANTEE shall be responsible for all work performed and all expenses incurred in connection with the Project. The GRANTEE may subcontract as necessary to perform the services set forth in this agreement, including entering into subcontracts with vendors for services and commodities, PROVIDED THAT such subcontract has been approved by the DIVISION prior to its execution, and PROVIDED THAT it is understood by the GRANTEE that the DIVISION shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any expenses or liabilities incurred under the subcontract and that the GRANTEE shall be solely liable to the Subcontractor for all expenses and liabilities incurred under the subcontract. n. Neither the State nor any agency or subdivision of the State waives any defense of sovereign immunity, or increases the limits of its liability, upon entering into a contractual relationship. o. The GRANTEE, its officers, agents, and employees, in performance of this agreement, shall act in the capacity of an independent contractor and not as an officer, employee or agent of the DIVISION. Under this agreement, GRANTEE is not entitled to accrue any benefits of state employment, including retirement benefits and any other rights or privileges connected with employment in the State Career Service. GRANTEE agrees to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that each subcontractor of the GRANTEE will be deemed to be an independent contractor and will not be considered or permitted to be an agent, servant, joint venturer, or partner of the DIVISION. p. The GRANTEE shall not assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer its rights, duties, or obligations under this agreement without prior written consent of the Department, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The agreement transferee must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the program. If the Department approves a transfer of the GRANTEE's obligations, the GRANTEE remains responsible for all work performed and all expenses incurred in connection with the agreement. In the event the Legislature transfers the rights, duties, and obligations of the Department to another government entity pursuant to Section 20.06, Florida Statutes, or otherwise, the rights, duties, and obligations under this agreement shall also be transferred to the successor' government entity as if it were an original party to the agreement. q. This agreement shall bind the successors, assigns and legal representatives of the GRANTEE and of any legal entity that succeeds to the obligation of the DIVISION. r. When pnblications, films or similar materials are developed, directly or indirectly, from a project, or activity supported with grant funds, any copyright resulting therefrom shall be i Deparmaent of State. The author may arrange for copyright of such materials only after a Page 3 of 4 IV. the DIVISION. Any copyright arranged for by the author shall include acknowledgment of grant assistance. As a condition of grant assistance, the GRANTEE agrees to, and awards to the Department and to its officers, agents, and employees acting within the scope of their official duties, a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for official purposes, to publish, translate, reproduce, and use all subject data or copyrightable material based on such data covered by the copyright. No costs incurred before the date of this Agreement shall be eligible as project expenditures. No costs incurred after the completion date or other termination of the Agreement shall be eligible as project expenditures unless specifically authorized by the DIVISION. The term of this agreement will commence on the date of execution of the agreement. If the GRANTEE award period is extended beyond the original Agreement period, the final report will cover the entire grant period of project activities and is due within thirty days after the end of the extended grant period. Any modifications or artaclunents to this Agreement are enumerated below. THE GRANTEE THE DIVISION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman Date: ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Barran Wilkins, Director Division of Library and Information Services Department of State, State of Florida Witness Witne~ .... ' 11/30/00 Page 4 of 4 Agenda~.em .... JAN 23,(2001 ._Zt.Z':: ~-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $2,000 REVENUE FROM A DONATION FOR A MEMORIAL BENCH Objective: To obtain approval of a budget amendment recognizing $2,000 revenue and authorizing expenditure to purchase a memorial bench. Consideration: The Parks and Recreation Department recently received a $2,000 donation for a memorial bench from a private source. The budget amendment recognizes the additional $2,000 so that it may be utilized to purchase a memorial bench. Fiscal Impact: Recognize revenue of $2,000 from a private source donation and appropriate it to Beach and Water Operation General Fund (001) for the purchasing of a memorial bench. Growth Management: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. Recommendation: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the necessary budget amendment. Debbie Roberts, Operations Coordinator Parks and Recreation Department Approved by: _ DATE: Marla Ramsey, DirecI6r Parks and Recreatior~ Department Reviewed and ~~ r.~ _ Approved by: L~'o-~)cl~ Jr., 791~'~/S~s. ^dr~dn.DATE: Division of Pu~l~ervices JAN 2001 ! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~-'~¥AIVE THE FORMAL WORK ORDER DOLLAR LIMIT AND INCREASE WORK ORDER FOR SURETY ~ONSTRUCTION COMPANY (W.O.# SC-00-07) FOR PHASE II(A) OF SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK. Objective: To complete the construction of Phase II(A) of Sugden Regional Park in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Consideration: On June 22, 2000 staff sent a request for bids to five Contractors currently on the County's General Contractors Service Contract, for Phase H(A) of Sugden Regional Park. This phase entails the building and sitework for the maintenance and restroom buildings. On July 24, 2000 the County received three quotes for the project, with Surety Construction as the lowest, qualified and responsive bidder at $199,995. On August 1, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners awarded Work Order # SC-00-07 to Surety Construction in this amount. Since that time, the construction has begun. Due to a surveying error (of one foot over the site) and faulty base data, the existing site elevations were misidentified by the County, resulting in a miscalculation of fill by the Contractor. In order to remedy this situation and meet the permit conditions, 2,170 c.y. of additional fill are required to be imported to the site. This additional work is priced at $17,902, which would result in a new Work Order amount of $217,897. General Contractor Services projects that are priced above $200,000 are usually subject to a separate open public bid. However, in the interest of time and cost savings, staff is recommending that the Board waive the requirement for formal competition pursuant to Section V.A.3 of the Purchasing Policy, and authorize the additional amount necessary to complete the project. Fiscal Impact: A balance of $6,902 remains in Project # 80081, Sugden Park (Fund 346). A budget amendment of $11,000 from Parks and Recreation, Unincorporated Community and Regional Parks Impact Fee Fund Reserves (Fund .~"q46) is necessary to accomplish the project. Growth Management: The value of this facility will be inventoried in the Growth Management Plan. Recommendation: That the Board of County Commissioners waive the Work Order dollar limit and authorize an increase of $17,902 to Surety Construction Company (Work Order # SC-00-07) for the construction of Phase II(A) at the Sugden Regional Park and approve the necessary budget amendment in the amount of $11,000. Prepared by: ~~~~ Date: Reviewed and Approved by: Date: Jds~ph 1~. Delate, ASLA; Project Manager Department of Par~r~d Recreation Reviewed and ~/~/~/~k Approved by: Marl~ Ramsey, DireCtor Depa~ment of Parks and Recreation Reviewed and ~ Approved by: Stev~ ~amell, Dire~ctor ~rchasing Dep~ment Leo Ochs, Jr.. Ad~n~r~tor Division of Public S~ces Agend,t Item "I JAN 2 1.,900i [ SENT BY: SURETY CONSTRUCTION; 11-29- 0 11:28AM; g419927977 => SURE' ' .... CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1 9141 353 1002; #1/2 TELLCOPIER COVER LETTER PI. EAS£ DELTVER THE FOLLOW/NO PAGES TO: "~~' WE ARE TRANSMITTING ~ PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER LETTER. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THESE PAGES, OR IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL US ~s soo~ ~s ~oss~. THANK YOU. SUBJECT: REA1A;~KS · SIGNED' Pg' ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1 WITH JENSEN UNDERGROUND UTILITES INC. FOR THE ~ILITY WORK AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK. Objective: To approve Change Order #1 with Jensen Underground Utilities, Inc and increase the purchase order amount (P.O. #006648) for the construction of the underground utility work at the Sugden Regional Park. Consideration: On July 17, 2000, staff sent a request for quotes to three underground utility contractors for the Sugden Regional Park Maintenance and Restroom Buildings project. On August 8, 2000, the County received three quotes. Jensen Underground Utilities, Inc. was the lowest, qualified and responsive bidder at $24,110. On August 9, 2000 a purchase order (#006648) was opened for that amount. Since that time, the project has commenced and is almost complete. However, due to unanticipated design changes related to an adjacent stormwater management project, the drainage and fire protection work for this project was changed. In order to correctly complete the project, additional drainage work in the amount of $1,498 is required, necessitating this Change Order. This would result in a new project total of $25,608, which would cause it to exceed the $25,000 staff authorization limit. Hence, Board approval is requested. Fiscal Impact: Funds are budgeted in Parks and Recreation, Unincorporated Community and Regional Parks Impact Fee Fund (Fund 346) in the amount of $1,498.00. Growth Management: The value of this facility will be inventoried in the Growth Management Plan. 'commendation: That the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order #1 with Jensen ,Jderground Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $1,498 and authorize an increase in the purchase order amount (P.O. #006648) for the construction of underground utility work at Sugden Regional Park. s~e~ . re, ASLA~; Project Manager Department of Parks and Recreation Reviewed and ~i//~dA ~ Approved by: ~ ~/trta Rankly, Director f Department of Parks and Recreation Date: Approved by:/ /: Steve C'~-nell,' D)~ecio Purchasing Department Reviewed and · ~ Approved by: Leo Ochs, Jr., ,apff~strator Division of Pub!ic Services Date: Date: Sent By: Jensen underground Utilities Inc;941 597 0061; ~an-9-01 1:33PM; Page 212 TO: $~xscn Undergrouad Utilities, Inc. 5585 Taylor Road Naples, Fledds 34109 Project N~m~: Su~!m Park U~tilty Work Contrwt Dated: August 9, 2000 Chang_One_ No.: 1 CRAIV~[ OROER # 1 FROM: Bonrd of Collier Count7 Commissioners CoUier County Parks and Rccwation D~pt. 3300 Santa Barbnr~ Boulevazd Naples, Plorida 34! 16 Project No, 80081 No. 006648 Date: January 9, 2001 Change Order Description.' This change order is in connection to the drainage and rite protection work associated with the utility work st the Maintenance and Re. room Buildi~s project nt 5ugden Regional Pa.,k, Due to an adjacent stormwater management project, the drainage piping was changed after the project wu bid, resulting in a larg~ and more expensive pipe. At the same time, on- stta excavation during the project revealed the lack of sn adequat~ sized water main to complem the fire hydrant installation. As a re~uk. the fu~e hydrant is being deleted from the project and the cost credtt~i back to the County. Together, these chm~ge, resah in $1,d,98 of additional compensalion to the coreracted firm. See attached scope of services and sched~e of leas for this Chan$e Order No. 1. Original ~ent amount ............................................................................$24,110.00 This Change Order No. 1 Amount [add] ........................................................$ 1.498,00 Revised Agreement Atomrot .........................................................................$2~,608.00 Original contract time in calcndar days ...................................................210 days Adjusted humSet of calendar days due to prayiota change orders .......................0 days Th~s ctumg¢ ord~ adjusted time is ............................................................0 days Revised Confra~ Tfme in wor/~g days ..................................................210 days Original NoQcc to Proc, e~ dam .................................................August 9, 2000 Completion da~ b~ed on original contra~ ~ime ........................March 7. 2001 Revised camplet/on date due to chanBe order(s) .........................March 7, 2001 Your acceptance of th~s change order shall consdrum a modification to our A~nt and will be performed subject to all the same tin'ms and conditions as containc~l in said A~nt indicaled above, as htlly a.s if the same were repented in this acceptance. Thc adjustmeaL to this Agrtmment shall constitute a full nnd final settlement of any and all claims arising out of, or related to, the chang¢.~..for~ heroin, including claims for impact alld delay 'J'o~seph 1~. Delete, gb~,~; ~,oject bian~ger ~artmm~t ~cn Undcrgwund Utilities, Inc. Approved by: Mazla Ramsey, Director Parks and Rec~ation Department serif By; .Jenser~ uroer'grOUrlU uc~.J.~.c~.== ~.,,~,~ ......... ~ ...... UNDER 5585 TAYLOR ROAD · NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 · (941) 597-0060 o FAX (941) 597-0061 TO: Collier County Parkm & Racreatlon Sugden Regional Park 4284 Avalon Drive Naples, FL 34112 Add Drain_ ane; 38" x 60" ERCP (CL 3) 38" x 60" ERCP Miterecl End Section Filter Fabric Rip Rap SUBTOTAL ~e-Work & Cl~r~ E;~istinQ Swale Delete DrainaRe: 24" RCP 24" Mitered End Section SUBTOTAL Please Be Advised That The 12LF Drive Road Needs TO Be Filled !n Prior To Installation Of This Culyert NAME OF JOB: Sugden Park JOB · 00-g3 CHANGE ORDER # One DATE: November 17, 2000 ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT Previous Contract Amount: 24,110.00 Amount of This Change: 1,498 00 New Contract Amount: 25,608.00 QTY ITEM UNIT TOTAL 40 LF lea. 1 Ea. I Ea. 48 LF 4Ea. Deduct Fire Hydrant Installation '1 Ea. CHANGE ORDERNUMBER ONE 8,420,00 -2,752.00 '4,170.00 1,498.00 Subject to conditions hereinafter set forth, the contract price is INCREASED in {he amount of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($1,498.00) and the contract is extended by ZERO days. ACCEPTED: BY'. TITLE: ACCEPTED: /~~/'~ BY: . . Kevin'Jensen~ TITLE: President DATE: DATE: 11/17/00 J Agende, I JAN 2 3 2001 CERTIFIED UNDERGROUND UTILITY: CU C04.499~ ° F1RE SPRINKLER CONT~CTOR V: 1 ~7~11~19~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OBTAIN BCC APPROVAL FOR FURNITURE PURCHASES FOR NEW HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY, OBJECTIVE: Obtain approval of furniture purchases for new [leadquarters Library and authorization tbr issuance of purchase orders. CONSIDERATIONS: Construction has begun on the North Regional Library project, located on Orange Blossom Drive. In order to save approximately $60,OOOin the cost of furnishings for this building, Staff is now requesting purchase orders for both the library furnishings and the office furnishings for this new building. County purchasing policy requires BCC approval for goods purchased from State Contracts when the purchase price exceeds $25,000. Library furniture will be purchased on State Contracts through Library Interiors of Florida, Inc., for a cost not to exceed $600,000. Office furniture will be purchased on State Contracts through Environeries for a cost not to exceed $160,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for building construction and purchase of furnishings and equipment is budgeted in the Library Impact Fee Fund. Construction and ['urnishings are purchased through Library Impact Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Construction and furnishing this new Library assists the County in meeting Growth Management standards for the number o[' square feet of library space per capita. Construction costs, including furnishings and equipment, are paid through Library Impact Fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Board approval for a purchase order to Library Interiors of Florida, Inc., not to exceed $600,000. Slaff recommends F, oard approval of a purchase order to Environetics, not to exceed $160,000. Marilyn Matthkd~ Assi~s~-~i-~ [:)TK~-cT(~-r Revie~ ed and Approved by: ~_L_d_,__~_/~-~_~_~;_/_ Steve Carne]l, Purcnasing ~irector Leo Ochs, Jr., 1 ublic S'drvices" Administrator i IgendaJte~ ' [ ~o. ! Agenda_ Item JKN 2 3 2001 Agenda Item JAN 2 ~2001 Pg. ?/ -- AgendasItem ~ JAN 2 ~2001 Agend& .o. JAN Pg.. Agenqa_) tern ~o. iL: u % JAN 2 3 2001 p~._/4 _ o o JAN 2 3 2001 o o Agenda ~tem Pg'- / ~'-~ _ o o 'c 'c Agenda I_i;em JAN 2 3_~881 Pgo ,/,~ __ PROPOSAL FOR: NAPLES PUBLIC LIBRARY environetics business interiors PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/' INSTALL AT: ~~~~ NAPLES PUBLIC LIBRARY L/I CUSTOMER #: 006491 QUOTE VALID:01/06/01 QTY SALESPERSON: DESCRIPTION HOUSE ACCOblTT SELL EX=ENDED 1.00 PLEASE MAKE PURCHASE ORDER PAYABLE TO THE GUNLOCKE COMPANY 1GU1NLOCKE DRIVE WAYLAIND, NY 14572 i}{ C/O ENVIRONETICS, INC. STATE OF FLORIDA CONTP~XCT# 425-001-95-1 CASEGOODS STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT # 420-660-96-1 SEATING ALL SPECIALS TO REFERENCE QN 16686 DEALER OF RECORD EN¥IRONETICS, INC CONTACT: STEFANI PUTT AREA 1 CASEGOODS ***** D Station RH W/ Mod Pnl 108x102x29, Special 60" Credenza w/3 lagging: area 1 c 6,464.20 6,464.20 PAGE 1 N ' ' ~ o.~_~ www.environetics.net 900 IE. Indiantown Rd. / #110 · Jupiter, Florida 334772339 Hollywood Blvd. · Hollywood, Florida 3 0J A N 2 3 21101 561/575.1853 · Fax. 561/575.7724 954/925.0495 · Fax. 954/925.7025 ?g-,.,,/'~ _ lB 0000694 QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/00 SELL EXTENDED 2 3 4 7 8 3 O0 1 00 3 oo 6 00 3 00 3 00 6.00 12.00 ***** Desk Sgl Ped Top Flush W/Ped 36D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 1 c ***** Storage Box Dbl Hinged Doors Top 24D 30D 70-5/8H Tagging: area 1 c ***** Desk Sgl Ped Top Flush W/Ped 36D 70-5/8W 29H Taggmng: area 1 c ***** Keybd Arm Articulated for 24" and Deeper Applications Taggmng: area 1 c ***** Return Full-Ht FF LH 24D 48W 29H Taggmng: area 1 c ***** Return Full-Ht FF RH 24D 48W 29H Taggzng: area 1 c SUBTOTAL AREA 1 SEATING ***** Contufa Mid Back Swivel, Urethane Arms/Base Tagging: area 1 s ***** LIGHT YEAR PLUM Tagging: area 1 s PAGE 2 ~~ 1,593 41 4,780 23 1,323 61 1,323 61 1,593 41 4,780 23 106 34 638 04 977 53 2,932 89 977 63 2,932 89 23,852 09 377.58 2,265.48 36.52 438.24 JAN 2 3, 001 L/I QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/ SELL EXTEND. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 19.00 1.00 1.00 ***** Newport, Open Arm Tagging: area 1 s ***** LIGHT YEAR PLUM Tagging: area 1 s ***** Monde' Mid Back, Open Arm, Tight Cushion Tagging: area 1 s ***** LIGHT YEAR PLUM Tagging: area 1 s ***** Contura Stacker, Open Arm, Open Back Tagging: area 1 s ***** LIGHT YEAR PLUM Tagging: area 1 s SUBTOTAL AREA 1 STORAGE/TABLE ***** Bookcase 4 Adj Shelves 14D 36W 70-5/8H Tagging: area 1 s ***** X Style Table Base 24D 24W 27-1/2H Tagging: area 1 s ***** Lat File 5 Drwr Hngd Door Top 24D 36W 70-5/8H Tagging: area 1 s 365.40 1,461.60 36.52 255.64 358.68 358.68 36.52 109.56 121.38 485.52 36.52 219. 5, 593.84 695.55 13,215.45 302.33 302.33 1, 541 · 36 1, 541 · 36 PAGE 3 Agend~ L~ · .m~_ JAN 2 OOl __ QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/00 SELL EXTENDED 2O 21 22 24 25 26 1.00 1.00 3.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4 .00 ***** Racetrack Briefing Table Top 42W 96H Tagging: area 1 s ***** Round Briefing Table Top 36 Dia Tagging: area 1 s ***** Steel Table Base 27-1/2H Tagging: area 1 s SUBTOTAL AREA 2 CASEGOODS ***** Desk Dbl Ped Top Flush W/Peds 36D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 2 c ***** Keybd Arm Articulated for 24" and Deeper Applications Tagging: area 2 c ***** Cred Full-Bank FF/Hngd Drs/FF 20D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 2 c SUBTOTAL AREA 2 SEATING ***** Contura High Back Swivel, Urethane Arms/Base Tagging: area 2 s ~**** CORNERSTONE #AC-64262, SPRING # 28 CONTINUED... PAGE 4 867.24 867.24 466.10 466.10 80.16 240.48 16,632.96 1,870.11 3,740.22 106.34 212.68 1,596.37 3,192.74 7,145.64 408.24 816.48 37.74 150.96 Agenda :l,-!~em JAN 2 3 2001 Pg-~ L/I QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/ SELL EXTENL 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 8.00 12.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 Tagging: area 2 s ***** Contura Stacker, Open Arm, Open Back Tagging: area 2 s ***** CORNERSTONE #AC-64262, SPRING #28 Tagging: area 2 s SUBTOTAL AREA 2 STORAGE/TABLE ***** 5-Dr Steel Lat W/Steel Front 64-5/8H 36W 18D Tagging: area 2 s ***** 5-Dr Steel Lat W/Steel Front 64-5/8H 30W 18D Tagging: area 2 s ***** Racetrack Briefing Table Top 36W 72H Tagging: area 2 s ***** Bookcase 3 Adj Shelves 14D 36W 60H Tagging: area 2 s ***** Lat File 5 Drwr Hngd Door Top 20D 36W 70-5/8H Tagging: area 2 s 121.38 37.74 480.17 417.59 634.09 596.12 1,533.26 971.04 452.88 2,391.36 480.17 3,340. 1,268.18 2,384.48 9,199.56 PAGE 5 QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/00 SELL EXTENDED 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 ***** Steel Table Base 27-1/2H Tagging: area 2 s SUBTOTAL AREA 2A CASEGOODS ***** Return Full-Ht FF RH 24D 48W 29H Tagging: area 2a ***** Keybd Arm Articulated for 24" and Deeper Applications Tagging: area 2a ***** Desk Sgl Ped Top Flush W/Ped 36D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 2a SUBTOTAL AREA 2A SEATING ***** Contura Mid Back Swivel, Urethane Arms/Base Tagging: area 2a ***** CORNERSTONE #AC-64262, SPRING #28 Tagging: area 2a SUBTOTAL AREA 3 CASEGOODS ***** Cred Full-Bank FF/Hngd Drs/FF 20D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 3 c 80.16 320.64 16,993.75 1,059.79 1,059.79 106.34 106.34 1,675.57 1,675.57 2, 841 · 70 377.58 377.58 37.74 75.48 1,557.77 453.06 3,115.54 PAGE 6 Agenda Item JAN 2 3 20 1 L/I QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/~ SELL EXTEND. 41 42 43¸ 44 45 46 47 48 6.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 10.00 3.00 2.00 ***** Desk Dbl Ped Top Flush W/Peds 36D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 3 c ***** Keybd Arm Articulated for 24" and Deeper Applications Tagging: area 3 c SUBTOTAL AREA 3 SEATING ***** Contura High Back Swivel, Urethane Arms/Base Tagging: area 3 s ***** SAMUP~AI #AC-63935, AMBER #6 Tagging: area 3 s ***** Contura Mid Back Swivel, Urethane Arms/Base Tagging: area 3 s ***** SAMURAI #AC-63925, AMBER #6 Tagging: area 3 s SUBTOTAL AREA 3 STORAGE ***** Lat File 5 Drwr Hngd Door Top 20D 36W 70-5/8H Tagging: area 3 s ***** Bookcase 3 Adj Shelves 14D 36W 60H Tagging: area 3 s 1,761.71 10,570.26 106.34 638.04 14,323.84 408.24 816.48 42.07 168.28 377.58 1,887. 42.07 420.70 3,293.36 1,533.26 4,599.78 596.12 1,192.24 PAGE 7 Agenda Rem JAN 2 3 ?fi01 L! ± QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/00 SELL EXTENDED 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 ]_.00 3 .00 SUBTOTAL AREA 3A CASEGOODS ***** Keybd Arm Articulated for 24" and Deeper Applications Tagging: area 3a ***** Desk Sgl Ped Top Flush W/Ped 36D 70-5/8W 29H Tagging: area 3a ***** Return Full-Ht FF LH 24D 48W 29H Tagging: area 3a SUBTOTAL AREA 4 CASEGOODS ***** D Station RH W/ Mod Pnl 108xl14x29 Tagging: area 4 c ***** Round Briefing Table Top 36 Dia Tagging: area 4 c ***** Briefing Table Drum Basel8 Dia x27 Tagging: area 4 c ***** Occasional Leg Table 24D 24W 16H Tagging: area 4 c 5,792.02 106.34 106.34 1,675.57 1,675.57 1,059.79 1,059.79 2,841.70 4,630.37 4,630.37 466.10 466.10 360.82 360.82 317.63 952.89 PAGE 8 L/I QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000~77 DATE: 12/14/ SELL EXTENDs. 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 1.00 2 .00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ***** Surface Mnt Ohead Storage 992.03 15D 69-5/8W 42-1/4H Tagging: area 4 c SUBTOTAL AREA 4 CONFERENCE ***** Briefing Table Drum Base 24 460.70 Dia x27 Tagging: area 4 c ***** 24 x 72 Conference Support 2,551.73 Credenza Tagging: area 4 c ***** Racetrack Briefing Table 1,586.97 Top 48W 120H 2pc Tagging: area 4 c ***** PluginPowerCenter w/Comm 95.71 Port Tagging: area 4 c SUBTOTAL AREA 4 EXECUTIVE SEATING ***** Carlton High Back Posture 578.76 Swivel, Classic Arms Tagging: area 4 e ***** New Yorker Lounge - Three 1,150.84 Seat Tagging: area 4 e 992 . 03 7,402 .21 921.40 2,551.73 1,586.97 95.71 5,155.81 578.76 1,150.84 PAGE 9 Agenda ~[tem JAN. 2 3 QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/00 SELL EXTENDED 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 1.00 2.00 3 00 4 00 7 00 2 00 2 00 8 O0 ***** New Yorker Lounge - One Seat Tagging: area 4 e SUBTOTAL AREA 4 SEATING ***** TRANSIT INTENSIVE TASK CHAIR W/ ADJUSTABLE ARMS Tagging: area 4 s ***** SAMU!R3~I #AC-63932, FIESTA #13 Tagging: area 4 s ***** Hunter Guest Chair, Upholstered Arm Taguzng: area 4 s ***** SAMURAI #AC-63932, FIESTA #13 Tagging: area 4 s ***** Liza Guest Chair, Horizontal Wood Slat Back Tagging: area 4 s ***** SAMURAI #AC-63932, FIESTA 013 Tagging: area 4 s ***** Contura Mid Back Swivel, Urethane Arms/Base Tagging: area 4 s 570.57 570.57 202 .44 42.07 343.98 42.07 301.56 42.07 2,300.17 404 88 126 21 1,375 92 294 49 603 12 84 14 377.58 3,020.64 PAGE 10 Agenda Ltem .o._LZO JAN Pg. ~_"~' _ L/I QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-00o~77 DATE: 12/14~ SELL EXTEND=_ 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 16.00 2.00 4 .00 4.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 ***~'* SAMURAI #AC-63932, FIESTA Tagging: area 4 s SUBTOTAL AREA 4 STORAGE ***** 5-Dr Steel La5 W/Steel Front 64-5/8H 42W 18D Tagging: area 4 s ***** 5-Dr Steel Lat W/Steel Front 64-5/8H 36W 18D Tagging: area 4 s ***** 3-Dr Steel Lat W/Wood Front 38-5/8H 42W 18-7/8D Tagging: area 4 s ***** 3-Dr Steel Lat W/Wood Front 38-5/8H 30W 18-7/8D Tagging: area 4 s SUBTOTAL AREA 4 SEC ***** Computer Crnr 42x42x29 Tagging: area 4 s ***** Return Full-Ht FF RH 24D 42W 29H Tagging: area 4 s ***** Return Full-Ht BBF LH 24D 48W 29H CONTINUED... PAGE 11 42.07 673.12 6,582.52 546.42 1,092.84 480.17 1, 920.68 640.21 2,560.84 538.53 1,077.06 6,651.42 680.25 1,360.50 660.45 1,320.90 671.70 1,343.40 JAN 2 3 2001 L7 1 QTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL PROPOSAL: 28191 PROJECT: 006-000277 DATE: 12/14/00 SELL EXTENDED 79 2 .00 Tagging: area 4 s ***** Keybd Arm Articulated for 24" and Deeper Applications Tagging: area 4 s SUBTOTAL PER STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT, SPACE PLANNING COST: $50.00 PER HOUR. PROJECT TOTAL OF 85 HOURS 106.34 212.68 4,237.48 PER STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION COST: 12% OF NET COST OF ALL ITEMS. $16,138.19 50% DEPOSIT REQUIRED AT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL. 40% DUE UPON DELIVERY. FINAL 10% DUE UPON COMPLETION. ATTACHED TERMS ACKNOWLEDGED. DEPOSIT REQUIRED: DEPOSIT PERCENT: 77,436.00 5O.OO % ~'--%UTHORIZED SIGNATURE: SUBTOTAL .... : DESIGN/OTHER: DEL/INSTALL.: 134,484.93 4,250.00 16,138.19 DATE ACCEPTED: FINAL PAGE 12 OF 12 EQTAL. i ,, ~ ¢4, 873 . 12 JAN 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE THE ATTACHED THREE (3) RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO EXPEDITE THE COUNTY'S LAND RIGHTS ACQUISITION PROGRAM FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2001 CHAIRMAN'S TENURE ONLY. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached three (3) Resolutions authorizing the Board of County Commissioners' Chairman to execute the appropriate documentation required to expedite the County's land rights acquisition program for the calendar year 2001 Chairman's tenure only. CONSIDERATION: On June 16, 1992 [BCC Agenda Item Number 8(E)(1)], the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolutions No. 92-342, No. 92-343 and No. 92-344. This act approved the processes and the typical schedules for the land rights acquisition phase of Capital Improvement Projects. Each year thereafter, the Board of County Commissioners approved certain recommended procedures which were intended to streamline the land rights acquisition process by the then current Chairman; e.g. by the adoption of Resolution No. 93-25, No. 93-26 and No. 93-27 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(E)(2) on January 26, 1993; by the adoption of Resolution No. 94-3, No. 94-4 and No. 94-5 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(E)(4) on January 4, 1994; by the adoption of Resolution No. 95-25, No. 95-26 and No. 95-27 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(E)(1) on January 3, 1995; by the adoption of Resolution No. 96-9, No. 96-10 and No. 96-11 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(D)(5) on January 9, 1996; by the adoption of Resolution No. 97-37, No. 97-38 and No. 97-39 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(D)(4) on January 14, 1997; by the adoption of Resolution No. 98-7, No. 98-8 and No. 98-9 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(D)(2) on January 13, 1998; by the adoption of Resolution No. 99-56, No. 99- 57 and No. 99-58 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(D)(3) on January 12, 1999; and by the adoption of Resolution No. 2000-22, No. 2000-23 and No. 2000-24 [BCC Agenda Item Number 16(D)(3) on January 25, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact on the planned budget as a result of this request. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: The recommendation is consistent with the County's long range planning effort. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached three (3) Resolutions authorizing the Board of County Commissioners' Chairman to execute the appropriate documentation required to expedite the County's land rights acquisition program for the calendar year 2001 Chairman's tenure only. Management Department (~h~ A. M~u ~rv~or, R~al P~opertyDATE: i- Charles E. Carrington, }J~., Dire[c~'~r, Real Property Management Department APPROVED BY: '~'~'~c..'~ o^'r~= Jo-Anne Varcoe-Leamer, Administrator, Support Se~ic~es Division AGENDA No. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL CONVEYANCES MADE TO COLLIER COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ALL CONVEYANCES MADE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, WHICH ARE HEREAFTER MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT REQUIREMENTS OF ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES AND AGREEMENTS OR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is the governing body of Collier 14 County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and in addition is ex-officio the Governing 15 Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Collier 16 County"); and 17 WHEREAS, various interests in real property must be conveyed to Collier County for 18 public use as a requirement of certain development commitments stipulated by Collier County 19 ordinances, in fulfillment of obligations which may now or in the future be contained in 20 agreements between Collier County and any legal entity, and as an integral part of capital 21 improvement projects; and 22 WHEREAS, the formal acceptance by Collier County of such required conveyances is 23 important in that infrastructure maintenance responsibilities are thereby established, and the 24 public right to utilize rights-of-way becomes documented through such acceptance; and 25 WHEREAS, the growth of the County necessitates an increasing number of such 26 conveyances year alter year; and 27 WHEREAS, the number of conveyances has caused County staff to bring an increasing 28 number of separate "acceptances" before the Board of County Commissioners via Executive 29 Sunumary and Resolution; and 30 WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the best interest of Collier County to reduce the staff 31 time and paperwork which is generated by the formalized acceptance process. 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all interests in real property which may be 33 conveyed either to Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, or to the Board 34 of County Commissioners as the governing body of Collier County, Florida, and as ex-officio the 35 Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, and which are conveyed to either 36 entity as a development commitment requirement pursuant to any County ordinance, or in 37 fulfillment of any obligation which may now or in the future be contained in any agreement 38 between Collier County and any other legal entity, or which are required as an indis~pensable 39 function during the completion of a capital project which has been ..........,.A ,-, .....~ ... 40 County Commissioners, are hereby accepted. / NO, I/.~.~ ~, l) Pa~e 1 pg., .... 41 AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that in ~rder to document the acceptance of any 42 such conveyance of an interest in real property to Collier County, the Clerk to the Board is 43 hereby authorized to affix to any such conveyance instrument, prior to recording in the Public 44 Records of Collier County, Florida, a stamp or seal attesting to acceptance on behalf of Collier 45 County. The Real Property Management Director, or her designee, shall provide written 46 notification to the Clerk of Court that the conveyance was required by the Board of County 47 Commissioners in fulfillment of an obligation on behalf of the conveying entity or to complete 48 project as approved. 49 50 AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the calendar year 2001 Chairman of the Board 51 of County Commissioners, or any subsequent Chairman, is hereby authorized to execute all 52 documents pertinent to the acceptance of any such conveyance or the clearing of the lien of any 53 encumbrance from any such conveyan[e. 54 AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is authorized to follow proper real estate 55 closing procedures and record all such documents in the Public Records of Collier County, 56 Florida. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED on this __ day of ,2001 after motion, second and majority vote. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk 3~ D. C3sRTI~, Ph.D., Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency. He, di I~. ~s~hton ~ Assistant County Attorney Page 2 AGENDA ITEM No. !to l') 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER 3 COUNTY, FLORIDA DECLARING THAT A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN REAL 4 PROPERTY IS THE PREFERRED INTEREST SOUGHT FOR THE ACQUISITION 5 OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 6 PROJECTS, AND SETTING FORTH THE RATIONALE THEREFORE. 7 8 WHEREAS, the construction of transportation improvements, as identified in the 9 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Collier County, shall in many instances 10 require the acquisition of a right-of-way by either gift, purchase or condemnation; and 11 WHEREAS, the right-of-way for transportation improvements may be purchased or 12 condenmed either as an easement over, under, upon and across the land; or the fee simple interest 13 in the land itself may be purchased or condemned; and 14 WHEREAS, full compensation, as required by the Constitution of the State of Florida, l S for the easement rights purchased or condemned for transportation improvements is tantamount 16 to the full compensation required for the purchase or condemnation of the fee simple estate in 17 property (between 90% and 100% of the fair market value of the lands so appropriated, ] 8 depending upon the property's zoning and the appraiser's judgment); and 19 WHEREAS, the purchase or condemnation of the full fee simple estate in lands required 2o for near term transportation improvements provides the County with a degree of control over the 21 right-of-way wh/ch is superior to the control afforded by an easement only, and which, in many 22 instances, may produce cost savings on future public works improvement projects by gaining the 23 maximum flexibility over the uses permitted in the right-of-way so acquired. 24 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 25 COMMISSIONERSOF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that in consideration of long range 26 planning and present day costs for transportation improvement projects, and in the interest of 27 exercising the maximum degree of control over the public road right-of-way which may allow 28 the County to realize substantial savings by locating future public works projects within the 29 acquired area, County staff is hereby directed to purchase or condemn road right-of-way in fee 3o simple as the preferred method of exercising maximum control over the right-of-way in order to 31 construct any anticipated capital improvement projects. Page 1 Pg. 32 AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that in those instances in which the purchase of a 33 full fee simple estate cannot be negotiated by County staff, and the costs associated with a 34 condenmation of the full fee simple estate may outweigh the future benefits contemplated by full 35 County ownership of the fight-of-way, and when the owner of the property is willing to convey a 36 perpetual, "non-exclusive", road right-of-way easement over, under, upon and across the 37 property in compliance with the requirements of the transportation improvements, along with the 38 right to construct and install subordinate utility and drainage improvements, together with access 39 and temporary construction easements, County staff may negotiate a reasonable settlement for 40 the purchase of said "non-exclusive" easement, subject to Board approval. 41 AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that, notwithstanding the future benefits to be 42 derived by the County arising from a fee simple acquisition of the public right-of-way, there 43 exists those circumstances where the severance damages to remaining lands, as a result of the 44 taking of the fee simple estate for the transportation project, is of such an extent as to warrant the 45 purchase or condemnation of a lesser estate in the form of an easement interest in order to 46 mitigate or eliminate such damages; and in such instances County staff is hereby directed to 47 undertake such analyses of future benefits vs. current costs as are relevant to the determination as 48 to the specific interest in real property the County should acquire for the instant project. TI-[IS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this __ day of ,2001, after motion, second and majority vote. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk By: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., Chairman Approved for form and legal sufficiency HeYdi F'. As'$1toh Assistant County Attorney Page 2 Pg' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES, DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CALENDAR YEAR 2001 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCIDENT TO PROPERTIES ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH CERTAIN ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO EXPEDITE SAID PROPERTY ACQUISITION, AND WAIVING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, the expeditious acquisition of property is of paramount importance to the timely completion of many capital improvement projects, and attaining infrastructure goals in accordance with the Capital Improvement Element of the County's Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, accomplishing the property acquisition and construction on or ahead of schedule shall require a properly coordinated team effort among the individual departments and agencies charged with overall responsibility for the projects, the Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department, the Public Utilities Engineering Department, the Real Property Management Department, the Office of the County Attorney, and the Board of County Commissioners, wherein certain routine processes require streamlining and abbreviation wherever possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognizes the importance of completing the various capital improveme. nts projects at the earliest possible time; and further, the Board recognizes the relationship of the project schedule to meeting the concurrency requirements of Collier County's Comprehensive Plan. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognizes the importance of the land rights acquisition function and its relationship to the overall project schedule; and the Board desires to facilitate and expedite the land rights acquisition process to the extent that it is empowered to do so by law. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the following measures are reasonably necessary for the efficient and expeditious management and completion of capital projects: 1. The Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 125.355, Florida Statutes, hereby formally waives the requirement for a formal, independent appraisal report for the purchase of a property where the purchase price of the parcel (th~ property owner) is less than One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollar, Pa~e 1 com~ensa. t, ion due to the AGENDA ITEM ($10~,0.00~. 1.n lieu of '7 38 the independent appraisal report, staff is hereby authorized to make purchase offers for the 39 properties, the dollar amounts of which shall be predicated on "staff compensation estimates", i.e., 4o based upon independent appraisals (and the data therefrom) obtained on similar properties and upon 41 consideration and application of appropriate market value and cost data pertinent to the subject 42 parcels. 43 2. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is hereby authorized to execute Appraisal 44 Agreements on behalf of the Board with appraisal firm(s) from the pre-qualified short-list which, 45 based upon the analysis and recommendation of staff, is (are) best able to serve the needs of the 46 project in a timely and cost-effective manner. 47 3. Upon the approval by the County Attorney's Office of all documents necessary for the subject 48 property acquisition, Real Property Management Department staff is hereby encouraged to offer 49 immediate delivery to the respective property owners of the full compensation (as established by the 5o appraisal or staff compensation estimates in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 125.355, 51 Florida Statutes), in return for the immediate and proper execution of the respective easements 52 and/or deeds, and such other legal documents and/or affidavits as the County Attorney's Office 53 deems appropriate in order to protect the interests of the County; and the Board of County 54 Commissioners hereby authorizes its Chairman and any subsequent Chairman, for the life of the 55 project, to execute any and all agreements and other legal instruments pertinent to such property 56 acquisition which have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. 57 4. In those instances where negotiated settlements may be obtained via the '*Purchase Agreement" 58 or "Easement Agreement" mechanism, the Transportation Administrator or the Utilities 59 Administrator, or their designee, is hereby delegated the authority to approve the purchase of land 60 interests above the staff compensation estimate or appraised value and pay normally related costs 61 when it is in the best interest of the project, within the pro-rata share of the land rights acquisition 62 budgct for the parcel being acquired, only when the difference between the purchase price and the 63 staff compensation estimate or appraised value is less than Twenty-Five Thousand and 00/100 ~4 Dollars ($25,000.00) or the current purchasing limits established by the Collier County Purchasing 65 Department; provided, Project funding is available. This settlement approval authority is delegated 66 by the Board of County Commissioners to the extent that such approvals do not conflict with the 67 provisions of Section 125.355, Florida Statutes. - Pa~e 2 Pg. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 5. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is hereby authorized to execute Purchase Agreements and Easement Agreements where the land owner has agreed to sell the required land rights to the County at their appraised value or at that amount considered the "Administrative Settlement Amount" as such term is internally used by the administrative agencies of Collier County. 6. Where the property owner agrees, by sworn affidavit or agreement ("Purchase Agreement" or "Easement Agreement"), to convey a necessary interest in real property to the County, and upon the proper execution by the property owner of those easements and/or deeds, and such other legal documents as the Office of the County Attorney may have required, the Board hereby authorizes 1) tbe County Attorney, or his designee, the authority to execute a closing statement on behalf of the Board, and 2) the Finance Department the authority to issue warrants payable to the property owner(s) of record in those amounts as shall be specified on a closing statement and which shall be based upon the appraisal or staff compensation estimate in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 125.355, Florida Statutes. 7. All title to properties which have been obtained in the manner described above shall be deemed "accepted" by the Board of County Commissioners, as the goveming body of Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and as such, staff is hereby authorized to record it in the public records of Collier County, Florida, said deeds and such other instruments as may be required to remove the lien of any encumbrance from the acquired property. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this majority vote. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk __day of ,2001 after motion, second and By: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JANES D. CARTER, Ph.D., Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Assistant County Attorney Page 3 AGENDA ITEM No-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVE CONTRACT WITH DMG MAXIMUS TO PERFORM PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION STUDY. OBJECTIVE: To ensure equal pay for equal work performed for all employees by comprehensively updating the County's current pay plan and position classification system. CONSIDERATIONS: On January 9, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners terminated the County's agreement with Arthur Andersen Consultants to provide pay and classification study services. That firm had previously completed the first phase of the agreement- a pay study for the Board and other constitutional agencies--the results of which are being implemented over a two-year period. The second phase of the agreement, a classification study for the County Manager agency still needs to be undertaken. The purpose of this phase is to comprehensively review the current pay plan to achieve internal equity among the various classifications. The approach will be a highly collaborative effort that will include direct input from each employee and their immediate supervisor regarding the employee's actual job duties. The consultant in turn will conduct a comprehensive analysis and provide recommendations to modify and update the current pay plan accordingly. The recommended consultant is presently under contract with Lee County Government to provide similar services. In order to enable this project to be completed in time for inclusion in the FY 02 budget, staff recommends waiver of the formal competitive process pursuant to section V.B.3 of the Board's purchasing policy. Further, staff requests board authorization for the County to enter into an agreement with DMG- Maximus under terms and conditions similar to that of the Lee County agreement, which was previously competitively procured by that agency. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the classification study, including expenses, will be $50,000. Funds for this project were appropriated in the Human Resources Department's Cost Center during the previous fiscal year and need to be re-appropriated via a budget amendment from General Fund Reserves. Additionally, staff would propose expanding the original scope of the project to have the consultant provide current and complete job descriptions. The cost of these services would be $100 per classification for an estimated 300+ job titles for a total estimate of $30,000. Also, staff would recommend the purchase of a maintenance software tool that enables County staff to maintain the pay plan internally in the future, at a cost of $5,000. The total recommended contract amount is $85,000. Funds for this contract will come from Support Services Division (General Fund) accrued salary savings in the amount of $42,500 and from General Fund Reserves in the amount of $42,500. A(~NDA ITEM No. !/_. ~_~P~ JAN 2 3 2001 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact resulting from this project. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners waive the formal competitive process; award a contract to DMG-Maximus to perform a position classification study; authorize the chairman to execute a County Attorney-approved agreement on behalf of the Board in an amount not to exceed $85,000 and approve the necessary budget ame~j?ents. SUBMITTED BY: k,/_.~-," )~z_ , · ~' ?/----r~--..~Date: / '"Georgetb. Bradley, REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: Human Resources Director Steve ~amell~, Purchasing/General Services Director Jo_Anne L~a '~mer,4~ Support Services Administrator I Date: I /i~ Date: A~NDA ITEM No. JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE MARKETING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT, INC. (COASTLAND CENTER) TO CONDUCT COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DAYS EVENT OBJECTIVE: Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a marketing license agreement with General Growth Management, Inc. (Coastland Center) for Collier County Government to use the Mall facilities to conduct the annual Government Days event. CONSIDERATIONS: During County Government Week, which occurs the third week in April, Collier County is planning to conduct an event promoting the services of local county government; the dates of the event are April 20th and 21% This is an exceptional opportunity for Collier County to provide information to residents and visitors of the community. In prior years, this event has been very successful and has had excellent staff participation. Coastland Center Management has provided the attached agreement for review and approval. The agreement has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and meets all County requirements. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. The facilities will be provided at no cost. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement with General Growth Management, Inc. for County use of the Coastland Center facilities for Collier County Government Days, April 20 and 21,2001. Attachment Sdbmitted by: Reviewed by: ,)'ean Merritt, Director Department of Public Information 'O-'/2e~VL c-~Lea met, Support Services Administrator A(~'~DA JAN 2 3 2001 MARKETING LICENSE AGREEMENT This license agreement made by and between General Growth Mana.qement, Inc. manaqinq owner for Coastland Center, L.P., owner of Coastland Center hereinafter called "Licensor~' and Collier County Government hereinafter called the "Licensee". WJtnesseth Whereas, the undersigned licensee is in the business of.qovernment and desires to use the facilities of the mall described herein; BASIC TERMS: The following terms shall have the following meanings through this agreement 1. Licensor: General Growth Management, Inc. 2. Address of Licensor: 110 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 3. Phone Number of Licensor: (312) 960-5000 4. Additional Insured Name: Coastland Center, L.P.; General Growth Management, Inc.; GGP Limited Partnership; General Growth Properties, Inc.; Coastland Center, Inc. 5._:.Licensee Contact Name: Jean Merritt 6~ Address of Licensee: 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 7_ Phone Number of Licensee: (941) 774-8011 FAX:.(941) 774-8588 EMAIL: jeanmerritt~_collie rlaov. net 8. Term: This License shall commence on April 20, 2001 at 8 am and terminate on April 21, 2001 at 11 pm 9. Premises: Coastland Center, 1900 N Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34102 (941) 262-7100 Event Site is JCPenney Court (near The Gap) 10. Fee Paid to Licensor: NIA Fee Paid to Licensee: NIA 11. LicensorAdvertising: NIA Licensee Advertising: Press release and flyers for Customer Service and mailroom 12. Type of Activity and Purpose: National County Government Week exhibit during all mall hours 13. Deposit Paid to Licensor: NIA Deposit Paid to Licensee: NIA 14. Additional Obligations of Licensor: To provide tables, skirting, chairs and electric as needed Additional Obligations of Licen~see: Animals are prohibited on Coasfiand Center premises. Vehicles are prohibited from inside Coastland Center. ~tJ ~ .~'5~..~_~/.~~-- Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, it is agi'eed between the undersigned as follows: B. PERMITTED USE: The premises herein shall be used solely for the non-exclusive purpose of as mentioned above in #12 and for no other purposes whatsoever. All set-up is to be done dudng non-business hours of the mall. Set-up will be allowed after mall hours on the day pdor to the show. Take down is to occur on the last day of the show, after mall hours. In the event mall management has an objection to an exhibit on the basis of merchandise, sales techniques or other valid reason, mall management will notify Licensee of its specific objection and Licensee will approach the exhibitor and take all necessary and proper steps to make the exhibit acceptable to Licensor. '" AGENDA ITi51~ JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. ~ C. CONSTRUCTION: Licensee has inspected the above named premises and accepts the same "as is" without any responsibility of Licensor to remodel or redecorate before and/or during Licensee's occupancy and without recourse to Licensor or the fee owner or ground lessor of the property. All work shall be at the sole cost and expense of Ucensee and shall be first approved by Licensor in wdting. Mall benches and planters shall not be moved by licensee or be used as part of the show. D. OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEE: · Licensee agrees to take good care of said premises, to permit no waste and suffer no injury to be done to the same, and to return possession of the said premises to the Licensor at the expiration of this Agreement, in as good condition as at the commencement thereof. · Licensee further agrees that it shall be responsible and liable for all goods or materials of any kind brought onto shopping center property and Licensor and the owner of the shopping center shall not be liable for any lost, stolen or damaged goods or materials of any kind. · Licensee a.qrees to provide, at Licensee's cost, any security day or niRht that is required apart from the standard security that is provided for the mall premises by the Licensor at LicensoFs cost. If Licensor provides security, Licensee shall be responsible for paying for any secudty officers needed. Licensee shall obtain Licensor approval pdor to event. · Licensee is responsible for any taxes and permits. · Licensee agrees to the following set up guidelines: -All electrical hook ups must be approved by mall management. -The fire lane between booths and stores/kiosks must meet mall codes. -All fire code regulations set up by the Licensor must be followed. · Licensee agrees to the following: -All exhibitors to have uniform displays and tables. -All exhibits will not exceed the mall code on height restrictions. -To provide a complete list of exhibitors and floor plan 14 days before the event_ -To provide an on-site coordinator responsible for set-up and tear down of the event. E. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED: The Licensee shall not assign nor sublet any portion of the premises without LicensoFs approval. Any assignment or sublease shall not relieve the Licensee from its liability for payment of rent hereunder or from any of its obligations hereunder and, in the event of any such assignment or sublease and the consent of Licensor thereto, the Licensee shall continue liable hereunder as if no such assignment or sublease had been made. F. INDEMNITY: ~; .......~'"" ""'~ '~';" "* '"f' ~ ~"u .....~ ...."~*~" !nde,,mnL~/, d~fcnd and C! ' pcrfc,.-m,,cnce c." cr,¥ -~':c~c,",t, cced~t!cr, cr =;rccmcnt hcrcL~ ccr. t.?.!ncd. F'.:'.'thc,.'m. crc, thc ..... C '.".',q .............................. , ...... h racy ......= AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 2 Pg. G. TERMINATION RIGHTS. READ CAREFULLY: Licensor reserves the absolute dght to cancel the event at anytime by giving 30 days written notice to Licensee. !n the event of cancellation, Licensee and its exhibitors shall have no claim against Licensor cr the Mall. LJcensor can cancel the show after the event has commenced in the event; a) Licensee commits a sedous violation of Licensor~s rules and restrictions; b) damage or destruction to the Mall which render the common areas unusable or uninhabitable; or c) Acts of God which render the common areas of the Mall unusable or uninhabitable. H. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. READ CAREFULLY: Licensee acknowledges that the failure to perform its obligations under this License will result in damages to Licensor and the shopping center which are substantial but not easily quantified. In the event that Licensee breaches this License Agreement, Licensee agrees to pay Licensor as liquidated damages, and not a penalty, the total amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the fee and 100% of the Licensor's contribution toward advertising. I. INSURANCE: I~icensee agrees pdor to entering onto the demised premises to furnish to Licensor a certificate of insurance evidencing Commercial General Liability Insurance on an occurrence basis with minimum limits of One Million Dollare ($1,000,000) per occurrence and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) aggregate (Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) in California and New York). Said insurance to be issued by a company with a general policy holder's rating of not less than A+ and a financial rating of not less than Class VI as rated in the most current "Best's Insurance Reports", and licensed to do business where the Shopping Center is located and authorized to issue such policy. Said certificate shall contain an endorsement naming the owner of the center and General Growth Management, Inc., and their affiliates as additional insureds, and shall also provide that in case of cancellation or termination of said insurance policy, Licensor shall first be given a thu':y (30) day wdtten notice by said insurance company. This license is of no force or effect until Licensor receives a copy of said certificate of insurance. J. RIGHTS CUMULATIVE: The rights and remedies herein created are cumulative and the use of one remedy shall not be taken to exclude or waive the dght to the use of another. The acceptance of rent, hereunder, after it falls due, whether in a single instance or repeatedly or one or more waivers of any covenants, conditions or agreements herein contained shall not be construed as a waiver of a further breach of the same covenant or condition or agreement. K. NOTICES: Except for relocation, all notices required under this License shall be in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to the Licensor~s address or to the Licensee's address. L. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS: To the .qreatest extent allowed by law, the LJcensee shall p_~y all costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Licensor in enforcing the provisions of this License. M. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This License contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto, at the time of commencement of this License. The parties hereto agree that the execution of this License has not been induced by any promises or un~lerstanding or representation not expressed herein and that there are no collateral agreements between them dealing with the subject matter of this instrument. N. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CLAUSE: The relationship of Licensee to Licensor is that of an independent contractor, and all personnel engaged by Licensee shall be employees of Licensee and not employees of Licensor notwithstanding the Licensor~s right to request that any involved individuals immediately leave said premises and nothing herein contained shall be construed or implied as creating the relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between the parties except as set forth in this parag~c~.~. AGENDA ITEM / No. !/,~~-'~. / JAN 2 3 2001 O. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: The Licensee agrees in the performance of this contract to observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and local rules, regulations and laws, including, but not limited to, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and further agrees to observe and comply with all Rules and Regulations of said Shopping Center, and to indemnify and hold Licensor harmless from and against any claims for failure to comply with this provision. P. DELIVERY: This Agreement shall not be effective until a fully execu{ed counterpart is delivered to Licensee and in no event shall Licensee occupy the demised premises until this License has been fully executed and delivered to both Licensor and Licensee. Q. COUNTERPARTS: Licensor and Licensee acknowledge that this Agreement has been or may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an odginal and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. R. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: Licensor and Licensee acknowledge and agree that if an Addendum, Rider ~r Exhibit is attached hereto by Licensor and the same is signed by the parties hereto, then the same shall be deemed incorporated herein by reference, provided, however, that if such Addendum, Rider or Exhibit is attached hereto by the Licensee then the pdnted provisions of this License Agreement shall be deemed paramount and supedor to any such Addendum, Rider or Exhibit and such Addendum, Rider or Exhibit shall be deemed void and of no force and effect. L!CENSEE: Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida LICENSOR: GENERAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT, INC. BY: Chairman BY: Mark Gianquitti DATE: ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk BY: As to Chairman's Signature Only DATED: (SEAL) TITLE: DATE: Marketing Director Assistant C~ounty Attorney AGENDA ITEM No._ !C,- JAN 2 3 2001 10. 11. RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR COASTLAND CENTER COMMUNITY EXHIBITORS Every user of the Center will conduct themselves in an orderly fashion and with due respect for the property and other rights of others. Any person who breaches this rule, and endangers the welfare of other persons or property in the Center, or interferes with the pdmary use of Coastland Center, will be directed and agrees as a condition of use, to leave the Center at once. Posted signs shall be allowed only at exhibit areas, as specifically approved by Grantor. No nails, screw-in hooks, or thumbtacks are permitted on any Center surfaces. No other signs, banners, placards, displays, devices, or decorations may be used unless specifically authorized by Grantor. Absolutely no signs are permiRed to be attached to Coastland Center extedor or intedor premises such as walls, rails, columns, etc. Signs must be attached to an exhibit, in sign holders, or on easels. Signs must be professionally printed. No handwritten signs permitted. Size of signs to be approved by Grantor (normal maximum size 22" x 28"), based on probable effect of sign content on the Center's pdmary purpose. No decorations will be authorized unless they are stdctly temporary, easily removed, and in keeping with the decor of the Center. No display, visual aid, or other device having movable parts that might expose the public to some danger will be approved. No balloons will be allowed in the Center. No person shall block, obstruct, or interfere with pedestrian traffic, the ingress and egress to and from businesses, or the visibility of windows or other displays of businesses located in the Center. There must be 10 feet between exhibitor and storefront. No person shall obstruct the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the Center, parking lot or sidewalk. Unloading for exhibit set-up purposes will take place at designated entrances approved by Grantor. All unloading and loading must be accomplished as rapidly as possible and the curb left clear. All set-ups must comply with all state and county code regulations and are subject to the Fire Marshall's approval. Exhibitor's vehicles shall not park in loading zones next to the curb prior to 9:15 p.m. and all handicapped ramps must be kept clear of parked vehicles. Exhibitors must not park in fire lanes next to the curb at any time. No vehicles will be allowed to park and unload in front of Center entrance doors (on brick). Cargo doors will not be opened until Security Watch Supervisor has determined that it is safe to do so. Set-up of the Show will be allowed only after the Center closes on the evening before the Show starts. No exhibitor will be allowed to set-up the moming of the Show without pdor written approval from Grantor. Exhibitors not prepared to conduct business by 9:30 a.m. the day of the Show will forfeit their participation. Exhibitors will not permit any rubbish or refuse emanating from the Premises to accumulate in the mall concourse area. No storage cartons or cardboard boxes are to be in view. Trash shall be disposed in the trash compactors located on the attached map. Exhibitors will not be permitted to pla~, any musical instrument, radio, television, or use a microphone or loud speaker in the premises without prior written approval from Grantor. The use of a television in conjunction with a VCR will be allowed where this equipment is necessary for the presentation of product and/or service irfforma~.ion only. The audio level shall be set so as not to interfere with adjacent exhibits and businesses nor to be offensive to shoppers. Content must be approved by Grantor. Exhibitors shall secure and be responsible for display at the close of business, Grantor assumes no liability for merchandise, display, or possessions. Take down will be allowed only after the Center closes on the last day of the show. The use of extension cords shall be kept to a minimum. If used, extension cords, shall be heavy-duty type (1413 AWG minimum, typically orange), no longer than '12 feet in length. No cords will be allowed in the path of pedestrian traffic. No clear, packaging tape (Scotch variety) or duct tape (any variety) will be allowed. Extension cords, tape, rubber mats will NOT be provided by the Center. Exhibitor shall make a special attempt to have all cords covered completely by the display by insuring that all cords are covered by the exhibit itself. No uncovered cords will be allowed. _ 12. 13. !4.. 16. 17. 18. Exhibitors and/or agents thereof shall display only those items that have been previously approved by Grantor. Grantor reserves the dght to request removal of any non-conforming items. All shows must start on time. Exhibitors shall no__.Jt distribute any adhesive backed specialty materials. All exhibits and items shall be in good taste, of high quality and shall be provided and continuously maintained by the exhibitors or their agents in a manner acceptable to Grantor. Height of any exhibit shall be subject to the approval by Grantor not to exceed 7 feet in height. Exhibits shall be arranged so as not to obstruct the walkway or view from one merchant's store or another, or otherwise placed in an unfavorable position. Grantor reserves the right to move or remove any non-conforming exhibits. The backs of all exhibits must maintain a finished appearance. NO materials or items that may be considered pornographic, sexually explicit, religiously or politically motivated, or~iolent in nature will be allowed on Center property. Any exhibitor displaying such materials may be requested to discontinue its participation in the Show and to remove its exhibit, items and materials from the Center at any time dudng the Show. No combustible goods, merchandise, or decorations shall be displayed or stored in any manner unless approved by Collier County Fire Marshall's Bureau. Highly flammable materials such as cotton batting, straw, dry vines, leaves, trees, "Tyvek" paper, and foam plastic materials shall not be used for decorative purposes unless they are first rendered flame resistant. The use of compressed gas tanks is strictly prohibited. An unobstructed exit access shall be maintained on each side of the Center floor area of not less than 10 feet in clear width, parallel and adjacent to storefronts, temporary tenants and floor directories. Such exit access shall lead directly to an exit door and provide unobstructed exit access from each tenant store. Also, all cross aisles throughout the Center shall remain clear and unobstructed at all times. An approved floor plan for use dudrig exhibits is available upon execution of the Agreement. Final approval rests with the Fire Prevention Bureau for all exhibits and demonstrations. Hand carts, dollies, or flat beds are not provided by the Center for set-up and takedown of events. Said items used must be equipped with rubber wheels. Any carts with steel wheels will be prohibited. No alcoholic beverages will be consumed on mall property at any time prior to, dudng or after a Show, unless restaurant or food courts customers. have reviewed the preceding and agree to adhere to all the conditions listed: Exhibitor Signature Date General Growth Properties, Inc. Date 2 I" ' AGENDAITE~M No. ~, ~-- '~_._ JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND SALES TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY AVATAR PROPERTIES INC. (AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1983), BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2001 CALENDAR YEAR. OBJECTIVE: Approval of a Resolution authorizing the execution of Purchase Agreements and Statutory Deeds for the G.A.C. Land Sales Trust conveyed to Collier County by Avatar Properties Inc. (Agreement dated November 15, 1983), by the Chairman of the Board, for the 2001 calendar year. CONSIDERATION: On November 15, 1983 Avatar Properties Inc., f/k/a G.A.C. Properties Inc., and Collier County entered into an Agreement to convey 1,061.5 acres of property in Golden Gate Estates to Collier County. Said Agreement was recorded in O.R. Book 1051, Page 492. Since the acceptance of the aforementioned Agreement by the Board of County Commissioners, the Real Property Management Department has conducted land sales transactions under said Agreement. Prior to the actual closing for each property sold, the Real Estate Sales Purchase Agreement and Statutory Deed is reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, the Finance Department, and then executed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Each year, since 1989, a Resolution has been presented to the Board of County Commissioners requesting approval by the Board allowing the then present Chairman of the Board to execute the Real Estates Sales Purchase Agreement and Statutory Deed during the current Chairman's tenure. Previous Resolutions which have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners include Resolution No's. 89-253, 90-23, 91-109, 92-47, 93-48, 94-7, 95-35, 96-8, 96-309 (Amended), 97-41, 98-10, 99-60 and 2000-21. FISCAL IMPACT: All proceeds from the lot sales are deposited in the G.A.C. Land Sales Trust Fund 605- GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no impact on the County's long range planning effort. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolution authorizing the execution of approved Purchase Agreements and Statutory Deeds for the G.A.C. Land Sales Trust by the Chairman of the Board, for the 2001 calendar year. '~rl~s E. Carnngton, Jr., ~rlrector, 'e~y ' DATE: anagement Department eal Property Management Depart~entr APPROVED BY: ~/~ DATE: Jo-Anne Varcoe-Leamer, Administrator, Support Services Division AGENDA ITEM. No,- IG E=(L/) pg._ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND TRUST PROPERTY BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 200~ CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida entered into an agreement with Avatar Properties Inc. on November 15, 1983 to accept as Trustee 1,061.5 acres of real property in Golden Gate Estates for the purpose of sale to the public; and WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida accepted the acreage in phases: Phase I on November 15, 1983, Phase II and III on February 16, 1988 and Phase IV and V on June 13, 1989; such conveyances have been recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 1988, and March 10, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved the marketing procedures for the sale of the Golden Gate Estates property conveyed by Avatar Properties Inc. Thereupon the Real Property Management Department has been actively marketing the property (Phases I through V) for sale to the general public; and WHEREAS, there is a benefit to the County and to the public if the administrative procedures concerning the Real Estate Sales Agreement documents and Statutory Deeds are expedited, while maintaining the safeguards of staff and legal counsel review of such documents; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefit of reducing time for Board approvals and the subsequent closing process on reviewed and approved Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds. NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds resulting from the Agreement dated November 15, 1983 and the County's administration of such Agreement, whereupon the Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds have been previously approved by the Real Property Management Department, the Finance Department and the County Attorney. 2. The authorization of the Chairman to execute Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds hereunder shall extend solely for the 2001 calendar year. This Resolution adopted this __ second and majority vote. day of ,2001, after motion, ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: BY: Deputy Clerk JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., Chairman Approved as to form and HeTdi FTAsh~on Assistant County Attorney AGENDA ...... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR DEED TO RIGHT OF INTERMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF BURIAL LOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY, FOR THE 2001 CALENDAR YEAR. OBJECTIVE: Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the purchase of burial lots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, for the 2001 calendar year. CONSIDERATION: On December 15, 1964, Collier County acquired a twenty (20) acre vacant parcel of land located in Immokalee for use as a cemetery, more commonly known as Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens. The Board adopted a policy on July 27, 1982, governing the rights of interment, administration, maintenance and development of the cemetery including the disposition of indigent deceased. On September 22, 1987, the Board adopted a revised Policy for the operation of the cemetery. On May 1, 1990, the Board adopted a Resolution clearly defining the rules and regulations which govern the administration and development of the cemetery. The Real Property Management Department is responsible for preparing Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment when there is a request to purchase burial lots at the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery. More specifically, a Deed is prepared for the immediate use of burial lots and an Agreement for Deed to Right of Interment is prepared for the future use of burials lots. The appropriate documents are then reviewed by the County Attorney's Office prior to the Chairman's execution and recordation in the Public Records. The payments for said lots are forwarded to the Finance Department for deposit into the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery account. In the past, the Deeds and/or Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment have been presented to the Board on a monthly basis for Board approval under the Consent Agenda. However, in order to expedite the acquisition process and to relieve the Commissioners of reviewing format documents, it is recommended that the Chairman execute those Deeds and/or Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment as they are prepared and transmitted by memorandum. In 1992, Resolution No. 92-97 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners requesting approval by the Board allowing the then present Chairman of the Board to execute the Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment during the current Chairman's tenure. Resolutions were approved in 1993, Resolution 93-49; in 1994, Resolution No. 94-2; in 1995, Resolution No. 95-33; in 1996, Resolution No. 96-7; in 1997, Resolution No. 97-40; in 1998, Resolution No. 98-11;in 1999, Resolution No. 99-59; and in 2000, Resolution No. 2000-20 also for this purpose. FISCAL IMPACT: All proceeds from the lot sales are deposited in the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens account 001-122370-364100. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: There is no impact on the County's long range planning effort. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and accept the attached Resolution authorizing the Chairman to execute the Deeds and the Agreements for Dee~l to Right of Interment for Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, for the 2001 calendar year. AGE..C ,,-~L't'~M No. f~ Cl~a'(les E. Carringt-o~, Jr., Diretot, Re~al Property Management Department APPROVED BY: ~ DATE: ///0/(~/ Jo-Anne Varcoe~Leamer, Administrator, Support Services Division/ / AGENDA ITEM No. r/~-~ (-~-_.% 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 74 76 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER, COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR THE LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY, BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2001 CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, Collier County acquired a twenty (20) acre site by Warranty Deed dated December 15, 1964 from J.C. Turner Lumber Company and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County in O.R. Book 180, Page 773 on December 21, 1964, for use as a public cemetery known as the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 82-105 on July 27, 1982, which governs the rights of interment, administration, maintenance and development of the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, said policy including the disposition of indigent deceased; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 87-224 on September 22, 1987, which revises Resolution No. 82-105 regarding the operation of the cemetery; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 90-214 on April 17, 1990, which reserves a section in the Veterans Section for the purpose of providing a memorial; and WHEREAS, the Board adopted Resolution No. 90-242 on May 1, 1990, which revises the rules and regulations which govern the administration and development of the cemetery; and WHEREAS, there is a benefit to the County and to the public if the administrative procedures concerning Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery are expedited, while maintaining the safeguards of staff and legal counsel review of such documents; and WH EREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefit of reducing time for Board approval on reviewed and approved Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County CommissJoners does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, pursuant to Resolution No. 90-242 dated May 1, 1990, and the County's administration of that Resolution, whereupon the Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment have been previously reviewed and approved by the Real Property Management Department and the County Attorney's Office. The authorization of the Chairman to execute the Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery hereunder shall extend solely for the 2001 calendar year. This Resolution adopted this __ day of majority vote. ,2001, after motion, second and ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BY: , Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: $AYIP_,S D. ~ Ph.D.~ Chairman Approved as to form and le~ffi~_~ncy: ~_ .~~' Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney Pg. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY ~MMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR THE 2001 ~ALENDAR YEAR. OBJECTIVE: Approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to execute Limited Use License Agreements for the 2001 calendar year. CONSIDERATION: On April 16, 1991, January 14, 1992, January 12, 1993, January 4, 1994, January 10, 1995, January 9, 1996, January 14, 1997 and January 13, 1998, the Board approved Resolution No. 91-307, Resolution No. 92-12, Resolution No. 93-9, Resolution No. 94-6, Resolution No. 95-34, Resolution No. 96-12, Resolution No. 97-36, Resolution No. 98-6, Resolution No. 99-55 and Resolution No. 00-25 respectively, authorizing the Chairman of the Board, for the Chairman's tenure only, to execute specific Limited Use License Agreements (Agreements) for events held on County-owned property. The Agreements requested on a regular basis for these special events are listed below. These Agreements shall be the only Agreements submitted to the Board's Chairman for execution by way of memorandum under the same terms and conditions contained in the Agreements submitted for the previous year. The properties utilized for these special events include, but are not limited to, the Old Marco Island Library parking lot, the vacant area east of the Animal Control facility, the vacant property located west of the Golden Gate community Center, referred to as Tract 115, and the Government Center. All other Agreements shall be presented to the ~[0ard for approval via an Executive Summary. Golden Gate Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc. - Golden Gate Festival and Annual Arts and Crafts Show Golden Gate Rotary Club - Christmas Tree Sales The Art League of Marco Island, Inc. - Arts and Crafts Shows - Old Marco Island Library Supervisor of Elections of Collier County, Florida - Voter Access Golden Gate Fraternal Order of Eagles - Annual Taste of Golden Gate Amateur Radio Association of Southwest Florida - Field Day - Manatee Festival - East Naples Civic Association - Annual Fun Skate - David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. - Cool Cruisers of Naples, Inc. - Scholarship Fund Raiser - Octagon Sequence of Eight, Inc. - Arts and Crafts Shows /"'"'qt. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. - Event Parking - ~Naples Italian American Club, Inc. - Event Parking AGENDA ITEM No. Pg .... An Agreement represents a license for short-term use, six (6) months or less, of County-owned property for a '"" eific purpose. An Agreement does not convey an estate in said property or create any leasehold interest .,atsoever. The Real Property Management Department prepares an average of thirteen (13) such Agreements per year. From the time a request for an Agreement is submitted to the Real Property Management Department until presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, the minimum time lapsed is approximately four (4) weeks. Due to the time lapse to process an Agreement, the Real Property Management Department is requesting that the Board authorize its Chairman to execute, during the 2001 calendar year only, the above-mentioned Agreements as they are prepared by the Real Property Management Department. The County Attorney's Office will review any proposed Agreements to determine if its use is appropriate, prior to submitting to the Chairman for execution. The Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Client Department, the Risk Management Department and the County Attorney's Office. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Agreement stipulates that the County is to receive monetary consideration for use of the County's property, said money shall be deposited into the appropriate account. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve a Resolution authorizing the execution of Limited Use License Agreements for special events on County-owned property by the Chairman of Board, for the 2001 calendar year. SUBMITTED BY:,/-]-,)(..z,.cq ¢ C_ ,.:'~ ~'/.~-% DATE: / l~chael H. Dowling, Senior ~peclahst,.lgeal Property Management Department [2ffai:l-e~ ~2arringt~n[ Dire~t'or~ Real'l~roperty Management Department APPROVED BY: ~/~'~ DATE: Jo-Anne Varcoe-Leamer, Administrator, Administrative Services Division "AG E ,N.DA,...[T,E ~/I Noo~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 RESOLUTION NO. 01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2001 CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, there is a benefit to the County and to the public if the administrative procedures concerning Limited Use License Agreements are expedited, while maintaining the safeguards of staff and legal counsel review of such Agreements; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefit of reducing time for Board approval on reviewed and approved Limited Use License Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Limited Use Agreements, for those special events listed below, following approval by the Real Property Management Department, the Client-Department, the Risk Management Department and the County Attorney's Office. - Golden Gate Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (Golden Gate Festival and Annual Art Show) - Golden Gate Rotary Club (Christmas Tree Sales & Bass Tournament) - The Art League of Marco Island, Inc. (Art and Craft Shows) - Supervisor of Elections of Collier County, Florida (Voter Access) - Golden Gate Fraternal Order of Eagles (Annual Taste of Golden Gate) - Amateur Radio Association of Southwest Florida (Field Day Activities) - East Naples Civic Association (Manatee Festival) - David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. (Annual Fun Skate) - Cool Cruisers of Naples, Inc. (Scholarship Fund Raiser) - Octagon Sequence of Eight, Inc. (Arts and Crafts Show) - St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. (Event Parking) - Naples Italian American Club, Inc. (Event Parking) 2. The authorization of the Chairman to execute Limited Use License Agreements hereunder shall extend only for the 2001 calendar year. This Resolution adopted this __ day of ,2001, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: , Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Thomas C. ~'affner ~ Assistant County Attorney AGENDA ITEM No.~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD APPROVAL OF STATE OF FLORIDA EMS MATCHING GRANT APPLICATIONS OBJECTIVE: Board approval of State of Florida EMS Matching Grant Applications. CONSIDERATIONS: The State of Florida established the EMS matching grant program to assist organizations in the improvements and expansion of EMS services. If the grant projects are approved, the State Bureau of Emergency Medical Services will provide seventy-five percent (75%) funding of the total project cost. The grant recipients would provide the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the project cost. Submission of a matching grant application in no way obligates the county to budget the twenty-five percent (25%) grant contribution. If the County chooses not to fund the grant, the county's sole obligation would be to return the State monies in addition to any accured interest. Matching Grant Applications have been written for the purchase of equipment and training classes to mitigate hazardous emergency scenes and purchase of Vehicle Navigation & Information System Units that will provide EMS Paramedics and Paramedic/Firefighters specific street directions to 911 call locations. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding source for the EMS grant match if selected and approved by the State, would be EMS Reserves. The first grant for equipment and training classes of $151,288 would require matching funds of $37,822. The secound grant for the purchase and installation of Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Units of $120,000 would require matching funds of $30,000. Total matching funds for both grants is $67,822. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. I RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the matching grant applications and authorize the EMS Department to recognize carry forward and accured interest earned in the grant funds through a budget amendment. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Therese Ortengren, (~n~mander ---- E'n~gency Medical ~S'~vices Department ' Date: { Diane BFlhgg, Chief ~ 'l Emergency Medical Seroices Depa~ment APPROVED BY: ~ ~~ Date:///,~//~ / Thomas Storrar, Administrator Emergency Services Division AGENDA ITEM No .... ~ t pg. ~-' FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMS MATCHING GRANT APPL/CA T/ON (BEM$ ID. Code) Total Grant Amount $1 5 ! , 2 8 8 BCC or ENIS Organization Authorized Official Title Mailing Address · Collier County Board of ~ountv Ccmmi=sicn=-= James D. Car%or, Ph.D., Chairman Chairman 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples State Zip Telephone Email Address Florida 34112 County: Collier :( 94!)774-8393 (SO): Contact Person Therese Ortencren Title Commander Mailing Address 3301 E. Tamiami Trail City Naoles State Florida Zip 34112 Telephone :( 94!}774-8459 5mailAddress (8C):, Legal Status of EMS Organization (Check only one response). (1) [] Private Not For-Profit (attach copy of iRS's 501(c)(3/ letter or other iegal Cocumentation of this status) (2) []Private For-Profit (4) [] City/Municipality (3) []County (5) [] State Federal Tax ID Number: VF 5 9 (5 0 0 0 5 5 8 Medical Director / hereby affirm my authority and responsibiliO/for the use of all medical equipment and continuing education in this activity. Robert B. ToberrMD FACEP ME003089! Printed Name and FL Medical License No. DH Form 1767, Effective Jan.99, Revised Feb.99 Date: A~F.~..N DA iTF_M No, ,~ - ,,~'~ JAN 23 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION A 12 POINT FONT MUST BE USED OR LEGIBLE HAND PRINTING State Plan: Brief synopsis and relationship to state plan goat, if applicable. This gant will provide for the establislzrnent of the Collier-County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department's Special Operations Section. This Section will provide comprehensive fire-gound rehabilitation and medical hazardous materiMs service to citizens and emergency services personnel in Collier County. EMS STATE PLAN GOAL-EMS RESPONSE: The purpose of this gant is to provide a coordinated level of medical intervention during fires, hazardous materials incidents and terrorism incidents in Collier County making it of the highest quality consistent with NFPA standards. EMS STATE PLAN GOAL -HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR PERSONNEL: - Improving health and safety of EMT's, Firefighters, Paramedic's, and Paramedic/Firefighters is one of our highest priorities. The Section will establish a mechanism for the provision of. quality medical care and rehabilitation services to firefighters,_ Paramedic/Firefighters, Sheriffs Deputies, and other-emergency service personnel operating on emergency scenes including fires, hazardous materials, and incidents involving nuclear, chemical and biological agents. Project Description/Justification: This is the NEED STATEMENT. Describe and justify the project. Include: (1) all numerical data, time frames for the data, data source; (2) number of people directly impacted by the grant(s); (3) whether the project will serve single municipality, county, multicounty, or regional area: and, (4) whether the project will coordinate with other EMS organizations. This ~ant request provides.for the purchase of medical/rescue equipment, pagers for incident notification. and standardized training of personnel in order to establish the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department Special Operations Section. The Sections' operational capability will include a full medical fu:e- --~n-ound rehabilitation system and Hamat Response Plan in accordance with the Collier County. Medical h-ector's protocol and NFPA standards. The medical hazardous materials response component will be complete with equipment and trained personnel to perform on scene medical research, pre-entry and post entry medical surveillance, and free medical decontamination. It will also provide the foundation for response to acts of terrorism involving chemical, biological and nuclear agents. The Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department is the only licensed provider of basic and advanced emergency medical care in Collier Count,. As the licensed EMS provider, NFPA 472, NFPA 1500 and OSHA 1910.120 as well as the Collier County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and Regional Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan require the licensed EMS provider to make these services available. Collier County has 63 miles of Interstate highway that serves as a major north/south thoroughfare for many types and classes of hazardous materials. Collier County has multiple sites where hazardous materials are stored including a large agriculture communi~ with large amounts of pesticides and herbicides. Of those, 65 sites are classified as Extremely Hazardous Sites. (Sta!e o£ Fiorida, Department of Community Affairs Attachment B, Section 302 listing). During 1999, National Fire Incident Reports (NIFRS) and EMS Department run reports show that Collier County Fire Districts and EMS Department responded to 1,996 fires and hazardous condition calls. Additionally, in April of 2000, 15.500 acres of property burned in Collier County. There were approximately 200 firefighters and Paramedic/fu-efighters per day over a six-day period that required fire g-round rehabilitation. This gant will directly impact approximately 2000 emergency servi,,:e personnel in Collier County. These persormel are members of the Collier Countv Emergency Medical S ervices Department, Collier County Sheriffs Office, nhne fire districts, and the State of Florida Divisi'~,~ of Forestry. Community members directly impacted would be anyone involved with the manufacture and traxx,;portation of hazardous materials and farm workers as well as the general population who may fall victim to a terrorist inc/dent. This Section will be available for mutual aid and deployment as a resource for the State of Florida Emergency Operations Center 4/or at the request of surrounding counties. . AI3F..NDk ITEM JAN 2 3 20"'ol 8. Outcome measurable: Degree to which need will be met or :hanged. Perso'mnel will be trained in the courses of Incident Management, EMS/Hazmat Responder I and EMS/Hazmat Responder II as recommended by State Emergency Response Committee, NFPA standards and OSHA standards. Additionally, the medical protocol will be revised to include a fire pound reh~fsilitation propam and medical hazardous material propam. Equipment will be purchased to perform these advanced procedures and techniques. Responses of the EMS Special Response Section will be tracked on the departments data collection system. 9. Work activities and time frames: Indicate procedure for delivery of project. All equipment will be purchased within sLx months of the pant award. All training will be completed and protocols hnplemented within ten months of the gant award. A(3F_.NbA ITEI~I" CATEGORIES Expenaitures Training EMS/Hazmat Responder I ,'0employees ~ 24hrs) EMS/Hazmat Responder II (40 employees ~ i6hrs Incident Command (76 employees % 16hrs The training classes will be to off- duty personnel Department members. t The funds for traini~c~ are t.d com~en at personnel for mandat~y atte~danc~ con=istent with Fair Labor c~andards Act (FLSA). TOTALEXPENDITURES APPLICANT MATCH STATE FUNDS 42,840 Equipment Airshe!t~r !2x17 Cool mist fan Pagers Portable generator SCBA Tripod Lights Vests Command Center Gther operating equirment 14,280 7,680 2,560 4,992 21,832 2,250 1,250 3,000 750 2,300 925 275 740 4,500 14,976 65,496 TOTAL TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS GRAND TOTAL 990 $ 37,822 25 Percent 57,120 !0,240 19,968 27 87,328 $ 6,750! 9,000 3,750! 5,000 9,000i !2,000 2,250! 3,000 5,900 9,200 2,775i 3,700 825 1,!00 2,220 2,960 13,500 18,000 ~ 47, o70 ~i13,466 : 75 Percent $ 63,960 $ 1=1,288 TqTAL-AI3ENDA ITEI~ ...... / No. , r - ~"" I ' ' IL,~-t"- t ,,Pg'- - ~ FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMS MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM Item 11 REQUEST for ADVANCE PAYMENT (Governmental Agency and Not-for-Profit Entity Only) In accordance with the provisions of Section 401.113(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the undersigned hereby requests an EMS matching grant distribution (advance payment) for the improvement, expans on and . continuation of prehospitat EMS. Remit Payment To: Name of EMS Organization Address Cbllier County EMS Department -'- 330! E. Tamiami Trail Building H City Nao!es State FL ZIP 34112 ~ Authorized Official I Signature Approved for form and legal suffi6iency with respect to James D. Carter, Ph.D.. Col 1 ier County Type Name and Title n and return this page with your application to: ~. j~;:S~,.~oun?,~ At..~qrtte.,~ Florida Department of Health BEMS Matching Grant Program 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin Tallahassee, Florida 32399-~738 Date Do not write below this line. For use by BEMS personnel only Matching Grant Amount For State To Pay: $. Approved By Grant ID. Code:M Signature & Title of BEMS Grant Officer State Fiscal Year: - .O_rqanization CodeE.O~ Obiect Code 64-25-60-00-000 NZ 7 Federal Tax ID: VF DH Form 17671=, Effective Jan. 99, Revised Feb.99 28 Date A(~ENDA ITEM ASSURANCES Item 12 PAYMENT FOR GRANT PROJECT: The grantee certifies, understands and accepts that due to state cash flow and activity priorities, the grantee may not receive payment from the state for this activity until several months after announcement of awards. The work activity time frames will be adjusted based on the date payment is received, except the ending date of the grant will remain as specified in the Notice of Grant Award letter. STATEMENT OF CASH COMMITMENT: The grantee certifies that the cash match will be expended between the beginning and ending dates of the grant and will be used in strict accordance with the content of the application and approved budget for this activity. No costs count towards satisfying a matching requirement of a department grant if also used to satisfy a matching requirement of another state or federal grant. Cash, salaries, fringe benefits, expenses, equipment, and other expenses as listed in this application shall be committed and used for the department's final approved activity during the grant period. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The grantee accepts the grant terms and conditions in the "Florida EMS Matching Grant Program Application Manual", and acknowledges this when funds are drawn or otherwise obtained from the grant payment system. DISCLAIMER: The grantee certifies that the facts and information contained in this application and any attached documents are true and correct. A violation of this requirement may result in revocation of the grant, return of all funds and interest to the department and any other remedy provided by law. NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS: The grantee understands and accepts that the notice of award will be advertised in the FAW, and that 21 days after this advertisement the grantee waives any right to challenge or protest pursuant to chapter 120, F.S. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION: The grantee agrees that any improvement, expansion or other effect brought about in whole or part by grant funds, will be maintained for five years after the activity ends, untess specified otherwise in the approved application or unless the department agrees in writing to allow a change. Any unauthorized change within the five years will necessitate the return of grant funds, plus interest. SIGNATURE Of AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL (IndiviCual Idemified in Item TITLE DH Form 1767A, Effective Jan.99, Revised Feb. 99 DATE Approved for form and legal sufficiency' with respect to r County AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 29 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMS MATCHING GRANT APPLICATION M (BEMS ~D. Code) Total Grant Amount,.. $1 2 0,0 0 0 BCC or EMS Organization Authorized Official Title Mailing Address Collier County Board of James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman County Commissioners Chairman 3301 E. Tp~iami Trail City State Zip Telephone Email Address Naples Florida 34112 - County: :~41 )774-8393 Contact Person Title Mailing Address City State Zip Telephone Email Address Therese Ortenqren Commander 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Bldq H Naples Florida 34112 - :(941)774-8459 (SC): Legal Status of EMS Organization (Check only one response). (1) []Private Not For-Profit (attach copy of IRS's 501(c)(3) letter or other legal documentation of this status) (2) [] Private For-Profit (4) [] City/Municipality (3) [] County (5) [] State Federal Tax ID Number: VF 5 9 6 0 0 0 5 5 8 Medical Director I hereby affirm my authority and responsibility for the use of all medical equipment and continuing educab~,~4n this ac~*v~ Medical Director Robert B. Tober, MD,FACEP ME0030891 Date: Printed Name and FL Medical License No, DH Form 1767, Effective Jan.99, Revised Feb.99 24 A(]!ENDA Fr. EM No. II, (.St JAN 2 3 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION A 12 POINT FONT MUST BE USED OR LEGIBLE HAND PRINTING State Plan: Brief synopsis and relationship to state plan goal, if applicable, EMS STATE PLAN GOAL -EMS RESPONSE: This grant request will provide Vehicle Navigation and Information units for all EMS Paramedic vehicles. The Navigation and Information unit will reduce response times by providing the responding Paramedic vehicle rapid and accurate directions to each 911 medical emergency. EMS STATE PLAN GOAL -NEW TECHNOLOGY: This new technology has been extensively field- tested and is widely and successfully utilized by rental car companies and manufacturers of new cars. Project Description/Justification: This is the NEED STATEMENT. Describe and justify the project. Include: (1) all numerical data, time frames for the data, data source; (2) number of people directly impacted by the grant(s); (3) whether the proiect will serve single municipality, county, multicounty, or regional area; and, (4) whether the project will coordinate with other EMS organizations. The Vehicle Navigation and Information System units will be installed on all Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department vehicles. EMS has experienced a 68% increase in 911 emergency calls over the past 5 years. (Collier County SherifFs Office 911 database) Due to this rapid growth, maps are one to two years behind the actual growth and do not reflect the numerous new roads and developments. The Vehicle Navigation and Information System unit will provide Collier County Paramedics and Paramedic/f'n'efighters with current and specific directions to each 911 scene location. Additionally, these units will provide complete and accurate directions to locations outside of the county when responding to mutual aid requests of surrounding counties. AGENDA ITEM No. I/, ~'| JAN 2 3 2001 8. Outcome measurable: Degree to which need will be met or changed. Purchase and installation of a Vehicle Navigation and Information system will decrease emergency response times to all county and mutual aid emergency scene locations. The EMS Department patient care records maintained in the data collection system will show the decrease in response times. 9. Work activities and time frames: Indicate procedure for delivery of project. The Vehicle Navigation and Information system units will be purchased and installed in all EMS Department vehicles within 6 months of the gant award. AGENDAITEM JAN 2 3 _p~ /! CATEGORIES APPLICANT STATE TOTAL MATCH FUNDS Expenditures $ $ $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ Equipment $ $ $ Vehicle Navigation and Information Sytems units 30,000 90,000 120,000 TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS $30,000 $90,000 $120,000 $ $ $ GRAND TOTAL 30,000 90,000 120,000 25 Percent 75 PercentTOTAL 27 AGENDA ITEM No. t, .-'-I JAN 2 3 2001 In accordance requests an EMS matching grant continuation of prehospital EMS. Remit Payment To: Name of EMS Organization Address FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMS MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM Item 11 REQUEST for ADVANCE PAYMENT (Governmental Agency and Not-for-Profit Entity Only) with the provisions of Section 401.113(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the undersigned hereby distribution (advance payment) for the improvement, expansion and: Collier County EHS Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Buildinq H City Naples State FL ZIP34112 Authorized Official Signature Date James D. Carter, Ph.D, Chairman ·. -. ; . Type Name and Title ,.._. .~-~~___~ _~~gn and return this page with your application to: Florida Department of Health BEMS Matching Grant Program 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C18 Tafiahassee, Florida 32399-1738 Do not write below this line. For use by BEMS personnel only Matching Grant Amount For State To Pay: $ Approved By Grant ID. Code:M Signature & Title of BEMS Grant Officer State Fiscal Year: Orqanization Code E.O. Obiect Code 64-25-60-00-000 NZ 7 Federal Tax ID: VF Date DH Form 1767P, Effective Jan. 99, Revised Feb.99 28 ACF_NDA '~" JAN 2 3 2001 ASSURANCES Item 12 PAYMENT FOR GRANT PROJECT: The grantee certifies, understands and accepts that due to state cash flow and activity priorities, the grantee may not receive payment from the state for' this activity until several months after announcement of awards. The work activity time frames will be adjusted based on the date payment is received, except the ending date of the grant will remain as specified in the Notice of Grant Award letter. STATEMENT OF CASH COMMITMENT: The grantee certifies that the cash match will be expended between the beginning and ending dates of the grant and will be used in strict accordance with the content of the application and approved budget for this activity. No costs count towards satisfying a matching requirement of a department grant if also used to satisfy a matching requirement of another state or federal grant. Cash, salaries, fringe benefits, expenses, equipment, and other expenses as listed in this application shall be committed and used for the department's final approved activity during the grant period. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The grantee accepts the grant terms and conditions in the "Florida EMS Matching Grant Program Application Manual", and acknowledges this when funds are drawn or otherwise obtained from the grant payment system. DISCLAIMER: The grantee certifies that the facts and information contained in this application and any attached documents are true and correct. A violation of this requirement may result in revocation of the grant, return of all funds and interest to the department and any other remedy provided by law. NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS: The grantee understands and a:cepts that the notice of award will be advertised in the FAW, and that 21 days after this advertisement the grantee waives any right to challenge or protest pursuant to chapter 120, F.S. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION: The grantee agrees that any improvement, expansion or other effect brought about in whole or part by grant funds, will be maintained for five years after the activity ends, unless specified otherwise in the approved application or unless the department agrees in writing to allow a change. Any unauthorized change within the five years will necessitate the return of grant funds, plus interest. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL (Individual Identified in Item James D. Carter. Ph.D. TITLE DATE DH Form 1767A, Effective Jan.99, Revised Feb. 99 29 A(3ENDA ITEM No. I / .,f'-' ~ JAN 2 3 20 1 Pg. /¢ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD APPROVAL OF A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2001 ACHIEVEMENT AWARD APPLICATION. OBJECTIVE: Board approval of a National Association of Counties 2001 Achievement Award Application. CONSIDERATIONS: The National Association of Counties on a yearly basis seeks applications for their annual Achievement Awards Program. The program is designed to recognize innovative county government programs. Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department seeks to submit the Single Emergency Vehicle Response program for consideration. The Single Emergency Vehicle Response program is one of the many innovative programs which led to Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department receiving the #1 EMS System Award of the United States for 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: The Application fee is $60.00 and is available in the Emergency Medical Services Fiscal Year 2000/2001 budget.. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact. RECOMMENDATION: The Board authorize the Chairman to sign the award application. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: [e-------~ Date: herre, SSn?rteng~n, Command er ge cy Medical Services Departmerit ~ Date: Dia~ B. Flagg, Chief Emergency Medical Se~ices Depa~ment ~ ~~~ Date: Thomas Storrm, Administrator Emergency Services Division AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Pg. (Please refer to "Step One: Comph~.tion of the lla~lsmiltnl Folm" fol dire. ctio~ls on p.roperly completing this form). I. Program Information (See program category list included in "Step One" of the instructions). County and State Collier County, Florida Program Title Single Emergency Vehicle Response Program Category El:[Le_~gency Management and Response II. Contact Information Name Therese Ortenqren Title Commander Department Ernergenc¥ l~ed.£cAZ__S_e_r__v_~ c__e_ s Depa r~_me n l; Address ......... --3301 _F~__Tam iami~ ........ B1 dgt_ H Address City/State/Zip Naples, F_L 34112 Telephone 941-774-8459 Fax 941-775-4454 Yes! Please add me to NACo's Peer to Peer Network (See Reverse) Signature of Chief Elected Official Name James D. Carter,__P_h~._D Title Chairman Signature IV. Payment: Please choose one of two payment options listed below Payment Option 1 ~21 Check Check Number: '.J Money Order Money Order Number: .I Credit Card Credit Card Type: 'J Visa Credit Card Number Expiration Date Name of Cardholder Authorized Signature Mastercard Member Fee $50 $ Non-Member Fee $100 $ Payment Option 2 L.I Voucher '~1 Purchase Order Voucher Number: Purchase Order Number: _p_,_Q,_ ~5 3 0 2 3 Member Fee $60 $60 .O0. Non-Member Fee $110 $ ... Deadline for submission of application: February 2, 2001 A~NDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 X~ Yes, I would like to share my experience and expertise through NACo's Peer to Peer Network ! Name Diane B. Flaqq Title ........C.h Dept.. ......Emerg_en.c¥ Medical Services Department County C~I 1 Street 3qO1 ]~- T~m~ ~mi Tr~ R1 d~ City/State/Zip Phone E-mail I would welcome NACo and county officials contacting me regardi~g tile following lopits: ) Arts and Historic Preservation ) Children and Youth "~Civic Education, Participation & Public Information ') Court Administration and Management ) Criminal Justice and Public Safety ) Diversity ) Economic/Community Development . ) Education 'W/Emergency Management and Response (Police, Fire, EMS) ) Employment Training ) Environment ) Financial Management (Budgeting, Taxation. Revenue etc.) ) Health ) Human Services ) Information Technology ) Jails ) Juvenile Justice/At-risk Youth ) Library ) Management ) Parks and Recreation w~'Performance Measurement/Benchmarking ) Personnel Mal~agement ') Planning , ) Privatization ) Risk Management ) Substance/Alcohol Abuse ) Sustainable Communities , ) Transportation ~ ) Volunteers ' ) Other: ' ) Other: I hereby give permission for NACo to add me to the Peer to Peer Network. I understand that NACo reserves tt~e right to punish ancl~isseminate my contact information, either in a publication or on its webpage, and, as a result,.I ma~Hf~ cont~-~l.l:d. by iltdivlduals in tile future r~)gmdb]g [t~o l,~l~ics I Imw~ %~Hr~cted. Signature% ' ' ' 1~ Date/ ~ ZD[%I 001023SHb SINGLE EMERGENCY VEHICLE RESPONSE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1. Abstract of the Program Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department has joined with several area fire departments in partnership to achieve a single Paramedic/rescue vehicle response to approximately 80% of the EMS/Fire 911 calls. This partnership eliminates the emergency response of both a Paramedic/rescue vehicle and a fire engine to a single 911 medical incident. The Paramedic/rescue vehicle is staffed by two EMS Paramedic/Firefighters or Paramedics and one Firefighter of the participating fire department. This partnership, by reducing the number of emergency vehicles responding to a single medical incident, reduces the risk of accident and/or injury to community members by emergency response vehicles, keeps the fire apparatus available and in station for fire calls, and reduces the operating and capital recoverv costs for fire engines. The participating departments of this partnership are: North Naples Fire District, City of Marco and the Ochopee Fire District. 2. The Problem/Need for the Program Officials of the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department regularly meets with community and civic groups to discuss emergency services. A consistent concern voiced by community members was the number of emergency vehicles responding to a single 911 medical incident. In response to the community, the single emergency vehicle response program was developed and implemented. 3. Description of the Program The single emergency vehicle response program utilizes existing vehicle and personnel resources to achieve a safer, more cost effective and efficient emergency response to the community. In lieu of an EMS Paramedic/rescue vehicle and a fire engine responding from the same station to the same 911 call location, just the EMS Paramedic/rescue vehicle responds staffed by two EMS Paramedic/Firefighters or Paramedics and one Firefighter from the participating fire department. In the event of a fire call, the engine is in the station and available. Additionally, the EMS Paramedic/rescue vehicle responds to fires and participates in fire ground operations. An interlocal agreement, outlining the single emergency vehicle response program was executed between the fire district commissioners or City Council and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Signage of the participating fire department was placed on each of the EMS Paramedic/rescue vehicles and the participating fire department member completes a Florida Fire Incident report for each emergency medical response. I AOENDAA'rEM No. ~/ /'~-3 JAN 2 3 2081 ] ~ pg. q SINGLE EMERGENCY VEHICLE RESPONSE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 4. Use of Technology The Collier County SherifFs Office dispatches both the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department and the fire departments. No change in 911 dispatch procedures was necessary. and no additional equipment was needed. 5. The Cost of the Program The implementation of the single emergency vehicle response program resulted in a cost reduction for the participating fire departments. The annual operating costs and capital recovery costs for the engines were reduced. 6. Results/Success of the Program The engines of the participating fire departments responded to approximately 80% less 911 medical calls. This reduction of emergency vehicle responses reduced the risk to community members, and provided less traffic congestion, reduced the annual operating and capital recovery cost of the fire engines, and received resounding support from the community. 7. Worthiness of an Award The single emergency vehicle response program was a new service offered to the community members of Collier County. The program met the expressed concerns of the community and enhanced the level of citizen participation. Additionally, it promoted intergovernmental cooperation between Collier County EMS Department and the participating fire districts through a partnership. The program is creative, successful, and has shown cost savings for the fire districts and ultimately the taxpayers of Collier County. 2 ,N3END~,ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST BOARD APPROVAL OF PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT TO THE BAYSHO'RE MSTU FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR THE BAYSHORE MSTU BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT OBJECTIVE: To provide background to the Board regarding the Bay. shore MSTU Advisory Board's request for reimbursement of certain administrative fees and charges attached to the Bayshore MSTU Beautification project and to request that a portion of these fees be returned to the MSTU for use in implementing the project. CONSIDERATIONS: The Bayshore MSTU was formed in 1997 for the purpose of funding a beautification project within the Bayshore area. The project includes landscaping, street furniture, decorative sidewalk pavers and streetlights, and other similar improvements. The MSTU Advisory Board envisioned a three-year period for full implementation of the project. As a result of several internal staff changes and an unfavorable bidding climate, the project will not be complete within the original time frame and will have rolled over into a fourth year. The Bayshore MSTU Advisory Board asked that the Board of County Commissioners consider a partial reimbursement of fees and administrative charges as a result of this increased time frame. The specific budget line items requested for review and reimbursement are: 160-162518-634350 160-162518-634351 160-162518-634970 160-162518-634980 160-929020-911010 Administrative Fee - Transportation Department Engineering Fee - Transportation Department Indirect Cost Reimbursement Inter Department Fee Transfer to Road and Bridge $12,800 $31,100 $1,ooo $ 2,o00 $ 7,300 Total Reimbursement Requested $54,200 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $54,200 will be made available from the Road and Bridge Fund (101) Reserves and transferred to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Fund (160). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve a reimbursement of administrative fees to the Bayshore MSTU Fund (160) and the associated budget amendment.. Thomas W. Olliff, County DATE:__~~ N;.AO~ENDAI £M ~ -- I J AN 2 3 2001 l ,/, _ FOR BOARD ACTION: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE January 23, 2001 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: mo Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period: 1) December 13, 2000 - December 19, 2000 2) December 20, 2000 - December 26, 2000 3) December 27, 2000 - January 2, 2001 B. Districts: 1) Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for November 8, 2000 meeting 2) Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of the Board of Supervisors for July 10, 2000 meeting with attached Resolutions and copy of Adopted Fiscal Budget for 2001 3) Mediterra South Community Development District- Minutes of Board of Supervisors September 27, 2000 meeting C. Minutes: 1) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda of November 14 meeting 2) Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Agenda of November 8, 2000 and January 3, 2001 meetings, Minutes of September 13 and 27, 2000 meetings, Minutes of October 11 and 25, 2000 meetings, Minutes of December 13,2000 meeting Notice of November 8, 2000 meeting, Notice of November 29, 2000 meeting 3) The Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda of November 2, 2000 and January 4, 2001 meetings 4) H:DatafFormat The Collier County Productivity Committee - Notice of December 14, 2000 meeting JAN 2 3 2001 5) The Collier County Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Advisory Committee - Notice of December 15,200 meeting 6) Library Advisory Board- Minutes of October 25, 2000 meeting 7) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda of December 8, 2000 meeting 8) Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda of December 6, 2000 meeting 9) The Building Coalitions with Constituencies Subcommittee of the Co:rnmunity Health Planning and Finance Committee - Notice of December 20, 2000 meeting 10) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting - Agenda of December 20, 2000 meeting and Minutes of November 25, 2000 meeting, Recaps of November/December 2000, Special Events Calendar for January 2001, Meeting Schedule for 2001 11) The Beach Renourishment/Maintenane Committee - Agenda of December 19, 2000 meeting 12) Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for December 11, 2000 meeting and Minutes for November 13, 2000 13) Citizens Advisory Task Force Committee- Agenda of April 20, 2000, December 14, 2000, October 18, 2000 and Minutes of April, 20,2000, October 20, 1999, October 18, 2000, December 14, 2000, September 7, 2000, April 20, 2000 Other: 1) City of Naples -Notice of November 2, 2000 Public Meeting and Agenda of November 2, 2000 meeting 2) Clerk of Circuit Court - General Fund Budget for FY 1999-2000. H:Data/Format AGENDA ITEM No ~, ....~ JAN 2 3-2001 Pg. t-~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO BE KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY ELECTIONS RESOURCE COMMITTEE OBJECTIVE: To establish an ad hoc committee to be known as the Collier County Elections Resource Committee for the purpose of assessing the viability of the present methods of electing public officials in Collier County, Florida, and make recommendations for specific solutions to meet the current and future electoral requirements of the County and its electors. CONSIDERATION: The Supervisor of Elections has asked the political party Executive Committees of Collier County and the League of Women Voters to appoint a member to serve on this committee to address the current and future electoral needs. FISCAL IMPACT: Routine administrative and support costs associated with the operation of this committee will be paid through the Office of the Supervisor of Elections. Due to the specialized and technical nature of the committee's work, it may be necessary to engage the services of professional consultants to assist the work of the committee. This determi- nation will be made by the committee and will require approval from the Supervisor of Elections consistent with established procurement and budget policies. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with the creation of this committee as there is no related element in the County's Compre- hensive Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Board of Commissioners approve the attached Resolution authorizing the establishment of the Collier County Elections Re- source Committee... S U BM ITTED BY: ~,~//' ~. Supervisor of Ejections AGE~IDA ITEM No.F--L JAN 2 3 2001 pg._ I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY ELECTIONS RESOURCE COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING THE CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS AND ELECTORS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on December 12, 2000 authorized creating the Collier County Elections Resource Committee to assess the viability of the present methods of electing public officials in Collier County, Florida, and; WHEREAS, the Collier County Commission has agreed to establish a committee consisting of members of the executive committees of the political parties registered in Collier County, the League of Women Voters and the Supervisor of Elections to review this subject for a fixed one year period, and; WItEREAS, the Elections Resource Committee will present a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Collier County Commission on or before the end of its term of service. NOW THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. Creation of the Ad Hoc Collier County Elections Resource Committee. Pursuant to the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 86-41, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners hereby creates the Collier County Elections Resource Committee as an ad-hoc advisory committee for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of this Resolution. SECTION TWO. Appointment of Members and Failure to Attend Meetings. The following members are hereby appointed to the Collier County Elections Resource Committee: The Supervisor of Elections, Jennifer J. Edwards A representative for the Executive Committee of the: Republican Party Democratic Party Libertarian Party Reform Party League of Women Voters If any member of the Collier County Elections Resource Committee is absent from two (2) or more consecutive meetings without a satisfactory excuse, such member's position may be declared vacant by the Supervisor of Elections. SECTION THREE. Officers Quorum Compensation. The Chairman of the Collier County Elections Resource Committee shall be the Supervisor of Elections. The presence of a majority of the voting members shall constitute a quorum. The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel, mileage and/or per diem expenses only if approved, in advance, by the Supervisor of Elections. Due to the specialized and technical nature of the committee, it may be necessary to engage the services of professional consultants to assist in work of the committee. This determination will be made after the committee has met and will require approval from tl Supervisor of Elections consistent with established procurement and budget policies. I AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 pg. ,2, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 SECTION FOUR. Functions, Powers and Duties of the Collier County Elections Resource Committee. The Committee shall identify the most appropriate solutions to current and future electoral needs of the citizens and electors of Collier County. The Committee shall m:/ke its recommendations in the form of a final report to the Board of County Commissioners. All meetings of the Collier County Elections Resource Committee shall be open to the public and shall be governed by the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law. All meetings shall be held after reasonable public notice is provided as to the location, time and subject matter of the meetings. This Resolution adopted this __ and majority vote. day of 2001 after motion, second ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DAVID C. WEIGEL' ~'~ County Attorney JAMES D. CARTER, PH.D. CHAIRMAN AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 2 3 2001 pg. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR DISCLOSURE COUNSEL AND LEGAL SERVICES ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. OBJECTIVE: The Board approve a continuing retention agreement with the law firm of Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., for outside legal services on an "as needed" basis, particularly relating to specialized and necessary due diligence with regard to the provision of full disclosure with respect to County financings. CONSIDERATIONS: Attached for the Board's approval is an Agreement for Disclosure Counsel services with the law firm of BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A., a law firm, which shall be available to the County on an as-needed basis to provide specialized legal services. The contract does not address any specific project or assignment, but rather sets forth the criteria under which payment will be made when disclosure counsel services are required. Additionally, this firm has a wide array of local government legal expertise, and can be available as a resource to the County on an as-needed basis. The County Attorney, County staff and the Clerk have previously worked with this firm, and particularly, Duane D. Draper and Mark G. Lawson, and have been very pleased with the expertise and attention provided the County. The primary objective of the proposed retention agreement is to secure Disclosure Counsel for upcoming bond issues. The rationale for using Disclosure Counsel is as follows: (1) The Securities and Exchange Commission has significantly stepped up enforcement actions against local government issuers and officials in recent years, and has additionally implemented secondary market disclosure requirements which place increased liability on the County; (2) Historically, the County has relied upon counsel selected by underwriters to prepare disclosure documents to be sent to potential investors to satisfy the federal securities laws in which case the Cmmty cannot adequately ensure that the selected counsel has the requisite familiarity and qualifications; (3) The disclosure documents are the County's documents, and going forward, it is more desirable to have a law firm selected by the County (rather than an underwriting firm) to prepare such documents since the County is ultimately liable for what such disclosure documents say; (4) Unlike in the case of underwriter's counsel, Disclosure Counsel will have a direct client relationship with the County, and the County will receive an opinion at the conclusion of the financing to the effect that there are no material omissions or misstatements which affords the County greater protection; (5) Most medium to large and growth oriented counties in Florida n lr~-,~~~. separately retain Disclosure Counsel just as they do for Bond Counsel; (6) There is no mate cost increase in bond issues; (7) In fact, there may be cost savings from the economies If information that the Disclosure Counsel firm obtains from its ongoing relationship with t recommen ~~ The County Attorney's office, together with support from the Clerk's office, that the County retain the law firm Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. as Disclosure Counsel pursua 1 to the attached contract. Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. is most qualified to serve this role as a top bond and disclosure counsel firm in Florida. In each of the past five calendar years, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. ranked number one among bond counsel firms in Florida in terms of the number of transactions according to Securities Data Company, Inc.; for example, and Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. currently serves as Bond Counsel or Disclosure Counsel to Hillsborough County, Polk County, Osceola County, Alachua County, Pinelias County, Leon County, Miami- Dade County, Broward County, and Orange County. Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. is very familiar with the County's disclosure activities having served as underwriter's counsel and having prepared the disclosure documentation on most County financings during the past decade. FISCAL IMPACT: The approval and execution of the attached continuing retention agreement has no fiscal impact in and of itself, but there will be a fiscal impact in accordance with the terms and conditions of such contract, upon the County's request for legal services. The attached contract provides that the Disclosure Counsel will be compensated for the services described therein, at the time bonds are issued, at a fee equal to 80% the fee payable to the County's Bond Counsel, or $15,000, whichever is greater. Such fee is completely contingent in all cases on the sale and delivery of the bonds; provided, however, that Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. will be reimbursed for expenses incurred irrespective of the completion of the bond issue. The attached contract further provides that hourly rate legal services unrelated to the specific issuance of a new debt will be available on an "as needed" basis and shall be performed at the rate of $195 per hour only upon the request of the County. The County can terminate the proposed retention agreement with 60 days written notice. In the event of cancellation the firm would, unless otherwise directed, immediately cease work upon notice to do so. Disclosure Counsel services will be paid as a part of the cost of issuance for any new debt. Other County legal work performed by Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. shall be paid by and through the Office of the County Attorney or other County Department/Division requesting and receiving services. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached continuing retention agreement with the law firm of BRYANT, MIIl,ER AND OLIVE, P.A. which provides for Disclosure Counsel legal services. Approved by: es Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounting Clerk of Courts David C. Weigel County Attorney H:David/Exsummaries/-Draper Date Date 2 AGREEMENT FOR DISCLOSURE COUNSEL SERVICES This Agreement for Disclosure Counsel Services is made between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County"), and the law firm of Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. with offices in Tampa, Tallahassee, Orlando and Atlanta ("BRYANT, MII I.ER AND OLIVE"). Whereas, BRYANT, MH~IJER AND OLIVE has special expertise and resources in a wide range of local government legal matters, with particular expertise in public finance and related issues; and Whereas, the County from time to time has a requirement and need for specialized Disclosure Counsel legal services which are particularly within the expertise of BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE; and Whereas, BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE has prepared disclosure documentation on most County financings over the last decade, is familiar with County financing activities, and the County is very satisfied with such services and performance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE agrees to serve as Disclosure Counsel and render legal set ~ i~.c~ to the County for work that may be assigned to BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE fi'om time to time by and through the County Attorney's Office. BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE shall serve as Disclosure Counsel when requested by the County, and perform the following services with respect to the issuance of bonds (including conduit bonds issued by the County on behalf of corporations) and matters relating thereto as follows: Page I of 4 JAN 2 3 2001 1. Prepare all disclosure documents at the request of the County, but only insofar as such documents describe the bonds and summarize the underlying documents. However, BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE assumes no responsibility for the disclosure documents insofar as such documents describe the financial circumstances of the offering or any other statistics, projections or data. 2. Perform due diligence with regard to County financings to provide full disclosure with respect to County financings. 3. Assist the County and the underwriters in the compliance with federal and state securities laws. 4. Render appropriate opinions to the County pertaining to disclosure as well as a reliance letter to the underwriters. 5. Prepare the Continuing Disclosure Certificate in order to assist the underwriters in complying with the continuing disclosure requirements of Rule 15c2-12. 6. Preparation of the Bond Purchase Agreement on behalf of the County. The County agrees that BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE shall be compensated for the above services, at the time the bonds are issued, at a fee equal to 80% the fee payable to the County's Bond Counsel, or $15,000, whichever is greater. The payment of such fee for Disclosure Counsel services is completely contingent in all cases on the sale and delivery of the bonds; however, the firm will be reimbursed for expenses incurred irrespective of the completion of the bond issue. Hourly rate services unrelated to the specific issuance of a new debt shall be performed at the rate of $195 per hour upon the request of the County. Invoices to the County for hourly legal services unrelated to specific issuance of a new debt shall be itemized and shall set forth the attorney or paralegal, subject of the charge, the time applicable to the charge and the rate per hour. The County agrees to reimburse BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE for all out-of-pocket expenses/production utilization of any sub-consultants approved by the County Attorney's office. It is m Page 2 of 4 costs directly related to assigned work, including the retention and AGENDA ITEM ier~lOoc[~ JAN 2 3 2001 pg. '~ agreed by the parties that the County will reimburse the firm for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, whether or not bonds or debt is ultimately issued. The use of a multiplier for these expenses/production costs will not be allowed. Typical reimbursable expenses include travel, lodging, meals and travel expenses when traveling on the County's behalf, identifiable communication costs, identifiable reproduction costs, and special computer expenses not applicable to general overhead. The County will reimburse per diem and travel expenses in accordance with Section 112.061, Florida Statutes, as such statutory provision or its successor in function may be amended from time to time. BRYANT, MilldER AND OLIVE shall have professional liability insurance. Coverage shall have minimum limits of $2,000,000 each claim, $4,000,000 in the aggregate. If any liability insurance obtained by BRYANT, MIIJ~ER AND OLIVE to comply with the insurance requirements contained herein is issued on a "claims made" form as opposed to an "occurrence" form, the retroactive date for coverage shall be no later than the commencement date of the assigned work to which this Agreement applies, and such insurance shall provide, in the event of cancellation or non-renewal, that the discovery period for insurance claims (tail coverage) shall not be less than three years following the completion of the assigned work and acceptance by the County. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing duly entered into by the County and BRYANT, MII J dER AND OLIVE. The County may cancel or terminate this Agreement upon sixty days advance written notice to BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE. In the event of cancellation, the firm shall, unless otherwise requested by the County, immediately cease work hereunder and shall b for eligible and documented reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the date of cam Page 3 of 4 ' re~TEM :11at~[q 2 3 2001 PlI. vF' This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts. In Witness Whereof, the County and BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE have caused this Agreement for Disclosure Counsel Services to be executed on the date stated below. DATE: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN DATE: BRYANT, MIIJ ~ER AND OLIVE, P.A. By: Its: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of , , by as of Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., on behalf of the professional association. He is personally known to me or produced as identification. Signature of Notary Public Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Name of Notary Public typed, printed or My Commission Expires: David C. Weigel, County Attorney H: Da vial/Contract-Draper Page 4 of 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ JAN 2 3 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PE-2000-04, ROBERT LOCKHART, P.E., OF LOCKHART ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING ERA REALTY GROUP, REQUESTING PARKING EXEMPTION APPROVAL FOR FAUST PARKWAY CENTER FOR OFF-SITE PARKING LOCATED ON 26Tx PLACE SW, LOT 29, BLOCK 248, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7, IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: That the community's interests are maintained in off-site parking in a residential zoning district. CONSIDERATIONS: The Faust Parkway Center consists of retail units and a small convenience store (formerly the cashier station for gas pumps). The existing parking is haphazard and according to the petitioner, approximately 20 spaces could be configured to fit within the existing design (however, that design would maintain "dead-end aisles" and poor on-site circulation). The retail uses and convenience store require 22 parking spaces. The lot proposed for the Parking Exemption is zoned residential multiple family (RMF-12) and has residential structures adjacent to it. The site would be accessed only from the Faust Parkway Center via the alley between the two parcels. There will be no access from 26th Place SW. (Note that the site plan submitted by the petitioner is conceptual and may not indicate the requirements of a Site Development Plan.) Additional spaces would allow the petitioner to reconfigure the main parking lot to eliminate the "dead-end aisles" shown on the proposed site plan and to allow better on-site traffic circulation, while providing employee and overflow customer parking on the subject lot. The petitioner also states that the proposed off-site parking could enable intensification of the existing commercial structures and uses. The Environmental Advisory Council did not review this petition because the EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. JAN 2 3 2001 The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition at its December 21, 2000 meeting. The CCPC voted 6 to 0 to forward petition PE-00-04 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval. No calls or letters of objection were received. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this petition will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management ~ Plan. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an Area of Historical and Archaeological Probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no survey or Waiver of Historic and Archaeological Survey & Assessment is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended that the CCPC forward Petition PE-2000-04 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval of the parking exemption for off-site parking, subject to the stipulations in the Resolution. 2 JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY: / · PRENCIPAL PLANNER RONALD F. NINO, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE DATE ROffE~T J. ~.JLI--tE~, PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: J II DATE YI~E~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR executive summary/PE-00-04 3 A~A IT~_M JAN 2 3 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DECEMBER 1, 2000 PETITION PE-2000-04 OWNER/AGENT: AGENT: OWNER: Robert Lockhart, PE Lockhart Engineering, Inc. 1361 Lake Shore Drive Naples, FL 34103 Richard Faust ERA Realty Group 4950 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests approval of a Parking Exemption for off-site parking for the Faust Parkway Center. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located south of the Faust Parkway Center along 26t~ Place SW, legally described as Lot 29, Block 248, Golden Gate Unit 7. AC~qDA iT~.~ JAN 2 3 2001 uJ Z PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Faust Parkway Center consists of retail units and a small convenience store (formerly the cashier station for gas pumps). The existing parking is haphazard and according to the petitioner, approximately 20 spaces could be configured to fit within the existing design. The retail uses and convenience store require 22 parking spaces. The lot proposed for the Parking Exemption is zoned residential multiple family (RMF- 12) and has residential structures adjacent to it. The site would be accessed only from the Faust Parkway Center via the alley between the two parcels. There will be no access from 26* Place SW. (Note that the site plan submitted by the petitioner is conceptual and may not indicate the requirements of a Site Development Plan.) The petitioner also states that the proposed off-site parking could enable intensification of the existing commercial structures and uses. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: Existing: Undeveloped lot; zoned RMF- 12 Surrounding: North: East: South: West: Commercial buildings; zoned C-4 54u!'i-!:*,~'. !' bo~z, ing: zoped RMF-12 26~: ?lace SW ROW Multi-family housing; zoned RMF- 12 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSI~g The subject property is designated Urban/Residential, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Based on the above, the proposed Parking Exemption can be deemed consistent with the FLUE. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. nc,,F,~ ~ IIE. M 2 Pg.. lt9 JAN 2 3 2001 TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This petition has been reviewed by all of the appropriate County agencies assigned jurisdictional oversight, none of which have offered any objection to the approval of this petition, subject to the stipulations contained in the Resolution. ANALYSIS: There are twelve criteria, which must be considered for approval of a Parking Exemption. These criteria are Whether the amount of off-site parking is required by Section 2.3.16 or is in excess of requirements. The petitioner is requesting 30 off-site spaces, which is in excess of the required parking. Staff, after site visits, recognizes that additional parking is necessary, however, we regard 10 spaces as a more realistic f~gure. Ten additional spaces would allow the petitioner to reconflgure the main parking lot to prevent the "dead end aisles" shown on the proposed site plan and to allow better on-site traffic circulation, while providing employee and overflow customer parking on the subject lot. (If the commercial parcel were recon£1gured with 16 spaces and the residential parcel held 10, the resulting 26 spaces would provide the petitioner with additional parking and improve traffic circulation on site.) b. The distance of the farthest parking space from the facility to be served. The proposed off-site parking is across a 20-foot alley. If the lots are separated by a collector or arterial roadway, the safety of pedestrians. The lots are not separated by an arterial or collector roadway, the proposed off-site parking is across a 20-foot alley. do Pedestrian and vehicular safety. Staff recommends that the petitioner stripe (or otherwise indicate) a crosswalk from the proposed off-site lot to the front of the commercial building. e. The character and quality of the neighborhood and the future development of surrounding properties. The surrounding developed lots are residential multi-family and therefore also require parking lots. 3 JAN 2 3 2001 f. go Potential parking problems for neighboring properties. There are no foreseen parking problems resulting from the proposed parking exemption. Whether the internal traffic flow is required to leave the site to reach the proposed off-site parking. The traffic flow will necessitate the cars leaving the commercial site and crossing the alley to the adjacent off-site parking lot. Whether vehicular access shall be from or onto residential streets. Vehicular access will be from the commercial lot across the alley. from 26* Place SW is prohibited. Access Whether buffers adjacent to propert3' zoned residential are 15 feet in width and include a wall in addition to required landscaping. The petitioner requests a 1 O-foot buffer adjacent to the neighboring residential properties. Staff recommends a 15-foot landscape buffer. j. Whether the off-site parking will be used for valet parking. No valet parking is proposed. Whether the off-site parking will be used for employee parking. The proposed off-site parking is for employee parking and overflow customer parking. Whether there are more viable alternatives available. Alternatives include: no change, which would leave the existing businesses with a parking problem; reducing the square-footage of the existing building, which would be a financial hardship to the property owner; and limiting the leasable square-footage to business office uses, which would require the property owner to terminate existing retail leases. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PE-2000-04 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval of the parking exemption for off-site parking for ten spaces, subject to the stipulations in the Resolution. Staff does not recommend approval of the requested 30 spaces, based on a conceptual plan to increase building square-footage and/or intensify the use. 4 AGE.~A ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 PREPARED BY: FRE_D~V,~EISCHL, AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE RE'$qEWED BY: 'RONALD F.'~I'~, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE Oi~ERT J. MULHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: JO~ M. DON~CI~, Ill DATE ' INT~ERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Petition PE-2000-04 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: GARY ~oEi CHAIRMAN 5 AC~J~A ITF_Jd JAN 2 3 2001 LOCKHART ENGINEERING, INC. "~ CIVIL SITE PLANNING ZONING July 29, 2000 ROBERT K LOCKHART, RE. President E 00-04 Community Development & Environmental Services Division Attn.: Mr. Fred Reichel Planning Services 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposed Parking Lot Addition to Existing Faust Parkway Center; lot 29, Block 248, Golden Gate Unit #7; being a part of Section 28, Twp 49 S, Rge 26 E, Collier County Dear Mr. Reichel, On behalf of the Owner and Developer of the above referenced lands, please find enclosed a completed application package for a Parking Exemption, accompanied with the submission fee of $450.00. The existing Faust Parkway Center is a small strip type commercial shopping center that presently is occupied by the following businesses: 1. A Auto Buyers Insurance Co. 2. Assembly of God 3. Betty's Body Wax & Nails 4. a Barber shop 5. Harps No Risk Pest Control 6. Golden Gate Pool Supplies 7. a Convenience store The existing parking lot is somewhat inadequate for the existing traffic volume that is being 9enerated, with employee parking competing for parking spaces with potential customers. The alley in the rear of the complex is being utilized for 6 spaces, this is the maximum allowed per code. The Owner desires to construct the 30 space parking lot to better provide for customer overflow parking and for designated employee parking. In addition, a preliminary plan to convert the land use to a Professional/Medical Office center wit the addition of approximately 6,345 s.f. of office space will require parking at a 1/200 s.f. ratio or for a toti of approximately 58 spaces. 1361Lakeshore Drive · Naples, Florida34103 ,~4DA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 In addition, the following are provided to assist in this review and consideration: 1. an aerial of the site 2. copy of zoning map of area 3. survey's of the existing center and lot 29 Should there be any problems or questions on the above after your preliminary review, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LOCKHART ENGINEERING, INC. Robert Lockhart, P.E. Pres. RKL/rkl;encl. AC~NDA IT~ JAN 2 3 200l ,,.. II APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING F. OR: Petit[on No..~' (,, F~ ~ Commtsdon I~trtct: PARKING EXEMPTION Date Petition Recclv~ ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF ~., General Information Name of Applicant(s) Appltcnnfs ~H~8 Ad~es~ Appl~f~ Telephone Name of Agent ~-~T, Asent's Mslltn$ Address A~ent's Telephone # A~ent's B-Mail Address: __ __ COLLIER COUNTY COMMI~ITY DRVELOPMENT PLANNING 811RVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N, HOIL~F,$HOE DRIVE . NAPLES! FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403.2400/FAX (941) 64~-6968 AGENDA ITEM JAN 2 3 2001 Zoning of proposed parking lot Zoning of Io[ I~e Pe~ng Exemption is proposed to serve Type of'land ute the the Derking exemption is proposed to serve Required parking for project Parking Spases Proposed Off-Site Projec;t description: (or attach separate sheet) 1. le the proposed parking lot separatecl from the permitted use by a colleast or a~erial 2. Is ~ pro~ed pa~lng lot z~ ~mm~al? 3. D~ ~e pe~iE~ use prop~e to ~re r~ui~ pa~ing with answer permi~ use? 4. D~ ~e petitsnet propose a pa~ing ~wation? SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER P E/my.3/20/00 AGE. t~A ITEJd JAN 2 3 2001 Lot %:ill be reconfi~ured for spproximately 20 spaces and 15-foot buffers JAN 2 3 2001 RESOLUTION 01- RELATING TO PETITION NLFMBER PE-2000-04 FOR A PARKING EXEMPTION ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public, and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the allowance of a parking exemption; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted board for Collier County which includes the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice and has considered the advisability of a parking exemption for off-site parking, in an RMF-12 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.3.4.11.2.C, Section 2.7.5 and Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, for the unincorporated area of Collier County, and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting and the Board having considered all matters presented, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Robert Lockhart, P.E., of Lockhart Engineering, Inc., representing ERA Realty Group, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 29, Block 248, Golden Gate, Unit 7 as recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 135 through 146 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same hereby is approved for a parking exemption for off-site parking in the RMF-12 Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: EXHIBIT "A" BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PE~2000-04 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. -:1.- ACtA JAN 2 3 2001 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this __ day of ,2001. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj oric~. Student Assistant County Attorney g/admin/PE-/2000-04/FR/im BY: , CHAIRMAN JAN 2 3 2001 PE-2000-04 1. The petitioner shall construct a crosswalk/walkway system from the off-site parking lot to the fxont of the commercial structures, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the parking lot. 2. The petitioner shall install a 15-foot Type "B" landscape buffer adjacent to the surrounding residential property and a 10-foot Type "D" landscape buffer adjacent to the 26th Place SW right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the parking lot. EXHIBIT "A" JAN 2 3 2001