Agenda 04/24/2001 R COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CLERK TO BOARD
4TH FLOOR
FP: 3 IND: 1 CV: 0
AGENDA
April 24, 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 SUBMITTED 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.
t. INVOCATION -- Reverend Bruce Ingles, Moorings Presbyterian Church
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 27, 2001 Regular BCC Meeting
B. March 30, 2001 Emergency BCC Meeting
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation proclaiming April 28th as Collier County CPR Day 2001. To
be accepted by Diane Flagg, Director of Administration for Emergency
Medical Services.
2)
Proclamation proclaiming that on the behalf of the citizens of Collier
County, The Board of County Commissioners wish to extend their
appreciation and congratulations to Wendy Malik and Maria Jones on
being selected as recipients of VFW National Citizenship Education
Teacher Award for 2000-2001.
3) Proclamation proclaiming April 2001 as Child Abuse and Neglect
Prevention Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Hallie Devlin,
Program Administrator, Collier County Department of Children and
Families.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1) Andrea Brown, Public Utilities
2) Christopher Farris, Wastewater
3) Sandra Ramos, Parks and Recreation
4) Sharon Keshock, Library
Fifteen Year Attendees:
5) Dennis Barnard, Wastewater
2
6) Walter Kopka II, EMS
Twenty Year Attendees:
7) David Kitchen, EMS
8) Theresa Ortengren, EMS
9) Paul Wilson, Ochopee Fire District
10) Mark Willis, EMS
PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Cheryl Soter, Planner I, Planning Services,
as Employee of the Month for April 2001.
6. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
7. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Request for public petition by the residents of the Orchards to have the BCC
consider the safety conditions on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A.
B.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve Change Order No. 6 with APAC-Florida, Inc. for additional
construction services for the widening of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to
Collier Boulevard (CR 951), Project No. 69101.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Progress report on request for information (RFI) for long-term and
complementary solid waste assessment for Collier County.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1) This item has been deleted.
2) Status report regarding acquisition options for property located in the
Barefoot Beach Park Preserve.
3
3) STAFF REQUESTS THAT THIS ITEM BE HEARD AS THE LAST ITEM OF
THE AGENDA. Presentation of the Collier County Health Care Planning
and Finance Advisory Committee interim report.
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Am
Requesting direction to the County Attorney's Office concerning a response
to a settlement offer in Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue
District, a division of Collier County, a local government, Case No. 99-534-CIV-
FTM-29DNF, pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.
10.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Direction to staff to look at the required space
recommend changes. ( Commissioner Nenning)
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County
Authority.
C. Appointment Of members to the Bayshore Avalon
Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Rural Lands Oversight Committee.
E. Discussion regarding the realignment of Santa Barbara
(Commissioner Fiala)
for dwelling units and
Water and Wastewater
Beautification MSTU
Boulevard.
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
4
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
PUD-99-10, Karin K. Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing T.O.S.
Development, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural with
"ST" overlays to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Mirasol PUD for a mixed residential development consisting of not more
than 799 dwelling units and two golf courses with related facilities on
property lying north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and west of a northerly
extension of C.R. 951 in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1558 +1-acres.
13.
C. OTHER
1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 10~ 2001 MEETING.
Amend Weed, Lifter and Exotics Ordinance.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
2)
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS.
Petition PE-99-3, William L. Hoover, AICP, representing Larry J. and Marcy
A. Gode, requesting a parking exemption for an off-site parking on Lot 10,
Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, to serve a commercial development to be
located on an adjacent lot (Lot 9) on 109t~ Avenue North in Naples Park.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS.
Petition V-99-29, William L. Hoover, AICP representing Larry J. and Marcy
A. Gode requesting a 3-foot variance from the required 13-foot east side
yard setback to 10 feet and a 10-foot variance from the required 15-foot
west side yard setback to 5 feet in order to develop a commercial property
located on 109th Avenue North further described as Lot 9, Block 2, Naples
Park Unit 1.
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
5
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.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approve the Local Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for Fiscal Years 2001-
2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 as required by the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program.
2) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Ivy Pointe".
3) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Autumn Woods
effluent main.
4) Funding of legal challenge to Florida Communications Services Tax
Simplification Act.
5) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for code violations.
6) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Five".
7) Request to grant final acceptance of the .roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Six".
8) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Seven".
9) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Grey Oaks Unit Nine".
10)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 106"
and approval of the standard form construction and maintenance
agreement a-nd approval of the amount of the performance security.
11) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Santa Barbara
Estates".
12)
Request to acknowledge the current lot configuration in Trail Acres Unit
Three for those lots formerly known as Lots 17 through 36, Block 1; Lots
33 through 81, Block 2; and Lots 17 through 45, Block 3; and acknowledge
these parcels as lots of record.
13) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Cypress Woods fire hydrant.
14) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for cypress Woods
maintenance center.
15) Final acceptance of sewer utility facilities for Terra Verde at Grey Oaks.
6
16)
17)
18)
19)
Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Cypress Woods
clubhouse.
Recommendation to approve commercial excavation Permit No. 59.784,
"B.R.B. Lake Commercial Excavation", located in Section 30, Township
47, South, Range 28 East; bounded on the north and east by vacant land
zoned Estates, on the South by 66th Avenue, N.E., and on the west by the
main Golden Gate Canal and Longan Lakes excavation on agricultural
land.
Recommendation to approve commercial excavation Permit No. 59.764
"Jesse Hardy Commercial Excavation and Aquaculture", located in
Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 28 East; bounded on the north,
east and south by vacant land zoned Agriculture, and on the west by
vacant land zoned Estates.
Approve commercial excavation Permit No. EXP-2001-AR-660, "Yarberry
Lane Wet Detention Pond" located in Section 2, Township 49, South,
Range 25 East: Bounded on the north by vacant land zoned RSF-1, on the
east by the Carlisle (~ Naples and vacant land zoned agricultural, on the
south by occupied land zoned RSF-1, and on the west by Yarberry Lane
and occupied land zoned RSF-I.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Adopt the resolution designating CR 951 (Collier Boulevard), both existing
and future roadway, as a controlled access facility from US 41 to
Immokalee Road and a limited access facility from Immokalee Road to the
Lee County Line.
2)
Approve contracts for professional landscape architecture service firms
(RFP #00-3131) to provide professional landscaping beautification,
construction documentation, project management, specification and
services relative to architectural landscaping.
3)
Approve sole source purchase of "Continuous Deflection System (CDS)"
unit for storm water pipe on Bayshore Drive and Weeks Avenue
intersection, Project No. 31110.
4)
Approve budget amendments to facilitate timely resolution of utility
conflict for Airport-Pulling Road construction. Collier County Project No.
62301, CIE No. 55.
5)
Authorize the County Attorney's office to prepare a Developer
Contribution Agreement between Collier County and Brentwood LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, for the improvements of Tarpon Bay
Boulevard and 20th Avenue NW.
6) This item has been deleted.
7
7)
a)
9)
lo)
11)
12)
13)
Adopt the resolution encouraging the Florida Department of
Transportation to consider additional alternatives for the interim
improvements for the 1-75 corridor in Collier and Lee Counties.
Approve Amendment No. 2 to Livingston Road Construction Engineering
Inspection Professional Services Agreement with Kisinger Campo and
Associates Corp (KCA). Project No. 60061) (CIE No. $3).
Accept a utility easement from Long Bay Partners, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, required in the construction of Livingston Road from
Station 373+75 to the Lee/Collier County Line, CIE Project No. 21 (Ultimate
six-lane roadway).
Board direction regarding Transportation Services for the disabled.
A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the filing of a Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment
Support Grant application with the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
Request that the Board direct staff to form a Municipal Services Taxing
Unit (MSTU) for the purpose of providing maintenance and operational
funding for the existing landscaping improvements along the west side of
Vanderbilt Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to 111th Avenue and for
future area wide improvement projects.
Recommendation to extend the terms of the four advisory board members
of the Pelican Bay Services Division which expired.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve environmental assessment and remediation tasks with
expenditure in excess of $25,000 on State negotiated agreement price
schedule (SNAPS).
2) This item has been deleted.
3)
Amend professional services agreement with Hole Montes for engineering
services to expand the South County Water Reclamation Facility, RFP 93-
2121, Project 73949.
4) Recommendation to extend the Lake Trafford restoration ad hoc task
force through May 7, 2002 and re-appoint/appoint members.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Approve Summer Food Service Pro.qram Grant for Immokalee and Naples
Summer Recreation participants.
8
2)
Presentation of the mid-fiscal year 2001 report of the Collier County Film
Commission.
SUPPORT SERVICES
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) Approve Isles of Capri Fire Control District matching grant request to
purchase personal flreflghting protection equipment.
2)
3)
4)
6)
6)
Fund transfer from Reserves for Contingencies for payment for services
provided at the Merritt Boulevard fire for the period of April 8 through
April 10, 2000.
Approval of Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to
Firefighters 90/10% grant application to purchase an additional fire engine
and personal firefighting protection equipment.
Approve Ochopee Fire Control District matching grant request to
purchase an 18 h.p. portable pump.
Recognize carry-forward and appropriate monies in the Emergency
Management grant fund.
Approval of Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to
Firefighters 90110% grant application to purchase additional fire engine
and personal firefighting protection equipment.
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-265;
#01-267.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$100,000 for outside counsel and professional services including expert
services for pursuit of County's litigation relating to the 1995-96 beach
9
17.
restoration project in the lawsuit styled Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County v. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No.
00-1901 -CA.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: t) 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.
A. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
PUD-96-1(2), Mr. William Hoover and Andrew I. Soils, representing the Centre
at Veterans Park, LLC, requesting an amendment to the Veterans Park Medical
PUD having the effect of changing the PUD name to Veterans Park Commons
PUD, increasing the project acreage to 5.02 acres, and eliminating the limits
on the amount of general office uses for property located on the southwest
corner of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Veterans Community Park Drive in
Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Companion Item: PUD-97-13(1)).
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
PUD 97-13(1), Mr. William Hoover and Andrew I. Solis, representing the Centre
at Veterans Park, LLC requesting an amendment to the Veterans Park Center
PUD having the effect of removing Tract "A" and reducing the project acreage
from 8.76 acres to 6.94 acres for property located on the south side of
Immokalee Road (CR 846) and approximately 258 feet west of Veterans
Community Park Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida (Companion Item: PUD 96-1(2)).
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. PetitionV-
2000-37, D. WaYne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.,
representing John R. Wood, requesting a variance of 9.8 feet from the
required 15 foot setback from an off-site parking lot to 5.2 feet for property
located at 1115 Airport Road, further described as Lots 4-7, Block D, Naples
Villas, in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
VAC 00-020 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public's
interest in a portion of the 15' wide drainage easement and portions of the 15'
wide County utility easement in Tract M-2R, as shown on the plat of "Crystal
Lake Terraces at Eagle Creek Replat" as recorded in Plat Book 28, Pages 72
through 74, public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
10
E. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition V-
2000-40, On The Level Builders representing John M. and Genevieve A.
Lentovich requesting a 5.S-foot variance from the required 30-foot setback
from the property boundary lines to 24.5 feet for a property located at 5278
Treetops Drive and is further described as Unit 101, Building I, Woodgate at
Naples within the Treetops PUD. Treetops PUD is located approximately 3
miles south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road on the east side of Tamiami Trail
East, in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition
CU-2000-19, Gerald L. Knight, ESQ. Holland & Knight, LLP representing
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requesting a conditional use for
communications tower on a parcel of land zoned "E" Estates for a property
located at the northeast corner of Everglades Boulevard and 1-75,
approximately 8 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) within the Interstate
1-75 R.O.W. in Section 31, Township 49 South and Range 28 East. The site
consists of 36,000 square feet.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
11
, ' ?ROCLA~A T£ON
WHEREAS,
nearly 700 Americans die each day of sudden cardiac arrest and
2§0, 000 die each year; and,
nationally 9§ percent of those who suffer cardiac arrest die
before they reach the hospital; and,
the four links in the cardiac arrest chain of sum/va/are early
911 access to the EA4$ System. early Cardiopu/monary
Resuscitation (CPR). early defibrillation and early advanced EA~$
care; and,
the American Heart Association and the Collier County
Emergency &ted/cai Services Department emphasizes that every
link in the chain of survival is critical and can increase the
potent/a/for survival; and,
the American Heart
Emergency
and Florida College of
Day 2001; a day where
I000 community
NOW
2~I be
,of
take this
ski/Is
DONE AND
COt t I$$XONER$
A TTE$ T~
IA~ES D. CAR TER, Ph. b., CHA~
A',,'H,.4.,~,{~ E N DA ]:TEH
No.
APR 2 2001
pg.
WHEREA~,
WHEREAS,
WHEREA~.
WHEREAS,
PROCLAMATION
the Board of Collier Count/Commissioners takes pleasure in
recognizing the accomplishments of its citizens who have made
outstanding contributions to our communi~/; and,
Maria ~ones, 8¢n grade h/story teacher at Oakrid~e Middle
School. and Wend), Ma/fk. J~ grade teacher a~ V/ne~ards
~/emen~ary ~hool ha~e been rec~n/zed b~ being selected as
'~/tJzen$ of the Year= for the 5fate of Florida by the FF~
National ~/f/xen~h/p Ed~a~/on ~each~ ~ward for ~-~;
and,
these ~wo educators have sought to bring to their sfudents,
through innovative and diverse pro, rams. a sense of parr/or/sm.
cu/furo/ divers/~y, a love of/earning and the responsibilities of
citizenship; and.
their dedication to the profession of teaching, and their
dedication to their sfuden~s has been recognized by their peers.
who nominated them. and by the Veterans of Foreign Wars who
selected them for this honor.
NOW THEREFORe, be/t proc/aimed by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, that on the behalf of the citizens of
Collier Counfy. we wish to ex~end our appreciation and our
congratulations to Wendy Ma/ik and Maria ~ones on their be/n~
selected as recipients of
VFW NA T-~ONAL CXT'Y~ENSHIP EDUCA T-~ON TEACHER AWARD
2000- 2001
DONE AND ORDERED THIn 24th Day of Apr/I, 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER5
COZZrER COUNt/, FLOI~DA
A TTE$ T:
urAME$ D. CARTER, PHD, CIdAIRMAN
DWIGHT E BROCK, CLERK
' M
AGENDA I 'l'_E
No._
APR 2001
pg._ I
WHEREAS.
PROCLAMATION
83, 644 children in F/or/da were verified as hov/n9 been abused or
neglected dur/n9 1999/~000: and,
WHEREAS.
child abuse and neglect causes sign/f/cant trauma to the abused
ch/Id and society, /nf//cHn9 upon children set/bus///ness and injury
resu/t/n9 in physical, intellectual and emotional impairment, or
death; and,
WHEREAS,
prevent/on services can reduce the costs society must bear in
dea//n9 w/th the resuHs of ch/Id abuse and neglect and can help
children and £am//ies avoM the overburdened and expensive social
we/fare and criminal systems; and,
14/HEREA$, children deserve the opportunity to grow and thrive in healthful
env/ronmenfs, free of violence and harm; and,
WHEREAS, dur/n9
NOW
agencies,
res/dents will be
neglect
of
as Ch/Id
and ca//
and
in which
DONE AND
COMMISSIONER5
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A TTE$ 7';
DWIGHT E BROCK, CLERK
,TAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIR
~r. FNDAITEM
APR 2 2001
Pg ....
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE CHERYL SOTER, PLANNING SERVICES, AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL 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: Cheryl has been employed by Collier County for thirteen years. For the
entire time she has given 110% of her effort to accomplishing the tasks she is assigned. Cheryl
is remarkably responsive to the new challenges presented by the Planning Department's
initiative to convert all paper records to an integrated electronic data recording system. She
has exercised leadership throughout this process in addition to continuing to provide superior
customer service while conducting her day-to-day responsibilities, especially at the front counter
planning information desk. Cheryl is proactive and has made significant contributions to
improving the development review processes. She is always willing to offer suggestions to
improve regulations that are vague or unresponsive to our customers. Cheryl is most deserving
of the Employee of the Month recognition.
FISCAL IMPACT: "Employee of the Month" selectees receive a $50.00 cash award.
this award are available in the Department Budget Cost Center.
Funds for
RECOMMENDATION: That Cheryl Stoter, be recognized as the "Employee of the Month" for
April 2001.
PREPARED BY: .-~,' DATE: /'~'/~/~/
~ J/di' Bo~li~e, ExeCutive Secretary, County Uar{~g-er~s Office
Thoma~ W. Olliff, (~~anager '
COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
April 5, 2001
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112
(941) 774-8383
FAX (941) 774-4010
Mr. Robert Gentile
7678 Groves Road
Naples, FL 34109
RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC PETITION BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE ORCHARDS TO HAVE
THE BOG CONSIDER THE SAFETY CONDITIONS ON VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
Dear Mr. Gentile:
Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County
Board of Commissioners at the meeting of April 24, 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.
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
Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg. /
County Manager's Office
c/o Tom Olliff
3301 East Tamiami Trial
Naples, FI 34112
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Gentile
7678 Groves Road
Naples, Fi 34109
(941) 514-7924
March 29, 2001
Tomy
I have taken your advise from our Email communications today and I'm requesting
to be placed on the public petition portion of the agenda.
I represent a community called the Orchards. We are located at 7857 Gardner Dr.
The entrance to our community is located on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Since the
formation of a Traffic Safety committee regarding Vanderbilt Beach Rd we have
been trying in vain to find a solution to our problem.
We have exhausted all appeals to the Department of Traffic as well as 'the Sheriff's
Department. One year has gone by since we began asking for signage or a traffic
signal to be placed somewhere along Vanderbilt Rd that would interrupt the
constant flow of East bound traffic. We cannot exit or enter our community with
confidence in regard to our safety particularly during the peak traffic times of the
day. In addition we are extremely concerned with the effect these backups are
having on our County Emergency Personnel response times. Therefore we would
like to appeal in person before the Board to ask for their intervention and help.
Please feel free to contact me at anytime.
Sincerely,
Bob Gentile
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 WITH APAC-FLORIDA, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE WIDENING OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM
1-75 TO COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), PROJECT NO. 69101
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 6 for
additional construction services for the widening of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to Collier
Boulevard.
CONSIDERATIONS: On November 23, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners awarded a
construction contract to APAC-Florida, Inc. for the widening of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to
Collier Boulevard. Additional work is required, as described in the attached Change Order No. 6,
amounting to a total additional cost of $3,085,266.60. This change order has become necessary
due to the eroding of the Cocohatchee Canal bank and to protect the new road widening, as well
as existing utilities, from said encroachment. The Canal is under the jurisdiction of the Big
Cypress Basin (BCB) per the attached agreement. Per that agreement, the BCB, along with other
responsibilities, is to maintain the Canal. The Big Cypress Basin has agreed to participate in the
above cost by reimbursing the County in the amount of $500,000.00, to be paid at a later date
following South Florida Water Management District approval. In addition, this additional work
will add one hundred and eighty (180) days to the Contract.
FISCAL IMPACT: A budget amendment is needed to transfer $3,085,266.60 from the
Livingston Road Project #62071 into the Immokalee Road Project #69101. Source of funds will
be Gas Taxes. When the project is complete, a reimbursement of $500,000 will be made to the
County by the Big Cypress Basin and will be deposited into the Gas Tax Fund.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The project is consistent with the Transportation
Element of the Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached
Change Order No. 6 in the additional amount of $3,085,266.60 and authorize the Transportation
Engineering and Construction Management Director to execute the Change Order and approve
the necessary budget amendment.
APR 2 6 2001
SUBMITTED BY~/~ ~~-..
~ R./ Thorpe, P.E., Project Manager
Dale A. Bathon, P.E., Senior Project Manager
Date:
Date
APPROVED BY:
Stephen L.~liller, P.E., Director,
APPROVED BY: ~/~~~/
Norm~i%derl Administrator
TranSportation Division
Attachments: Change OrderNo. 6
T.E.C.M.
Date
Date
APR 2 ~1 2001
pg. ~ _
CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY
Project: Immokalee Road (Four Lane Improvements from 1-75 to C.R. 951)
Project No.: 69101
Contract No: 99-2992
Contractor: APAC-FIorida, Inc.
Change Order No.: 6
Date: April 6, 2001
Issue 1: Cochohatchee Canal Slope Stabilization:
Description: This change order covers the stabilization of the slope along the south side of the
Cochohatchee Canal per Hole, Montes & Associates Slope Stabilization plans dated, 2/19/01.
The slope stabilization is needed due to erosion of the slope and to construct the water treatment
swale per the original construction drawings for this project.
Presented below are the new pay items to be included in the contract by this Change Order:
Item Number Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount
104-1 lA 1,380 LF $6.30 $8,694.00
Add Pay Item Floating Turbidity Barrier
104-75A Relocate Floating Turbidity 21,462.0 LF $3.05 $65,459.10
Add Pay Item Barrier
514-71-2 Turf Reinforcement Mat 14,945.0 SY $3.65 $54.549.25
Add Pay Item
514-71-3 Plastic Filter Fabric 50,447.0 SY $2.50 $126,117.50
Add Pay Item
530-3-3 Rip-Rap (Rubble) 51,739.0 TN $45.70 $2,364,472.30
Add Pay Item
581-1-1 Spartina Patens 13,599.0 SY $4.60 $62,555.40
Add Pay Item
581-1-2 Bacopa Uonnied 38,247.0 SY $6.15 $235,219.05
Add Pay Item
590-70 Irrigation System 1 LS $168,200.00 $168,200.00
Add Pay Item
Total: $3,085,266.60
Issue: 2: Contract Time Extension
Description: Due to the extensive additional work added by this change order and the effect on
the contract schedule APAC-Florida will require and additional 180 days to complete the work
added by this change order.
Original Contract Change Order No. 2 Time Extension New Contract
Time (Days) Requested (Days) Time (Days)
506 180 686
No._ .¥
APR 2 2001
Pg. ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROGRESS REPORT ON REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR
LONG-TERM AND COMPLEMENTARY SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT
FOR COLLIER COUNTY
OBJECTIVE:
To provide the Board with a progress report on the RFI that was prepared and
conducted by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (MPI), for an assessment of available solid waste
disposal and complementary technologies pursuant to the Board's direction
received at the December 20'h, 2000 Solid Waste Workshop and the January 9th,
2001 and March 27th, 2001 BCC regular meetings.
CONSIDERATION:
1. For the County to be able to assess the available solid waste disposal
technologies a nation-wide search for information was initiated. There were a
total of 21 responses to the RFI. MPI reviewed all information submitted and
listed six core options for further consideration that would be capable of
managing the majority of the County's waste stream (Exhibit I).
For the County to be able to assess the available complementary solid waste
technologies a nation-wide search for information included ancillary
technologies such as landfill gas to energy and bio-diesel to complement the
long-term solid waste options.
3. During the process of the RFI, staff also received information from a number of
independent C&D processing facilities as well as yard waste processing
facilities.
4. Staff also made tasks assignments to Turn-Key Constructors Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc. (CDM) for a conceptual assessment and feasibility of a long-term
waste and recycling processing facility in Glades County (Exhibit II).
FISCAL IMPACT: The necessary funds are a~:ailable in Solid Waste Fund Reserves
for further assessment of long-term solid waste options.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This presentation is consistent with the
concurrency requirement with the Growth Management Plan including two years
of lined cell capacity requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board accept the progress report and that the
Board:
1)
Authorize the Solid Waste Director to initiate a Request For Additional
Information (RFAI) and make necessary task assignments to the consultants for
further assessment of the long-term solid waste management options pursuant to
the Board's direction received at the December 20th 2000 Solid Waste
Workshop and the January 9th, 2001 and March 27th, 2001 BCC regular
meetings.
2)
Authorize staff to formally request cooperation and a potential partnership with
Glades County for a long-term solution that will serve both communities and
make necessary assignments to the consultants and turn-key constructors to
complete a feasibility assessment prior to June of 2001.
3)
Authorize staff to prepare a WTE Panel Discussion to be scheduled before the
Board prior to June 2001 long-term options presentation, and authorize staff to
make payments for the experts in the field including travel and per diem
expenses.
4)
Authorize the Solid Waste Director to initiate a Request For Information (RFI)
and make necessary task assignments for assessment of the long-term C&D and
yard waste stream management options.
SUBMITTED BY: ~--------~-~----~~ ~-~'- ~,----' Date:
G. George Yilmaz, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., R.E.P.
Solid Waste Management Director
J~'n~s V Mudd, P E, Public Utilities Administrator
AG£N ' ! £
APE 2 4 2001
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS & CONSULTANTS
March 29, 2001
G. George Yilmaz, P.E., Ph.D.
Solid Waste Management Director
Collier County Solid Waste Department
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Building H
Naples, FL 34104
Dear George,
Enclosed please find our final report, which concludes our work under the RFEI Work
Order. Additional RFEI-related activities have been approved under a separate Work
Order, and include the following items:
(l) A presemation to interested citizens, perhaps in conjunction with the
Productivity Committee.
(2) A presentation to the Commission, at their 24 April 2001 meeting, of our
f'mdings and recommendations.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
Stephen C. Schwarz, P.E., DEE
Vice President
c: J. Mudd, w/o enclosure
EXHIBIT I
1533 HF_;,,!DRY STREEI SUITE 201 FT MYERS FL 33901 941 332 1390
fax 941 332-'7~9
Request
For
Expressions of
Interest
SUMMARY REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION, SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
'MARCH 26, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Background
Purpose
Schedule
REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (RFEI)
Goals
Response Requirements
Completed Document
Mailing List
Advertising
EVALUATION OF RESPONSES
Basis of Evaluation
Technology Evaluation
Summary of Responses
Brightstar Environmental, L.L.C.
Global Objekta Group, Inc.
DTE Biomass Energy (Biodiesel)
Basic Envirotech, Inc.
Startec Environmental, Inc.
Rapo-Shrink, Inc.
ReClaim & ReStore
Global Resource Recovery Organization
Gulftex Environmental Services, L.L.C.
Future Energy Resources Corporation (FERCO)
Waste Management, Inc. / Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. / Seminole Gulf Railway
Superior Services, Inc. / Onyx
Ogden Corporation
American REF-FUEL
Foster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc.
Heartland L.L.C.
DTE Biomass Energy (Landfill Gas)
Energy Developments, Inc.
CP Manufacturing, Inc.
Kelly Scott Holdings, Inc.
4. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-5
3-6
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-22
3-23
3-24
3-25
3-26
3-27
4-1
4037003
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
T~ INDEX
RFEI Document
Mailing List
RFEI Advertisement
Summary Matrix
Relative Evaluation Matrix
Brightstar Environmental, L.L.C.
Global Objekta Group, Inc.
DTE Biomass Energy (Biodiesel)
Basic Envirotech, Inc.
Sta~ :ec Environmental, Inc.
Rap,>Shrink, Inc.
ReClaim & ReStore
Global Resource Recovery Organization
Gulflex Environmental Services, L.L.C.
Waste Management, Inc. ! Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. / Seminole Gulf Railway
Superior Services, Inc. / Onyx
Ogden Corporation
American REFoFUEL
Foster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc.
Heartland L.L.C.
DTE Biomass Energy (Landfill Gas)
Energy Developments, Inc.
CP Manufacturing, Inc.
Kelly Scott Holdings, Inc.
Future Energy Resources Corporation (FERCO)
Tab #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4037003 ii
I APR2 iOOi /
1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Collier County Solid Waste Management Department (the "Department") entered into
a Professional Services Agreement (the "Agreement") with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
("Malcolm Pirnie") on September 14, 2000. Malcolm Pirnie's responsibilities under the
Agreement included a Task Order for the preparation, advertisement, and evaluation of a
Request For Expressions of Interest (the "RFEI") for solid waste technologies and
alternatives for the long-term management of solid waste generated in Collier County (the
"County"). This report summarizes the activities, research, and methodologies used by
Malcolm Pirnie in the completion of this task for the County.
PURPOSE
Decisions regarding solid waste management are typically costly both in money and time,
and cannot be made without some knowledge of the technology and management
techniques that are available in the industry. Solid waste management has become a
significant issue in recent years, driven in part by the rapid population growth and
associated development in the County. Increasing costs, rapidly decreasing volumes of
available landfill space, and pressure to meet state recycling goals have caused the
Department to reconsider their solid waste management options. In addition, numerous
system vendors have approached the County over the years, and continue to approach the
County, proposing various solutions to the solid waste problem. The County has lacked a
consistent organized framework under which to evaluate these proposals. To move this
process forward, we were tasked to conduct an organized RFEI process.
An RFEI process is a preliminary investigative step, sometimes used before an Request for
Proposals ("RFP") process. An RFEI is less formal and less detailed than an RFP, and is
therefore faster and easier to conduct. However, the responses to an RFEI are not binding,
and a final contract cannot result. Therefore the responses to an RFEI, while instructive,
cannot be construed with the same assurance as the responses to an RFP.
4(137003 1-1
IAPR 24 I
i 7
SCHEDULE
The RFEI schedule is provided below:
· RFEI issued to selected vendors: November 7, 2000
· Advertisement: December 1, 2000
· RFEI final closing date: February 28, 2001
· Completion of response review: March 5, 2001
· Completion of RFEI Summary Report: March 8, 2001
4037003 1-2
2. REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST
GOALS
The RFEI was issued to solicit information from potentially viable solid waste
management vendors. As part of the task, there were three intended goals:
1. To inform interested parties of the Department's desire to receive information
regarding solid waste management options.
2. To determine the viability of the various solid waste management options. Viable
options were defined as those solid waste processing and disposal options that would
provide the County with:
· Long-term waste disposal capacity;
· Be cost effective for the County;
· High levels of service to its' residents, and;
· Increase recycling levels to or above State of Florida goals.
3. To identify those parties that possess the interest, experience, financial capability, and
proven technology to effectively manage the County's solid waste.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
Respondents were asked to submit the following information:
· A narrative description of the component(s) of their proposed plan(s) or product(s) that
would aid the County's solid waste management efforts;
· An indication of the portion or amount, and type, of waste that their proposed
system(s) would be able to manage;
· Sketches, drawings, photos, etc. of existing installations or any other graphics that
would convey the proposed concept;
· A budget (non-binding) cost estimate;
Information related to the financial resources and professional ability to implement any
or all component(s) of their proposed plan(s);
Contact information; and
The form and structure of any proposed partnership or.joint venture.
4037003 2-1
APR 2 q I
COMPLETED DOCUMENT
The RFEI draft document was completed on November 5, 2000, with the final document
issued on November 7, 2000. A copy of the final RFEI is included in Tab 1 of this report.
MAILING LIST
Following the completion of the RFEI document, a list of target companies involved in the
solid waste industry was compiled. The list was compr/sed of companies that had either
contacted the County in the past or were known to have solid waste technologies that
might be of interest to the County. One RFEI was mailed to each company on the list by
November 10, 2000. A copy of the mailing list is included in Tab 2.
ADVERTISING
Malcolm Pirnie also placed an advertisement for the RFEI in the December issue of Waste
Age, a solid waste industry magazine with nationwide circulation. A copy of the
advertisement is included in Tab 3.
RESPONSES
As a result of the invitations and the advertisement a total of 21 responses were received.
Respondents ranged from multi-billion dollar corporations offering to deal with the
County's entire solid waste stream, to equipment suppliers hoping to sell individual items
of equipment. Our evaluation of the responses follows.
4037('~03 2-2
APR 2 4 2OG1
p~. /0 _
3. EVALUATION OF RESPONSES
BASIS OF EVALUATION
Each RFEI response was evaluated and then categorized based on 1) the type of
technology, and 2) the technology's targeted waste stream and processing capacity.
Further research was conducted on the processes and applications of each proposed
technology to ensure proper categorization. Based on the evaluations, Malcolm Pirnie
created two categories of solid waste technology, Proven and Developmental, and two
capacity categories, Core and Ancillary. It should be noted that no single technology or
process can address every component of the County's waste stream, but all of the
technologies presented in this evaluation can process a portion. The following is a
description of the categories:
· Proven: Proven solid waste technologies include those management techniques and
technologies that are commercially available and operating on a large-scale basis.
Examples include sanitary landfills, waste-to-energy facilities, and landfill gas-to-
energy.
· Developmental: This category includes those technologies that are available, but have
few or no facilities in continuous operation. Examples include biodiesel, biomass-to-
energy, and autoclaving SWERF/MRF facilities.
· Core: Those technologies capable of managing the majority of the waste stream for a
given community without any additional processing. Examples include landfills,
waste-to-energy facilities, etc.
· Ancillary: Ancillary technologies are only applicable to a specific portion of the waste
stream, and rely on other processes, such as landfills, to manage the remaining waste
volume. Examples include recycling equipment, landfill gas-to-energy, and alternative
fuels production.
Malcolm Pirnie also considered the following relative evaluation criteria based on the
technical and financial aspects of the technology presented; on the vendor's experience in
4037003 3-1
providing the technology; and on the vendor's financial ability to implement the
technology:
Level of interest - This criterion considers whether a RFEI was submitted.
Level of responsiveness - This criterion considers the completeness of a vendors RFEI
submittal based on the requirements provided in the announcement.
Capital costs - This criterion considers the estimated capital costs for implementing
each technology relative to the portion of the waste stream that it would target.
Cost per ton - This criterion considers the estimated cost per ton for each technology
relative to the portion of the waste stream that it would target.
Experience - This criterion considers the vendor's experience and qualifications for
each technology. It includes an assessment of the number of similar projects designed,
constructed, and operated by the vendor.
Financial stability - This criterion considers the financial stability of each vendor.
Where no information was provided, "N/A" is noted.
It is important to recognize that the information contained in each RFEI packet is
preliminary and should not be assumed to be a final cost estimate. Namely, the pricing
information is not specific to the conditions presented in the County and as such is not
binding.
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
The technologies presented in the RFEI responses
following categories:
generally can be classified by the
Landfills in Florida are required to be constructed with either a composite (single 60-mil
geomembrane liner with secondary clay liner) or double liner (two geomembrane liners of
at least 60-mil thickness). In addition, landfills are required to have a leachate collection
4037003 3-2
system and a gas control system. Landfills can accept all types of waste with the exception
of hazardous and state-restricted wastes.
Mass Burn Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facilities accept unsorted waste, although large
objects (e.g. refrigerators) are typically removed. The waste is then moved over a grate
(either a moving screen or a set of reciprocating or fixed grates) that feeds the material into
the combustion chamber and discharges the resulting ash into a suitable receiver. Heat
generated from the burning waste is used to convert water to high-energy steam inside a
boiler. The steam is then used to turn a turbine, which generates electrical power.
Liquid Injection Incinerators are designed to incinerate liquid or pumpable slurry and
sludge wastes, usually in a single, refractory-lined cylindrical combustion chamber
positioned in a horizontal or vertical alignment.
Fluidized Bed Incinerators consist of a bed of sand, limestone, or other material and the
combustion residue in a refractory chamber. The bed is fluidized by blowing air and, if
necessary, recirculated combustion gases into the bottom. The flowing gas agitates the bed
material, transforming it into an expanded turbulent mass that has properties similar to a
fluid. Waste and fuel, if needed, are fed either directly into the fluidized bed or into the
windbox beneath the bed, where they ignite. The combustion of the waste and fuel heats
the bed material to temperatures high enough that it, rather than the flame, acts as the
combustion source.
Pyrolysis is the thermal processing of waste in the absence of oxygen, where solid waste is
converted into gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels.
Refi~se Derived Fuel (RDF) is a fuel source comprised of processed solid waste. Typically,
when processing RDF, the waste is sorted, reduced in size, and further refined by the
removal of non-combustible materials such as glass and metals. RDF can be used as a fuel
for boilers, which can be used to produce steam or electricity.
4037003
APR 2 4 20 1
Solid Waste-to-Energy Recovery Facilities (SWERF) receive both curbside sorted and
unsorted MSW and other waste, including sewage sludge and green waste if desired. The
material is then autoclaved (sterilized) and sorted in an automated process that includes
screening, magnetic separators, eddy current separators and other devices to produce
segregated streams of organic waste and recyclable materials. The organic material is then
pelletized and converted to synthetic gas, which is burned for power generation.
Biodiesel (mono alkyl esters) is a cleaner-burning diesel fuel made from natural, renewable
sources such as vegetable oils. Produced by a process called transesterification, the
vegetable oil (or animal fat) is first filtered, then preprocessed with alkali to remove free
fatty acids. It is then mixed with an alcohol (usually methanol) and a catalyst (usually
sodium or potassium hydroxide). Triglycerides in the vegetable oil react to form esters and
glycerol, which are then separated from each other and purified. Biodiesel has physical
properties very similar to conventional diesel. Emission properties, however, are better for
biodiesel than for conventional diesel.
BASIC Solid Waste Combustion is a proprietary technology of BASIC Envirotech, Inc., but
is essentially a WTE facility. The primary differences are in the design of the grate system
and the combustion chamber. In the BASIC system, the waste is fed into the combustion
chamber by an electromechanical grate system. The waste dries in the hearth, losing most
of its moisture and water content. The hearth is then pulse-fired and the waste is
incrementally moved through the chamber. Removal of ash, ash quenching, power
generation, and air scrubbing are similar to conventional WTE facilities.
Landfill Gas-to-Energy projects capture landfill gas (primarily methane), clean it, and then
use the gas to power either reciprocating engine generators or gas turbine generators for
power production.
Sludge Dry.'ing Processes utilize various proprietary processes to remove n.,i:,ture from
biosolids producing a product that can be further processes as a soil amc,n~!:.:..~t or fuel,
amongst other uses.
4037003 3-4
APR 2 4 2001
,PG.
Single Material Processing targets a specific component of the waste stream for
processing. Processes range from labor-intensive manual sorting to highly sophisticated
mechanical systems.
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
A total of 21 companies submitted responses to the RFEI. A brief summary of each
technology is presented below, and a categorized summary matrix of the responses is
included in Tab 4.
A relative evaluation summary is located in Tab 5. This summary serves as a screening
tool to identify which proven, core technologies should be considered further. For each
vendor/technology a plus (+) or minus (-) was assigned for each relative evaluation
criteria. This approach was selected because of the general nature of the RFEI, which
precluded assigning a detailed rating for each criterion. Where appropriate, comments
have been provided.
Documentation of each of the responses is included in Tab 6. It should be noted that
additional technology vendors that did not respond to the RFEI were contacted to assess
their level of interest. Information was solicited from these vendors and was assimilated
into the summary matrices.
4037(}03 .~-2" -
APR 2001
/5
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There were a total of 21 responses to the RFEI. Eleven of the 21 responses were proven
technologies that are currently in operation, with the remaining responses consisting of
products and technologies that are still under development. While there were several
ancillary technologies represented, such as landfill gas-to-energy and biodiesel, that may
be of interest to the County to address certain components of the waste stream and/or
specific problems, only six RFEI responses represented proven, core technologies that
would be capable of managing the majority of the County's waste stream. These six
options include the following:
1. Waste Management - Long-term Naples landfill optimization / WTE
construction
2. BFI / Seminole Gulf Railway - Rail haul waste to Harris County, GA landfill
3. Ogden Corporation - Construction and operation of WTE facility
4. American REF-FUEL - Construction and operation of WTE facility
5. Foster Wheeler power Systems, Inc. - Construction and operation of WTE facility
6. Superior Waste / Onyx - Rail haul to GA landfill / WTE facility construction
facility
In addition to the technologies listed above, there are other technologies that are currently
used in the United States whose vendors did not respond to the RFEI. For example,
Bedminster Bioconversion is.a mixed waste composting vendor with several commercial
scale operating facilities.
The factors to consider when selecting a long-term solid waste management system
depends on the management term desired. Short-term (1-5 year) solutions such as truck or
rail hauling to outside facilities is a viable alternative. While exporting waste is cost
effective on a per ton basis, the option is subject to changing contract and regulatory
conditions as well as liability for the exported waste. In the end, if this option is selected
without a counterpart or ancillary solution, the County will not achieve a "true" integrated
4037003 4-1
long-term solution. Moderate term (5-15 year) solutions such as a landfill expansion in
conjunction with other ancillary technologies may be cost competitive with the short-term
options on a per ton basis and would provide adequate time for the County to develop
future solid waste management plans. However, in Collier County this option would
essentially maintain the status quo, which may be met with significant resistance from the
community. Long-term (15-50+ years) solutions such as a WTE plant would be the most
expensive on a per ton basis, but would also provide a proven and stable waste
management system for the County for decades. However, this option may also be meet
heavy resistance from the community due to its high capital and operation costs and
perceived environmental risks.
While the immediate focus of RFEI is directed towards core technologies, several non-core
technologies warrant further consideration. For example, landfill gas-to-energy is a sound,
well-proven process that has clear benefits. However, there are some factors, such as
rights to the landfill gas, that need to be resolved. This may be an issue if waste-to-energy
is selected as the preferred waste management technology as landfill gas-to-energy
developers generally claim the rights to the landfill gas. In addition, the use of landfill gas
credits, which are scheduled to sunset in six years, are considered critical to the economic
viability of a gas-to-energy project. Biodeisel is a promising technology worthy of further
consideration. But, it is complicated to implement given the impact that it would have on
waste generators and haulers as well as the wastewater department. Nonetheless, these
ancillary technologies will be explored further as part of the County's long-term integrated
waste management program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of the RFEI was to gather general information for different waste
management technologies available to the County. Our evaluation concluded that there are
several long-term proven core and ancillary technologies available to the County. While
developmental core and ancillary technologies will always be available, we suggest that
the County be cautious in their consideration.
4037003 4-2
APR 2 4 2OD1
/7
Based on the collected data, Malcolm Pirnie recommends that the County request
additional information from those vendors representing proven, core technologies that
could provide a long-term solid waste management solution to the County. Therefore, the
following vendors and technologies should be considered:
1. Waste Management - Long-term Naples landfill optimization / WTE facility
construction
2. BFI / Seminole Gulf Railway - Rail haul waste to Harris County, GA landfill
3. Ogden Corporation - Construction and operation of WTE facility
4. American REF-FUEL - Construction and operation of WTE facility
5. Foster Wheeler - Construction and operation of RDF to circulating fluidized bed WTE
facility
6. Superior Waste / Onyx - Rail haul to GA landfill / WTE facility construction
7. Bedminster Bioconversion - Construction and operation of a mixed waste composting
facility
8. Brightstar Environmental, L.L.C. - Construction and operation of an solid waste-to-
energy facility
The inclusion of Bedminster Bioconversion in this list is recommended, despite the fact
that they did not respond to the RFEI. We make this recommendation because we feel it is
important to include at least one composting technology representative. Brightstar
Environmental, EEC. is the only developmental technology included. While
developmental, it is potentially a core technology that claims low cost and a reasonable
technical approach. We therefore think it useful to include them.
To better understand the costs involved and to more accurately gauge the level of interest
of the vendors, the County should request additional information. Specifically, the County
should issue a request for additional information (RFAI) to the recommended vendors. In
order to solicit useful information, the following available information, at a minimum,
should be provided to the vendors:
4037003 4-3
APR 2
Waste characterization
· Design requirements
· Performance requirements
· Processing tonnage (daily and annual)
· Availability of the technology (days per year)
· Regulatory constraints (siting, permitting, etc.)
· Contract term
· Preferred procurement approach
· Minimum financial criteria
· Insurance requirements
· Vendor responsibility
· County responsibility
Based on the requested information, the vendor's should include, at a minimum, as part of
their response the following items:
· Executive summary
· Basis of design summary
· Basis of operation summary
· Financial plan
· Source and method of financing
· Service fee
· Estimated capital, operation, and maintenance costs
· Availability and location of facilities to tour
Once a more detailed response from the interested vendors is received, the County can
make a more informed decision as to which vendors and technologies best fit with their
long-term solid waste management program.
4037003 4-4
~. 11.Z3~1 4: ~39F~I N0.418'
Subject~. Conceptual Feasibility Analysis' for Glades County LandffLI1 for Task
As you recluestect, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CT)M) has perform~ a conceptual level
evaluation of the costs associated v,d.~ use of the axisting Glades Co~t7 landfill ~ ~
lal'tO, f)_)I!!l.~ Of a portiort of Collier Collnt~s solid waste - 250,000 tons per ~ear as a tihort-
term optiom We have also prepared a ~1 level cost estimate for the development
of a r~w landfill site in Glades County to handle all of Collier County's solid waste (,~0,000
tons per year) for about 40 to 50 years.
The followir~ presents our conceptual level cost estimates for these two options including
the key a~-t~mptiorm util~d irt developh'~; thee prelimina~ costs:
SHORT-TERM OPTION:
Glades County currently has a l~rmitted landfill site includin~ a proposed build-out plan.
They currently receive about 20 to 25 tons per clay. Our work for this option b. as included
evaluat~n8 the potential site Me for the ]a:p,,,,]_~11 rece~ 250,000 tons ~ :y'e~ ~om Collier
Count~ the capita], and operating co~t associated with ~ expanded operation; and the
transportation cost ~ted with tl~ bald;rig of solid waste fI~xn Collier County to
Glades County.
~ At the currently proposal final ~tour~, the Glades County landfill would have a
life of about 2.5 y~ars 1-~acllir~ 250,000 ions p~r year. This is based upon ~n in-place
density of 1300 pounds per cubic yard and an allowance of 10 ~o 15 percent for cover
material CDM invsstigated expanding the currant closure plan to maximize site
u~l;-~tiorc After allowir~ ~or Stormwater mana~t ami a small area for fadl!ties, we
moved the south boundary of the fill area about 240 feet to the south and raised the final
elevation of t]~ landfill Based upon.this site ~tion, we estimate the site life
achievable at this site at about 3.5 to 4 year~. We l~ve u~tl;~ed an estb~a~ed site life of four
years for the remainder of ~ anal}sis.
EXHIBIT II
APR 2 4 2081
,dO
Mr. G. George Yilmaz
April 11, 2001
Page 2
C,~_ital and Ola~tting Costs: The capital and operating cost~ are based upon the
reffuir~ments of a landfill operation handling 250,000 tons per year or about 800 tons per
day on a six day per week basis. TI~ ccn~truction costs include the complete d~elopment
of the landfill area, installation of temporary/movable facilitieS, and an allowance for the
expansion of leachat~ treatment capability ~n-site. The cans~on cost includes an
allowance of 25 percent for permitting, engineering, and contingencies. Our construction
cost ~timat~ on a design/build basis is about $7,500,000 to $8,500,000.
The annual operating cost for the f~]~ty includes the annualized conalruction and
equipm~t costs at 6 percent over the four year life of the facility, associated site operating
costs including an allowance for leachate treatrn~t, an annual allowm-,ce for the purchase
c~ cover material from an off-si~e source, and the f~nding of the closure and long-term care
ftmcis. We estimate the total annual landfill operating cost at about $6,800,000 to $7,400,000
on a currer~t dollar basis. This includes an allowance for the costs associated with on-site
leachate management based orr expansion of the existing R/O treatment facility. Th~ae
costs are shown in Table 1.
The transportation costs include the construction of a two-bay open-top transfer station
n.nd ~n administration/maintenance building, as well as the operation and owning costs
for tl~ haul equipment. 1'4o allowance has b~ made for land acquisition. An allowan~
of 25 percent for permitting, engineering, and contingencies is included. A key assumption
is that a transfer vehicle can make the round-trip from the transfer station to the landffil,
including loacling and unloading time, within four hours, thus making two trips per day.
The estimatect total annual transportation coats are from $5,300,000 to $5,600,000. This is
based upon a six clay per week operation. In adclition, the ~ransfer station construction cost
has been amortizod over 20 years based upon the assumption it would be a permanent
facility. The capital and armu~l operating costs are shown in Table 2.
Summarg Short-_T_erm Ovtton: Ba~i upon the above, our preliminary estimate for the si'tort-
term option (Le. landfil~ng at ~ existing Glades County landfill) is an annual cost of
about $12,100,000 to $13,000,000 for the ~our year period based upon 2001 costs.
LONG-_TER1VI oPTIoN:
The long-term option is based upon the siting and development of a new lan~fll in Glades
County capable of receiving all of Collier County's waste (500,000 tons per year) for about
50 years.
The estimated costs for this option have been based upon a conceptual site of about 500
acres, wlxich will provide the required capacity using the same assumptions as the short-
term option.
It is difficult to estimate the development costs for an essentially unknown landfill site.
Mr. G. GeorH ¥flmaz
April 11, 2001
However, based upon our exper~ce and ma.king reasonable allowances/or storm~-at~r
r~/ttflIeraer~ts, wetlands issues, roadway acc~s, etc., we estimate the irdtial site
development cost at about $17,000,000 to $22,000~00 inaludin~ an allowar~/or land
aCcluisitian. This includes an allowance of 25 percent for permitti~, en~lneerir~, and
c~mti~encies.
The estimated total annual land.Rll cost is estimated at about $?,000,000 to $?~800,000 based
upon 200! costs. This includes amortizing the initial construction cost over 20 years as well
as alloweaces for the closure and long-term care fi~ls. These costs are shown in Figure 5.
For the transportation costs, the same assumption of two trips per day/or each trane/er
vehicle was made a~/or the short-term option. It also was assumed that a second trane/er
station in Collier County would be constructed. This would be a three-bay, open-top
facility. The third bay was included W allow some redundancy, as well as an allowance for
the ~'owth in Collier County's waste stream. This was the only provision for growth in the
waste cluantities made in tki~ preliminary analy~i~. Otherwise, it i~ ltnticipated that the t'~o
transfer stations would be similar operations. No allowance for land acquisition was
included.
Based upon the above, th~ estimated annual transportation cost, includin$ trans/~r and
haul, is about $11,400,000 to $12,200g)00 based upon 2001 costs. This includes the cost
associated with both trar~fer statior~
Summ~.~ Lon~_.Te~ Ql~n: Based upon the precedL~, our ~fi~te for ~e 1~-~
op~on (Le. a new ~d~ ~ G~des Co~) is ~ ~ ~st ot abou~ $18,~,~ ~
$20,~,~ b~ed u~n 2001 cos~. ~ ~ s~ ~ Table 4, w~ su~~ bo~
Following your review of these cost estimates, we would be pleased to meet with you to
cliscuss these results. H you have any questions, please c~ll me at ($13) 281-2900.
Very truly yours,
Robert Hauser, Jr., P.E.
~xior Vice President
C:
Abdul Mulla 5alda
Tom Missimer
APR 2 4 2001
RP~. 11.~1 4: 11PH H0.41~ P. ~,,~
TABLE
SUMMARY SHORT-TERM LANDFILL COSTS~
E~uipment
Total Construction Cost
$ 8,000,000
,2575.000
_Annual L%ndtill Operating Costm
k,m~zecl Cor~tmction C~t
~u~d ~q~pment Cos~
Eq~pm~t ~on ~d M~mn~e
Lea~ M~age~nt
Site M~~ce
U~
Mo~g
C~ ~~/P~se
Oosur~ F~d
~g-Te~ ~
To~ L~I ~a~ C~t
$ 2,310,000
1,296,000
460,000
~,000
~5,000
75,000
70,000
846,000
~Based Upon 2001 Costs
APR 2 4 2001
APR. 11.~1 4: llPM N0.418 P.6/8
.TABLE 2
SU/VIMARY SHORT-TERM TRA~SPORTATI~ON COSTSi
T~m~r S~al~om and Administration/lV~imtenance
Hat~ff ~q~pm~
To~l ~plt~ Cost
~ual ~pq~on O~~
~~.d ~fer $~ Cost
~~zed Tr~ Sta~on Eq~pm~t
~u~d ~g ~q~pment
Tr~fer Station ~era~ Cost
T~al A~ual Tr~po~flon Co~
S %000~XX)
~0~00
$ 610,000
565,000
3,4501OO9.,.
q~sed Upon 2D01 Co~t~
Table ~ of 4
APR. 11.~1 4:llPM ~3.418 P.?×8
TABLE
SUMMARY LONG-TERM LANDFILL_COSTS~
C~i~l Co,.ts:
Construction
Equipment
Total Capital Cost
~.0,000,000~
4,sl,o,ooo
Annual L,md,f~ll Op,eratine Costs:
Annualized Construction Cost
Annualized Equipment Cost
Equipment Operation ~ Maintenar~e
Labor
L~achate Management
Site Maintmxance
Utilities
Monltorir~g
Cover Material Purchase
Closure Fund
Long-Term Care Fund
Total Land~ill A~nual Operaling Cost
$ 2,170,000
615,000
830O0O
2~)60,000
500,000
80,000
50,O00
100,000
140,000
668,000
121,000
~l]ased Upon 2001 Cost~
alncludes ~ Allowanc~ for Land Puzcha~e
Table 3 of 4
TABLE 4,
SUMMARY SHORT-TERM,OPTION~
A~'~_~I~-~:[ Land.~ Operating Costs
Ann-~li~t Transportation Co~ts
Total .4mnual Cost
tisfimatc~l Co~t Pe~ Ton At ~0~ T~ P~ Ye~
7,029,000
5,&73.000
$48.40-$52.00
$.UMMARY LONG-TERM OPTION~
Ar~uaLLzed La~ Operatin$ Costs
Az~ali~.ed T~az~portatio~ Cos~
To~ ~ Co~t
~a~ Cost Per T~ At ~,000 T~ Per Ye~
$
~.80--$~0,00
~Bas~d Upon 2001 Costs
T~4~4
APR 2 ~ 2001
~.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATUS REPORT REGARDING ACQUISITION OPTIONS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE BAREFOOT BEACH PARK PRESERVE
OBJECTIVE: To update the Board on the actions taken to date in evaluating
acquisition options for the remaining parcel of privately owned property within the
Barefoot Beach Park Preserve.
CONSIDERATION: On February 13~ 2001, the County Commission directed staff to
develop options for the acquisition of the sole remaining parcel of privately owned land
within the Barefoot Beach Park Preserve and report back to the Board within 60 days.
Pursuant to this directive, staff has taken the following actions in pursuit of this property:
1. A title commitment on the property has been ordered, received and reviewed by the
County Attorney's Office and the Real Property Management Department.
o
Proposals have been solicited and received from two real estate appraisal firms to
perform independent market value appraisals on the property. Both appraisers have
also recommended that the County should hire an expert professional land planner if
condemnation is expected. Initial professional service fees, prior to condemnation
and litigation-related services, are expected to run between $40,000 and $50,000.
o
The County Attorney's Office has concluded that the use of Tourist Development
Taxes is probably a legal and appropriate source of funds for this acquisition.
However, under the circumstances, the County Attorney requests direction to obtain a
formal opinion from the Florida Attorney General's Office regarding this issue.
o
Staff has participated both directly and indirectly with retained legal counsel, Nancy
Linnan, Esq. of the Law Firm of Carlton Fields, in several discussions with State
officials to determine the State's interest in acquiring this property and the specific
ways in which they are prepared to assist in the acquisition. Initial response from the
State indicates an unwillingness to exercise its powers of eminent domain in
acquiring the subject property. However, State officials have assisted County staff in
identifying potential sources of State funds that could be used to reimburse a local
government that acquires qualifying land, even if by condemnation. However, the
availability of funds will not be known until the end of the current Legislative Session
in early May.
o
State officials, along with retained counsel, have also suggested that the County
consider using the services of an experienced third party, not-for-profit land
acquisition organization to lead and/or assist in negotiations with the property eu..'_'-er .........
These agencies are well regarded bY the State and are very knowledgeable abott
J APR2q2001
various acquisition strategies and available funding sources. Staff will continue to
evaluate this option.
Staff will provide another update on this project within 90 days.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of the required market appraisals, if and when
authorized, is $50,000.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Acquisition of this property for preservation
purposes is consistent with and furthers Objective 1.3 of the Recreation and Open Space
Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan,
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this status report and
that the Board direct the County Attorney to seek the Attorney General's opinion
regarding the use of Tourist Development Taxes for acquisition of the subject property.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr. /
Public Services Admh,ri~trator
Ramiro Manalic~ r - - -
· Chief Assistant County Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH CARE PLANNING
AND FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE INTERIM REPORT
OBJECTIVE: To obtain County Commission acceptance and endorsement of the
Committee' s findings and recommendations for improving access to health care in the
community, including specific budget recommendations for FY 2001-02.
CONSIDERATION: In May 1999, the iBoard appointed the Community Health Care
Review Committee to review existing health care systems in Collier County and
determine if adequate access was available to all residents. The Committee's final report
to the Board in September 2000, concluded that serious health care access problems
existed in the community with an estimated 30,000 residents under the age of 64 having
no health insurance coverage, private or government-sponsored.
As a result of this report, the County Commissison appointed the Health Care Planning
and Finance Committee to build upon the work of the initial Committee. This Committee
was directed to identify the most appropriate solutions to present and future community
heath care needs, quantify the cost of these solutions and determine the optimum mix of
funding mechanisms to finance proposed solutions.
A summary of the Committee's recommendations is enclosed. A copy of the entire report
is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the County
Manager's Office.
In consultation with the Committee Chairman and the Public Health Director, staff
recommends funding the following primary program components in FY 01-02:
Initial phase of an integrated primary health care system
Continuation of the existing school nurse program
· Continuation of the Healthy Kids Program, including an appropriate "fair share"
contribution toward the required local match
· Continuation of the prenatal care program for indigent women
· Expansion of the Public Health Department's existing dental program to include
indigent adult patients, which will enable the program to leverage additional
federal grant funds
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to implement the initial phase of the program outlined
above in FY 2001-02 is estimated to range between 2.8 and 3.0 million dollars. The
Public Health Department will manage program budgeting and implementation. Program
funding will come from general fund revenues. F"'"~gen,~, '~--;, '
APR .2001 I
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact
associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners accept and endorse
the recommendations outlined in the Health Care Planning and Finance Committee
Interim Report and request the Public Health Director to prepare FY 01-02 program
budget proposals for the primary program components outlined in this Executive
Summary.
PREPARED BY: eL, , Date:
Le6Ochs, Jr //} !
Eublic Services Ad/~dstrator
REVm~D BY: '-Co~~. ~ate:
.... ~al}h Depmment
rector, Collier County
APR 2 200I
pg.
Collier County Health Care
Planning and Finance Committee
An Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of County Commissioners
Thomas Schneider, Chairman
April l2, 2001
To: Collier County Board of Commissioners
From: Community Health Care Planning and Finance Committee
Subject: Interim Report and Budget Recommendation
This is an Interim Report from the Community Health Care Planning and Finance
Committee that includes a budget recommendation for FY 2001-02 that is con,agent on
subsequent approval by the Board of the program specifics listed on page 4.
Tlfis cover letter sumraarizes our conclusions and recommendations while the several
Appendices add important explanation and detail Because several Appendices were
written by experts, we have chosen to include their full text in this booklet. The reader is
encouraged to read each Appendix in full at the point where it is referenced in the cover
letter. While this will require some "flipping back and forth" by the reader, we believe the
slight inconvenience is preferable to abridging the attachments.
BACKGROLrND:
In May 1999, the Board of County Commissioners appointed the Health Care Review
Committee to review existing health care systems in Collier County and determine if
adequate access is available to all residents. The Committee documented serious access
problems in Collier County for 30,000 uninsured residents under the age of 64 despite the
exceptional generosity and compassion of private sector health care organizations and
physicians. Of particular si~m~ificance is that fact that there is, at prestrat, no coordinated
system for providing primary, preventative care to the uninsured. As a result, many
uninsured residents defer treatment and then head for area Emergency Rooms for
treatment and, in some cases, hospitalization for an avoidable condition. (See Appendix
A for a precis of the Health Care Review Committee's Final Report).
In September 2000, Commissioners appointed the Health Care Planning and Finance
Committee to build upon the work of the Health Care Review Committee and:
"...Identify the most appropriate solutions to present and future community health care
needs, quantify the cost of these solutions and determine the optimum mL, c of funding
mechanisms to finance proposed solutions ..... "Appendix B summarizes the Health
Care Planning and Finance Committee's member.qhip, orgoni?ation, progress, and
preliminary findings. The Models Sub-Committee identified and compared successful
health care models.from other communities, especially in Florida, and made appropriate
site visits.
Appendix C contains excerpts fxom Community Initiatives for the Uninsttred: How Far
Can Innovative Parmerships Take Us? and identifies the common elements of successful
local initiatives to improve health care access for the uninsured.
In Appendix D, Dr. Robert Tober, Chairman of the Department of Emergency and
Ambulatory Medicine for NCH Healthcare and head of County EMS Services, discusses
the local and national Emergency Room crises. He explains that the "safety net" we
count on in case of a medical emergency is so badly flayed and stretched, especially "ia
season," that any individual could be at risk. An important contributing factor is the
number of uninsured patients who do not have primary care physicians and therefore use
hospkal emergency rooms as their "doctor of last resort."
In Appendix E, Steven Rasnick, President, Self'Insured Plans, Inc., and a member of the
Health Care Planning and Finance Committee, explains that the present decentralized
approach to treating the uninsured is inefficient from an economic standpoint and causes
a large indirect tax, or cost shift, from those who cannot afford to pay to everyone who
pays for any health care service in the County.
In response.to yoth- directive to lead a community-wide health care planning effort, the
Communications Sub Committee and the Coalitions Sub Committee set out to promote
understanding through: a series of speeches to community organizations by Chairman
Tom Schneider; Press Releases on specific issues; story ideas for specific media
organizations; and a Town Hall Meeting in Golden Gate on March 21, 2002 (see
Appendix F). Jean Merritt and the stalt'ofCollier County Department of Public
Information were extremely supportive and helpful. The enclosed videotape, Appendix
G, contains some of Channel 54's broadcast highlights on this issue.
( i
No
APR 2
pg., -£ __ _
The Committee recommends that the Board of County Commissioners establish a
Health Care Goal for Collier County as follows:
TO PROVIDE BETTER HEATH CARE
TO MORE PEOPLE
FOR LESS MONEY.
BASIC PRINCIPLES:
The Committee has been guided in its recommendations by the following basic
principals:
· Establish a clear Long Term Objective;
· Divide the Long Term Objective into prioritized, affordable increments that can be
integrated with other County spending priorities. (As someone once said, "Don't let
the Perfect be the enemy of the Good);
· Ensure the adopted solution is sustainable year aRer year.
· Maximize County enrollment in existing and any new State and Federal health care
programs;
· Acknowledge that this is a local problem and that neither the State nor Federal
governments are going to provide sufficient incremental funding to solve it for us
(See Appendix H from Sen. Burr Saunders);
· Learn from the experiences of other communities, especially in Florida;
· Facilitate communication and coordination among providers of uncompensated health
care services;
· Advocate "Fair Share" volunteerigm from both organizations and individuals;
· Simplify the process and paperwork for both patients and providers;
· Measure results;
· Strive for continuous improvement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Establish "100% Access" as Collier County's Long Term Heakh Care Obiective.
Every resident has an equal right to access our full health care system, regardless of
how the provider is ultimately compensated;
API 2 001
Pg., ~ _
Adopt an Action Plan to achieve the Objective in prioritized, incremental steps. This
layered approach is supported by David Rogoff (Appendix I), a health care industry
consultant who helped implement the I-rallsborough County plan and assisted the
Committee (at no cost to the County) in evaluating program and funding options.
The layered, incremental approach can be represented conceptually with a pyramid.
Longer Term
Health Care Needs
Starting 2001-02
t / Specialty Care Services x\
/ ~t ~.-~i~ ~
,' E~and School Nur~ ~o~am ~
/ ~a~, ~eventNe Heakh Care
~cl. G~olo~, ~b S~ ~d Me~ ~
~ea.ch for Medicai~ealthy ~ds
Ma~ta~ E~sting School N~se ~o~am
3. Dedicate a 0.1 mil ad valorem tax increase in the FY 2001-02 Budget, of
approximately $2.8 Million (subject to final County property valuation) to improve
health care access for all Collier County residents. (For homes assessed net of
homestead exemption at $100,000 this would be an incremental cost of $10/yr; for
homes assessed at $250,000 an incremental cost of $25/yr.; for homes assessed at
$500,000 an incremental cost of $50/yr.; and for homes assessed at $1 million an
incremental cost of $100 per year.)
Preserve the present School Nurse program in Collier County Schools
Estimated Cost: $250~000~
Fund aggressive enrollment programs or both Medicaid and Heakhy Kids
Estimated Cost: $50~000~
Initially, develop a coordinated ~stem to provide Primary Health Care services
for about 7,000 of the 20,000 (35%) adult Collier County residents, ages 19-64,
whose household incomes are below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines
($34,100 for a family of four) by contracting with existing heakh care p' o_viders
Item
Estimated Cost: $2.1 Million annually, or $300/pafienffyear;. No.Agenda~ q).~/
APR 2 t) 2001
Hire a Medical Director and patient case managers who would be directed by an
oversight Board representing.interested community constituencies
Estimated, Cost: $300,000 annually;
One time startup expenses including acquiring computer software and hardware
for: patient registration and tracking; and integrating a referral system t~om
Primary Care Physicians to Specialists similar for the '~Ve Care" programs
implemented in several Dlorida counties
Estimated Cost: $100~000;
The Health Care Planning and Finance Committee believes that a contingent Budget
authorization for the FY 2001-02 is essential because oE
1) the seriousness ofheatth care needs of low income County residents,
especially children;
2) the extraordinary, unsustainablc pressure on our hospital Emergency Rooms,
especially "in season" that puts every County resident at risk;
However, before any portion of the FY 2001-02 Budget could be spent County_
Commissioners must approve program specifics which are partially, but not fully,
defined as of thin date, including:
,, established monthly budget projections, with line item detail;
· defined outreach strategies for Medicaid and Healthy Kids;
· defined patient eligibility criteria and benefits package for Primary Health Care
services;
· defined sliding-scale co-payments, if any, for patients in excess off 100% FPG;
· defined plans for patient enrollment, LD. cards and case management;
· recommended source(s) for contracted Primary Health Care services,
including a prescription drug plan;
created or acquired computer-based patient referral system from Primary Care
Physicians to Specialists xvhich has the support of the Collier County Medical
Society;
· proposed job descriptions for any recommended hires;
· recommended membership and responsibilities ora Board that would oversee, on
an ongoing basis: the implementation of this program and any improvements in
process, benefits, and/or eligibility.
The Committee estimates that it could take up to eight months to complete these
specifics and to secure Commissioners' final approval This delay would, of course,
diminish the cash flow impact of the program in FY 2001-02.
Once the Primary Health Care program is established and cost estimates are confirm-
Ed by experience, expand coverage from about 35% of income-eligible pati~-~s l~,~,da I te~
|
APR 2 2001
2001-02 to 100% of income-eligible patients through incremental funding in
subsequent fiscal years. Based on the experiences of other counties, once previously
uninsured individuals have a "medical home" and pre-existing condkions are either
treated or referred to a specialist, the annual per patient cost of Primary Care drops by
as much as 45% and the patient's focus shifts from treatment to prevention.
Oace all income-eligible patients are covered by the Primary Care Program, expand
benefits package starting with an expansion of the School Nurse Program, to include
the other benefits described alone and working up on the pyramid of priorities.
Some mi~_ht argue that all specifics should be finalized before any County approval
is given; however~ the Committee believes that the expressed willingness of the
County to fund a portion of these expenses through a Public/Private partnership is a
p~rerequisite to reaching consensus through negotiation and compromise with all
interested parties.
Without a proactive commitment from County Government, the stares quo will continue
and the lives of all County residents from the poor to the wealthy will remain,
unnecessarily, at risk.
Your approval is recommended.
Thomas Schneider,
Chairman
' Agen~
APR 2 q 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS GIVE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONCERNING A RESPONSE TO A
SETTLEMENT OFFER IN KIMBERLY D. DALTON V. ISLE OF CAPRI
FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT, A DIVISION OF COLLIER COUNTY, A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CASE NO. 99-534-CIV-FTM-29DNF, PENDING
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County
Attorney's Office concerning a response to a settlement offer in Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isle of
Capri Fire and Rescue District, a division of Collier County, a local government, Case No. 99-
534-CIV-FTM-29DNF, pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
CONSIDERATIONS: On March 27, 2001, the Board rejected a settlement offer from the
Plaintiff in Kimberly D. Dalton v. Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue District, a division of Collier
County, a local government, for $30,000.00. In so doing, the Board authorized the County
Attorney's Office and Risk Management Department to respond with a counteroffer of
$7,801.00. The Plaintiff has now responded to the County's $7,801.00 counteroffer by
proposing to settle the case for $15,000.00 plus payment of her mediation expenses, which are
estimated to be no more than $440.00. Thus, the Plaintiff now seeks to settle this case for a total
of $15,440.00. The County Attorney's Office seeks direction from the Board in responding to
this latest settlement proposal from the Plaintiff.
FISCAL IMPACT: The direct fiscal impact of any settlement will be contingent upon the
amount of the settlement. Funds for any such settlement payment are available in the Property
and Casualty Self-Insurance Retention Fund. If there is no settlement and if the Plaintiff prevails
on any of her civil fights claims at trial, the County would be liable for the Plaintiff's reasonable
attorney's fees and reasonable costs as well as any damages awarded to the Plaintiff. The
County would also be responsible for its own costs and attorney's fees. The costs for proceeding
from this point forward through trial of the case are estimated to be less than $9,000.00.
However, with respect to attorney's fees/staff time, it is estimated that it will take at least 120
hours of attorney time and 75 hours of paralegal time for the County to prepare and try this case
from this point forward.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board give direction to the County Attorney's Office
concerning a response to the Plaintiff's settlement proposal of $15,000.00 plus payment of the
Plaintiff's mediation fees which are estimated to be $440.00.
AGENDA ITEM
APR 10 2001
Pg.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Michael W. Pettit,
Assistant County Attorney
~[~-l'l~V~al ker, CPCUARM
Risk Management Director
David C. Weigel,
County Attorney
Date:
Date:
Date:
h:/Public/Litigation/OpenCases/Dalton/Executive Summary.041201
2
AO_:iF. t4D~
NO.
APR 10 2001
Pg.
Donna ~ala
District 1
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
District 2
Tom Henning
District 3
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Distdct 4
Jim Coletta
Distdct 5
3301 East Tamiami Trail · Naples, Florida 34112-4977
(941) 774-8097 · Fax (941) 774-3602
April 3,2001
Mr. Glenn E. Wilt
5019 31st Avenue, S.W.
Naples, FL 34116
Dear Mr. Wilt:
Thank you very much for providing me with a copy of the results of the survey of code
violations in Golden Gate. I want to also thank you for taking your time to pole the residents in
Golden Gate to determine the type of violations and the need for additional code enforcement.
One of my concerns deals with rental property and the fact that the survey indicated that
overcrowded rental property was one of the primary concerns of the citizens. I plan to place this
on the Board's agenda for April 24, 2001 and will request that the Board of County
Commissioners direct staff to look at the required space for dwelling units and recommend a
change to enhance neighborhoods such as Golden Gate, Naples Park, and East Naples.
Again, Glenn, I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I look forward to working
with you in the future and, in the meantime if you have any questions, or if you feel that I can be
helpful to you in some other way, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Tom Henning
Commissioner, District 3
TH:sf
Cc'
Board of County Commissioners
Thomas W. Olliff, County Manager
AGENDA I~M
NO.
ibiS- ti ............. ~' ................................. ,..~ ~,, [,L~ ~v,,, ,ncct,,tg wnn
poss Solu OILS.
Re: par 1 - Rental Properties. This was the item of primary concern to those survcycd.
Overcrowding- No one knew o£an answer to this problem. I believe there is a state regulation for
complcx's of:lbur or more rental units but nothing [bt Tri or Duplexes or single lhmily units.
ls there any County Ordnance to cover this'.7 If not do we need one?
The trash, litter, unlicenccd vehicles acid grass problems arc a code problem but it is also a rental
agent/owner problem. How do we reach the property owners?
I asked everyone present to study this and have sIlggestions for solutions at fine April meeting.
2. Commercial Vehicles - Tiffs is something that needs a really active enforcement cl'ibrt.
3. Re-Active versus Pm-Active. This was an item on many survey returns. Mm~y vohmteers believe
the Investigators are only doing Re-Active investigations and have blinders on to other violations they
may sec in route to a reported violation. Il'this is not true then we need to change their perceptitm
pi'the Investigators,
TherelBre, I need to have additional stats at the April meeting. Violations reported. Number via
telephone or written. Number picked up by the Investigator on patrol. Nmnber of N()V's issued,
number mitigated on first visit, number of Citations issued, and tmmber referred to thc Code
Enforcement Board/court. Then I can prepare a report to thc volunteers and inform them of thc
actions taken. Figures required for the April meeting when the survey will again be discussed.
4. The volunteers do not bel ieve thc Investigators are using the Citation Book ollen enough.
Wiay spend so much time going back to the same repeat violators? One example used during the
meeting by one pi'the Investigators showed the particular property had been visited 5 or 6 times
WILY'?
5. Unimproved properties. This needs a lot of work. How about FPI, Easements AND (;anal Bm~ks?
Who is respon/~ible lbr I"PL easements ( weeds, grass, litter) and thc Canal Banks?
What can (-?c, lli~r ¢",'~,,,~*~, ,t,, ,..-, ,,...,:~, :- .~. :_ ~-,- .~-
03/30/01
15:32 FAX 941 403 2345
CO~{MUNITY DEVELOP~tENT
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERN,.\ lENT
001/004
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2001
Board of Count~ Commissio
COMMUNTI'Y DEVELOPMEN'T ANT) ·
ENVIRON~...N'I'AL SERVICES DIVISION
CODE ENFORCEMENT
2800 NORTH I'IORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
FAX (941) 403-2345
FA_X .N-t_'M B E R:
/ oxY'/
F I R_Xl,'D E PA_RT.Xt E NT:
'774-
CITY. STATE:
FRO.\I
DEPARTMENT:
TELEPHONE:
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COX'ER SHEET:
SPZCL L
Building. Rcvkw& Pcnnilhng
Code F-.nl'mcemrn!
}t'oUSinB & Urban Jmpro~'cmem
Im
(9.~ I) .I03-2400 Natural
732,Z5o2
03/30/01
15:32 FAX 941 403 2345
COMML~ ITY DEVELOPMENT
002/004
~.,.~%~ORDINANCK RF-LATING TO C0~I~ COUNTY
W~N T~INCO~O~T~ ~A OF COnL~
C0~, FLG~DA; ~RGVIDING FOR A
" D~FI~ITIONS; PROV~G FOa HOUSING ~~
~f~'~: ~D DESIGNATING ~ HOUSING O~IC!AL ~D pRO~IN~ -
· .-'~ PRAISES; ~RGVIDING NOTICE OF ViC~TIONM,
-' COUN~O~CE NO. 80-5; ~RO~DING FoR
' P~ALTI~S; P~VID~G FOR LIB~
~ROVIDING FOR CO~LI~ ~ S~ILI~; ~ND ·
WHERE', withi~ ~he jurim~cticn of Collier cc~y, F!~rida,
there are or may be dwet!inqs and'dwelling ~i~$ w~ch ~re ~fit
ventilation, inade~ata ~gh~ ~d s~t~ facili%ie~, ~r
con~tionm ten,mr such ~we!!ings ~d ~welling ~it=
unsm~tarY, dangerous an~ detr~en~=! t~ ~e he~!th, safety,
general welf~e of ~e c~unity; ~d
~,'.experien6e and acca~%~d ~m~mn~ hou~g
meas~ ~rom impro~ar maint~nanc~,'inada~=~
facili%ies, overcrowded con~tion~ in r~siden~ occup~ci~, ...
and
W~$, such unsafe and ~nsanits--rY conditions can he
improve6 an~ often r~limlnated or prevented thr~uqh adopted and
enforced h~uzing s=andards, resulting in ~he u~grading of living
condi=ions and an overall enhancement of the general health,
safety, and welfzre of all residents and proDer~y
CO~ISSION~RS OF COLLIEI~ COUNTY, FLOC!DA:
community;
~' ~OW, T~.~OP~E, B~ ~T ORD~NED 1~ ~. BOA.-~ OF COUNTY
.I.
03/30/01
/~,,...] "
15:33 FAX 941 403 2345
COM~q3NITY DEVELOP~E~T
F- , f
003/004
m. PROTECTIVF. TR~AT:~i~'. Ail ex=ericr surfaces other
than decay-resistant woods, shall be protec~=d from the
by painting or oUher proumctive ¢over~_ng according to
manufacturer's specifications. No lead-based p~in~ shall be used
n. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - All accessory structures
shall be maintained ~d k~pt in good repair and ~ound
O. I~RIOR DOORS - ~ve~ interior door shall be
DroperiY fit~=d wi~n its fr~e.
p. I~OR FLOR, ~L$ ~ CEILING - Every dwellinq
or dwelling unit shall have a permanent floor o~ approved
maKerial premc~ibm~ by :he ~l~nq Coda. Every f!oer And
in=erior wall mhal! be'kept free from infms:a~ion and in
good repair and shall be capable cf suppor~nq ~e load
which normal use may cause t~ be pieced thereon.
a dwelling or ~w~ll~g uni~ shall be maintained in good
and ~hcw no evidence 9f deterioration which ~ou!d render it
incapable of' caring 'loads which no=~l ~e ~y cause to be
placed thereo~.
13. P~QUi~D $~AC=, D~LA~G$ - ~v~ dwelling or dwelling
unit shall comply wi~ ~e ~m~ space foo~age req~r~en~s
~he Zoning Ordinance and shall contain a~ !=a$t 150 squar~ fee~
of floor space ~or ~e firs~ occuD~t and a= !ea=~ 100 additional
s~are feet of floor area Der ad~tional occupant. ~ habi~ab!e
r6om o~her than a ~tchen shall have an arum uf less than 70
f~. as prescribed ~'the Bulldog code.
14. MINIMUM CEILING ~IGHT - ~bitable ~pace other than
kitchens, stcraqe roc~ and laund~ roc~ =hall have a ceiling
height of nc= !e~s ~an 6 ft. S in. ~al!ways, corridors,
bathroom~ an~ ki~chen~ shall haue a ceiling heigh~ of not less
tha~ 6 ft. ~ in. measured to ~e lowest p~ojection from the
ceiliuq. If any room in a building has a ~IcDing ceiling, the
prescribed ceiii~G heiqhu for the room is r,
one-half the area thereof.
12
03/30/01
15:33 FAX 941 403 2345 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEFINITIONS Div. 6.3
004/004
Ex~,loration, oil and gas: Activities and facilities invol~d in the search for aad subsequent
production testing and field detiaeatioa of discov~l petroleum and natural gas resources as
de6ned by or used in the context of Florida Statutes and Ad,-!,i-~trative Code, which may
include geophysical exploration activities and surveys, c6nst~uction of temporary access roads
and pads, exploratory drilling and the ia-field separation sad removal of test production.
Facade: The exterior walls of a buildiag wlsible to the public, which may or may not include a
portion ofthe roof, and includes architectural design treatmeats, entryways, windows ,nd the
like.
Family: Orie or more natural persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that,
all members are related bylaw, blood, adoption, or marriage, no such family sh,l~ contain over
four persons, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the pr, miRes may be
housed on the premises without being counted as a separate or additional f, mily or
The term family shall not be construed to mean a fraternity, sorority, club, monastery or
convent, or institutional group.
Family ~.arefacility: A residential facility designed to be occupied by not more th.-~_ six persons
under care, plua aupervisors as requil~d by subsection 10A-5.019, Florida Administrative
Code, and constituting a single dwelling unit (Le., adult congregate living facility for. aged
persons (as defined in F.S. § 400.618(3), as amended); developmentally disabled persons (as
defined in F.S. § 393.063(11), as ameuded); physically disabled or baadicgppecl-persons (as
defined in F.$. § 760.22(7Xa), as amended); mentally ill persons (as defined ia F.S. § 394.455(3),
as amended); and persons r~covering from alcohol ami/or drug abuse. Foster care facilities are
also included, but not the uses listed under group care facility (~ategory Il). This use ,h_-.!! be
applicable to single-family dwelling units and mobile homes. (See section 2.6.26.)
Family care facilities ia residential single-f-r-i~y district~ shall-not be made available to an
individual: (1) whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other
individuals; (2) whose tenancy would result in substantial physical d~mage to the property of
others; or (3) who is engaged in the cun-~t, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance,
ss defamed in section 802 oftitle 21, U.$1 Code.
Family day care home: An occupied residence in which child care is regularly provided a~d for
which a payment, fee, or grant is received for any o£the children given care, whether or not the
facility is operated for profit. A family day care home shall be allowed to provide care for one
of the fellowiag groups of children:
(a) A family day care home may care for a maximum of five preschool
children from more than one tmrelatod family and a maximum of five
elementary school sibllu~ of the preschoolers in care after school hours.
The maximum number of five preschool childr~ includes preschool
children in the home and preschool children received for day care who are
not related to the resident caregiver. The total number of children ia the
home may not ext,-od ten under this paragraph.
(b) When the home is licensed and provisions are made for substitute care, a
family day c~r~ home may care for a maximum of five preschool children
fi-om more than one urn-elated family, a maximtun of three elementary
school siblings of the preschool children receiving care after school hours
and a maximum o£ two elementary school children urn-elated to the
preschool children in care alter school hours. The maximum number of.
five preschool children includes preschool children in th l ....
s.~, No. $ LDC6:23
E,,XECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER(S) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND
WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
OBJECT .yvfE: To appoint 1 member to serve a 4 year term, expiring on May 21, 2005 on the
Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority.
C0~$IDERATIONS~ This 5 member council was established on February 27, 1996, by
Ordinance No. 96-6 to regulate utility rates and related matters regarding non-exempt water and
wastewater utilities in unincorporated Collier County. Three members shall be technical in
nature, with expertise in engineering, finance and/or business administration. The remaining 3
members shall be appointed on the basis of individual civic pride, integrity, and experience in
any area of regulation. Members are required to file a Form 1 Statement of Financial Interests
each year with the Supervisor of Elections. After initial staggered terms, the terms will be 4
years. A list of the current membership is included in the backup,
The term for Lowell M. Lam will expire on May 21,2001. A press release was issued and
resumes were received from the following 2 interested citizens:
APPLICANT CATEGORY DIST ELEC,TOR AD¥~ COMM.:
Lowell M. Lam_reappt. I CivicPride I '] Yes [ Water&Wastewaternuthorit~
Ro~er P. Kastel ' Civic Pride · "1 .. ] Yes [ None
Mr. Lam served the remainder of a vacant term for 2 years and 7 months; therefore, he is eligible for reappointment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: No Recommendation
FISCAL IMPACT: NONE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the request for
appointment, appoint 1 member to a 4 year term, and direct the County Attorney to prepare a
resolution confirming the appointment.
Prepared By: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Date: APRIL 24, 2001
AGENDAJTF.~I
NO.~
Memorandum
To:
Sue Fiieon, Administrative Assistant, Board of County Commieaioners
From:
Bleu Wallace, Director
Date: March 13, 2001
Subject: Collier County Water & Wastawatar Authority Vacancy
I have reviewed the requests of the applicants seeking appointment and/or reappointment to the
Collier County Water & Wastewater Authority, keeping in mind the qualifications required for a
lay member vacancy. The Authority consists of five members; three technical members and
two lay members. Section 1-3 (E), Ordinance No. 96-6, as amended, provides:
Lay members shall be appointed on the basis of individual civic pride, integrity,
and experience in any area of relevant utility service and management, rate
making, utility regulation, or other endeavors considered by the Board to be
beneficial to the proper functioning of the Authority. Lay members may be
appointed from the same areas of expertise as technical members.
Technical members shall be appointed based on individual expertise in one or
more of the following areas: (i) Engineering, with experience in water and sewer
systems; (ii) Finance, accounting, rate making, and/or utility regulation; or (iii)
Business administration.
Mr. Lowell M. Lam, 5 Grey Wing Pointe, Naples, Florida 34113. Mr. Lam has effectively
served on the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority since October 13, 1998 and is
seeking reappointment to a four year lay member term. He is a resident of Eagle Creek and has
an extensive business management background. Mr. Lam is qualified for reappointment on the
basis of civic pride and integrity, in addition to his experience in senior corporate management.
Mr. Roger P. Kastei, 4522 Ashton Court, Naples, Florida 34112. Mr. Kastel has applied to
fill a lay member vacancy on the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. He is a
resident of the Rattlesnake Hammock area and has extensive knowledge of utility plant
operations and the environmental protection field. Mr. Kastel is qualified for appointment on the
basis of civic pride and integrity, in addition to his experience in the water and wastewater
industry.
While qualifications are capsulated above, no staff recommendation is eontai
Utility & Franchise Regulation
Community Development & Environmental Services Divisiot
Utility Authority
Name
Mr. Robert C. Bennett
7065 Dennis Circle 103
Naples, FL 34104
District: 3
Category: Executive Management
Worl~ Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term
Home Phone DateRe-appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term
07/16/96
352.0219 04/28/98
Dr. Fay R. Biles
1588 Heights Court
Marco Island, FL 34145
District: 1
Category: Lay Member
05/12/98
394-3089 05/25/99
Mr. Lowell M. Lam
5 Grey Wing Pointe
Naples, FL 34113
District: 1
Category: Civic Pride
10/13/98
Mr. Andre M. LeCrone
3240 Valencia Drive
Naples, FL 34120
District: 5
Category: Technical
434-0333 05/25/99
Mr. Gregory E. Smith
2453 Dorset Court
Naples, FL 34112
District: 1
Category: Technical
775-0748 06/13/00
732-0958
05/21/98
05/21/02
05/21/99
05/21/03
05~1~3
05/2 l/O4
2 Years
4 Years
1.5 Years
4 Years
2.7 Years
4 Years
4 Years
Friday, March 23, 2001
Page I of 2
Utility Authority
Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term
Name Home Phone DateRe-appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term
This 5 member authority'was established on February 27, 1996, by Ordinance No. 96-6 to
regulate utility rates and related matters regarding non-exempt water and wastewater utilities in
bnincorporated Collier County. Three members shall be technical in nature, with expertise in
engineering, finance and/or business administration. The remaining 2 members shall be
appointed on the basis of individual civic pride, integrity, and experience in any area of
regulation. Members are required to file a Fown 1 Statement of Financial Interests each year
with the Supervisor of Elections. Terms are 4 years.
FL STAT 125.01(t)
Staff.' Bleu Wallace, Utility/Franchise Director: 403-2302
Friday, March 23, 200I
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDU,M
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 12, 2001
Vinell Hills, Elections O~¢e
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistan~>~_J
Board of County Commissioners
Voter Registration - Advisory Board Appointments
The Board of County Commissioners will soon consider the following individuals for appointmem
to on~ of the county's advisory committees. Please let me know if those listed below are
registered voters in Collier County.
Also, please list the commission district in which each applicant resides.
UTILITy AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONDISTRICT
Roger P. Kastel
4522 Ashton Court
Naples, FL 34112
Lowell M. Lam
5 G-my Wing Pointe
Naples, FL 34113
Thank you for your help.
CEIVEG
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 12, 2001
Bleu Wallace, Utility Regulation M _ar~ager
Sue Fik~on, Administn~e Ass~
Board of County Commissioners
Uti~ Authority
As you know, we currently have a vacancy on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press
release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit a resume for
eonsideration~ I have attached the resumes received for your review as follows:
Roger P. Kastel
4522 Ashton Court
Naples, FL 34112
Lowell M. Lam
5 Grey W'mg Pointe
Naples, FL 34113
Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee
within the 41 day time-flame, and I w~l prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration.
Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at
774-8097.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
SF
Attachn~nts
03/07/2001 19:88 94141711G4 ROGER KASTEL PAGE 01
M~ S~ Fil~:m
Ad~mi~u'att~ ~
Board of County C,,m,,,~miouer~
3.]01 Tanfi,mmi 'lift ~
Nm{fle~, Florida 34112
RECEIVED
MAR 0 fl 200!
of County Commissioners
I would like to be comid~-ed for appo~ to the advisory commil~ee on 11~ Collier Coui~? Utility
I have speui th.h. ty (30) yea~ ia the euvim~ lam~tectioa Beld ia ~ lx~itia~.
Thank you for yom' ~~o~
ROGER P.
N~mle~, Fioti~ 34112
03/07/2001 i9:08 9414171164 ROGER KASTEL PAGE 02
4522 Ashton Court Nal2ea, Florida 34112
A challeng/og and responsible roanagemant position in the public
works/utilities sector
State Waai~wa~ Circuit Rider for Florida Rural Water Association
day operations, mainmince of two (2) SCADA syiems for ~ and master
lift stolon ~mtrol,
Contract operator for founeon ( 14 ) ~ u~aunem plants, fatr (,*) wate~
plants, and fifly-thr~ee (53) lift stations in S.W. florida m~on~ respomflble for
daily operstions, nmimenance ami reporting to state regulamryagencies.
blmutg~ of a complete utility system of 2100 service connections in an
un-incorora~xl commumty in Southwest Flor, ida, reslmnsibl¢ for eight (8)
employees, 15 million in ~, budgetia~, all conlracting of
Project superintendent for the U,$, A/r Force Engineering Research and
Devdopement Center, on a containment structu~ for the MX Missile project~
responmble for building and stress testing thrm (3) different structu~
Project manager for the U,S. Air Forc~ on a 1.7 million rc-consixu~on of an
Air Folge Ilia which had to m~ifltsln hi,qolk chalacte, ristics of the
origianal sl~t~-'mre, responsible for haigetmg, lfll cra/ii-;string of
Wamewam treatment p~ant operau~/tnm'ccptor operator, ~sponm~e for
operations a~ m.i~en-nc~ ~a DEC D~9 m,~ ~m
~ ~1~o~ ~t~ offi~ ~ o~ h~ ~nW-
t~ (1~) ~~m~ ~~-~ (~2)
~g ~ ~uuol of hy~lic
l~g for a 3~ ~d
~~r
t~t plato,
Comt~ter maiat~c~ t~chnician gspon~le for seven (7) mainframe
computer systen~ teleplmne ceraxal office, aircraR flying-command
conlrol center col~mters, and se~re voice system%
supendsion of seven (7) maintmmnce personnel while
on duty shift
Cost account clerk responsible fo~ clet~,ainiflg the cost I~ item of
manutactme, using labor, overhead, and material cost variables.
Estinmted cosl of job ru~ for the sales staff.
EDUCATION
I-Ii~ School Graduate
Graduate of 52 week Electxo~ic Coml~r Technician Course
Completed 22 ~ Und~rgradmte Comr t r s¢i~s
Completed 48 credits Bm~ess Mnna~em
LICENSES
Hi~BI~S
Wastewat~ ~B' zextificate
Waler 'B' certificate
DOE certified insturctor. Five (5) years teaching exl~'nence at Lorenzo Walter
Technical Institute
Fishing, sailing and goff
no./O
Lowell M. Lam
5 Grey Wing Pointe
Naples, FL 34113
(941) 774-5464 FAX (941) 775-0430
e-mail MALGS774~ics.com
Febmary27,2001
Ms. Sue Filson
C/o Collier County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 341124977
FEB 2
80~rd of Count3~ Cm~sstoner'~
Dear Ms. Filson;
Re: your letter of 2/16/01, I have enjoyed serving on the Utility Authority for the past two
years and would be willing to accept reappointment to another term.
Since I am retired, there is no change to my resume except, of course, my service on the
Authority over the past two years.
Please advise me if you require any further information to consider my reappointment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
LowellM. Lam
Lowell M. Lam
5 Grey Wing Pointe
Naples, FL 34113
(941) 774-5464 FAX (941) 775-0430
e-mail MALGS~aol. com
Ms. Sue Filson
Board of County Commissioners
3301 Tamiami Trail E.
Naples, FL 34112
September 14, 1998
Dear Ms. Filson:
As a Collier County property owner for the past twelve years and a full time resident for
the past six, I would like to apply for the vacancy on the Collier County Utility Authority.
Prior to my recent retirement, I held the position of Vice President Broker Sales for the
Southeastern US for Revlon. My career with Revlon, spanning 37 years, included 27
years in a variety of senior management positions including Vice President of Sales for
seven years.
I feel fortunate to live in this beautiful part of the world and have the desire to offer my
services in the interest of maintaining and preserving our quality of life here.
I also feel that sustaining and rega~iating water and wastewater is vital to our furore well
being.
If you feel I could be a productive member of this committee, I would be honored to
serve.
Sincerely,
Lowell M. Lam
r EcCrrlV'Z SUMMARY
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER(S) TO THE BAYSHORE AVALON BEAUTIFICA~ON
MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~: To appoint 2 members to serve 4 year terms, expiring on March 3, 2005, on the
Bayshore Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
CO~N$IDERA~ONS: This 5 member advisory co~ittee was created on December 16,
1997, by Ordimme No. 97-$2 to provide curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance
of the median strips of roadways within the MSTU; provide trafl~ calming !~ ,mprovements; and,
beautification and maintemnee of other areas within the MSTU. Members will also prepare and
recommend an itmnized budget to the Board of County Commissioners. Members must be
pefi~ment residents or owners of corn_ ~inl property within the MSTU boundaries. A list of
The terms for Lindn Williams and Thomas R. Briscoe expired on March 3, 2001. A press release
was issued and resumes were received from the following 2 interested citizens:
Thomas R. Brisc0e Resident 4 Yes' Baysh°Fe/Avalon '
$.~, C~u~, .~~-~ Resin_ _~__t. 4 Yes
COMM~E_RECOblMKNDATION: Thomas R. Briscoe - re-appointment
Jean Carpenter- new appointment
FISCAL IMPACT: NONE
GROWTH MANAGKMKNT IMPACT: NONE
~COMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commi~siol~ors consider the
recommendation for appoin____tv~nt, appoint 2 members and direct the County Attorney to prepare
a resolution confirming the appointments.
Prepared By: Sue Filson, A_dminisCcrative AssJsm~
Board of County Co~issioners
Agenda Date:. APRIL 24, 2001
AGEM:)A~
Pg._ /
filson_s ,, ,
~'--om: levy m
~t: Thu~sclay, April 05, 2001 9:01 AM
..,: filson_s
Subject: Bayshore advisorty committee
Sue,
The Bayshore MSTU Advisory Committee met last night and approved the re-appointment of Tom Briscoe and the letter of
interest for Jean Carpenter.
Thanks
Mike
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee
Linda Williams
2613 Gidfview Drive
Naples, FL 34112
Distr~t: 4
Wo~ Phone Appt'd E,x~. Date Term
Home Pkone DateR~t 2ndExpDate 2nd Term
09/12/00 03/03/01 7 Months
4t7-O978
~cha~l Bm~t
7768 Jew~l ].~ne, ~201
Naples, FL 341 ~
D~: 2
Thomas R. Briscoe
2841 Sh~ Drive
Naples, FL 34112
Category: Resident
~1-445~
592-OO27
774-7584
03/03/98 03/03/02 4 Years
03/03/98 03/03/01 3 Years ,//"
Maurice Gutierrez
2736 Shorevie~ Drive
Naples, FL 34112
D/sW/ct: 4
Category: Resid~at
263-0572 08/03/99 03/03/00 8 Months
774-7022 ' 02/22/00 03/03/04 4 Ye, ar~
Bill L. Neal
3839 Clipper Lane
Naples, FL 34112
D/sir/et: 4
Cat~ory: Resident
03/03/98 03/03/00 2 Y~ars
774-~325 0222~00 03/03/04 4 Years
14, 2000
Page I of 2
BayshoreiAvalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee
Work Phone ~pptfd Extx Date Term
Name Home Phone D~t 2ndExpDate 2nd Term
This 5 ~ commitWe was created on December 16, 1997, by Ordirmnce No. 97-82 to
within the MSTU; provide traffic calming improve; and, bemJtillc=~ion and maintenance of
other ames within lhe MSTU. Members will prepare and recommend an Itemized budget to the
Board of County Commissioners. Members must be permanent residents or owners of
125.01
C-d-Nant, TranslxXtalion Services Directoc 774-8494
~=rttltty, Segtemb~ l ,t, 200o
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 26, 2001
Vinell Hills, Elections Office
Sue Filson, Administrative Assish~
Board of County Commi.qsioners
Vo~er 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 County.
Also, please list the commission district in which each applicant resides.
BAYSHORF~AVALON BEAUT MSTU ADV COMM
Jean Carpenter
3412 Lakeview Drive
Naples, FL 34112
Tom Briscoe
2841 Shoreview Drive
Naples, FL 34112
COMMISSION DISTRICT
Thank you for your help.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 26,2001
Mike Levy, Senior Secretary, Transportation Department
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Board of County Commissioners
Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory committee
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:
Jean Carpenter
3412 Lakeview Drive
Naples, FL 34112
Tom Briscoe
2841 Shoreview Drive
Naples, FL 34112
Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee
within the 41 day time-frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's
consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions,
please call me at 774-8097.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
SF
Attachments
MAR--09--O! 08:4? AM CARPENTER 941 ?~5 566~ P.O1
TO:
FROM:
Daic;
Sue Filson
Collier County Board of Commissioners
Jetta Carpenter
Gull, Shores Property Owner
t~yshore Avalon Beautificalion Committee
March 8, 2001
, ECEIVED
NAR 0 8 2001
~ard of Count~' Coe~ss~one,,-~
I have an interest in serving on thc Bayshore,/Avalon 13eaulificatlon Committee. My husbaud
and I have resided in Gull'$hor¢~ ~incc April, 1999, We have a strung inter~t in thc
redcv~,lopnlent and beautification ofthis area. We have spent Iht last two years remedeling and
landscaping our property at 3412 Lakcview L)riv¢.
Please let me know any fi~rrhcr information you may require from me, I ~,"an be reached by
phoning 775-5663.
Thank you.
Jean Carpenter
3412 Lakevicw Drivc
Naples, FI. 34112
775-5663
Registered vo~er
· 83/14/1BB4 87:17 B41-774-B483 BRISCOE CONST INC PAGE 81
c~c 0~72~
3/1/O1
~ECEIVED
SUE I:11 =~:IN, AI)/AI)4. A,SSZSTANT
BOARb oF ~CXINTY CO/¥~ISSIONC:RS
BLELO~I~ "F,' 3'a FLOOR
3301 E. TAAIIJiLJl: TI~IL
N~PLES. FLCJ~t~ Mttz
~'::~" ~ 2001
i~,::~r',~,~t' Count.y Coemfs$$oAer$
DEAR ~[S. FI:LSON & THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO~/IR]:S$2:ONER$:
8AYSklOla. E ItEAUT'~FJI:CAT]:ON At)V~,SORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, BI'LL NEAL REqUESTEb 1~
CONT'D'~R,/E A,..R A ~EJRBER OF THE ¢OMM~"EE TO A55[ST TN COMPLE'I'-[ON OF PHASE ONE
CONSTRUCTION,
~Y BU~ ,5CHEDL~E ~ NOT ALLOW' SE TO SERVE A 3-YEAR TERM. Z AM W]:LI..ZI'4& TO
SERV~ FOR A YEAR. OR UNT'[L PHASE ONE ]:,5 CO~IPLETE.
IF TH[S [S AC~::PTA~TH THE I~OARD T Ai~ HONOREt) TO SERVE.
TO~ BI~
ZS-~l Sho,-eviow Drive HA?LES. ~L. 34~ (941) 774-7564 FAX.
OBJECTIVE: To appoint 1 member to fulfill the remainder of a vacant term, expiring at the
conclusion of the Committee's report to the Board of County Commissioners, on the Rural
Lands Oversight Committee.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee has 1
vacancy due to a resignation. This 15 member committee was created on September 14, 1999 by
Resolution No. 99-364A to advise the BCC with regard to data collection, analysis and land
development regulations to preserve the rural character without causing urban sprawl and the
protection of natural resources. The area to be address by this Committee will encompass the
Agricultural/Rural Areas and Conservation Areas.
A list of the current membership is included in the backup.
We currently have one vacancy as a result of Barbara B. Berry's resignation. A press release
was issued and resumes were received from the following 6 interested citizens:
APPLICANT CATEGORY DIST ELECTOR ADV. COMM.
James T. Homer Retired College Professor & I Yes Productivity Committee
Administrator
Leon F. Hesser Consultant, Agribusiness & 3 Yes None
Economics .
Aldo Rosa Commodities Broker/Floor Trader 3 Yes None
Chester Soling Architect 2 Yes EAC
Ty Agoston Retired Businessman 5 Yes Rural Fringe
James A. McLaughlin Retired Vice President of Better 2 Yes None
Roads
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The committee voted not to take action with regard to
recommending a specific applicant to fill the current vacancy.
FISCAL IMPACT: NONE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the requests for
appointment, appointment 1 member and, direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution
confirming the appointment.
Prepared By: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Date:
APRIL 24, 2001
AGENDA ]~EM
No._/~ ~,~ ..
APR 2001
Pg._ I .
Memorandum
To:
Sue Filson, Admlni~qtrative Assistant
Board of County Commissioners
From:
Bob Mulhere, AICP, Planning Services
Date:
Wednesday, April 11, 2001
Re;
Applicants for Rural Lands Oversight Committee
Please be advised that the Rural Lands Oversight Committee has voted not to take action
with regard to recommending a specific applicant to fill the current vacancy.
Based on my review of the attached resumes and back up material, all of the candidates
would appear to be qualified. The committee consists of 15 members, and is intended to
be representative of various interest groups and the general public at large. Current
membership is as follows:
Floyd Crews - SW FL Service & Supply- Owner (Immokalee Resident)
Ron Hamei - Chairman - Gulf Citrus Growers Association- Executive V..P./General
Manager (Agriculture)
Rodney D. Harvey - Realtor, Naples Realty Services, Inc. (Naples Area Board of
Realtors)
Dawn Jantsch, ACE - Naples Area of Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO
Andrew J. Mackie - Corkscrew Sanctuary/National Audubon Society - Assistant
Manager
Ann Olesky - Business Owner - Marina (~mmokalee ResidenO
David Santee - Farm Bureau -Agency Manager
Neno Spagna, Ph.D. - Planning Consultant
Fred N. Thomas, Jr. - Collier County Housing Authority, Administrator/Executive
Director (Immokalee Resident)
Sonya Tuten - Business Owner - Ag Tronics Irrigation Computer Technician
(lmmokalee ResidenO
James S. Howard - First Union National Bank-Senior Vice President, Commercial
Real Estate Lending
Grady Miars - Bonita Bay Properties, Inc. - Project Manager
Stephen A. Bortone = The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Applicants are as follows:
AGENDA ITEM
No .~
APR 2 It 2001
James T. Homer, Retired College Professor and Administrator (Naples resident)
Leon F. Hesser, Ph.D., Consultant, Agribusiness & Economics (Naples resident)
Aido Rosa, Commodities Broker/Floor Trader (Naples Resident)
Chester Soling, Architect (Naples resident)
Ty Agoston, Retired Businessman (Golden Gate Estates resident)
James A. McLanghlin, Retired Vice President of Better Roads (Naples Resident)
While the enabling resolution does not specify membership by specific district, locale, or
by professional expertise, given the subject matter, the committee would be well served
by the appointment of a member with one or more of the following attributes:
agribusiness expertise; environmental expertise; general knowledge of the issues and the
assessment area; and/or a record of broad community involvement.
John Dunnuck, III
Interim Community Development & Environmental Services Division
AGENDA ITEM
No.__~{~,~-~
APR 2 Jt 2001
F'g o~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
February 5, 2001
Virgil Hills, Elections Ot~e _ ~'~
Sue Filson, Administrative Assist~t//
Board of County Commissioners
Voter Registration - Advisory Board Appointm~ts
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 County.
Also, please list the commission district in which each applicant resides.
RURAL LANDS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
COMMISSION DISTPdCT
Jan~s T. Homer
5708 Deauville Circle, $$306
Naples, FL 34112
Le~n F. Hesser
4858 Martinique Way
Naples, FL 34119
Aldo Rosa
9815 Clear Lake Circle
Naples, FL 34109
Chester P. Soling
1262 Grand Isle Court
Naples, FL 34108
Ty Agoston
360 10* Avenue NW
Naples, FL 34120
James A. McLaughlin
7079 Sugar Magnolia Circle
Naples, FL 34109
Thank you for your help.
/-
.PR 2 20 1
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee
Work Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term
Home Phone DateRe-appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term
Mr. Fred Thomas
1802 Farm Worker Village
lmmokalee, FL 34142
Distr/ct:
Category: Housing Authority
657-3649 09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Mr. Grady E. Miars
4720 St. Croix Lane Apt. 134
Naples, FL 34109
District:
Category: Banker
Ms. Barbara B. Berry (,~tS,,e~9-
11690 Quail Village Way
Naples, FL 34119
District:
Category: Retired Commissioner
495-1000 06/27/00 06/22/01 1 Year
851-3225
597-2099
08/01/00 06/22/01 1 Year
Mr. Joseph S. Boggs
2421 23rd Street, S.W.
Naples, FL 34117
District:
Category: Prof. Surveyor & Mapper
947-0266 01/09/01 06/22/03 2 Years
Ms. Sonia Tuten
1255 15th Street N., Suite 3
Immokalee, FL 34142
District:
Category: Business Owner - Irrigation
Ms. Ann Olesky
6001 Lake Trafford Road
Immokalee, FL 34142
District:
Category: Business Owner - Marina
657-5519 09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
657-2401 09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Tuesday, February 06, 2001
Page I of 3
AGENDA ITEM
~,u. /~
APE 2 ~+ 2001
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee
[Fork Phone Appt'd Exp. Date Term
Name Home Phone DateRe-eppt 2ndF_~Date 2nd Term
Mr. David Santee 657-3667
395 N. 15th Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
D/sir/ct:
Category: Farm Bureau - Agency Manager
09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Mr. Floyd Crews 657-2429
P.O. Box 610
Immokalee, FL 34143
District:
Category: SW FL Service & Supply - Owner
09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Mr. Ron Hamel 675-3180
P.O. Box 1319
Labelle, FL 33975
District:
Category: Gulf Citrus Growers Association
09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Mr. Andrew J. Mackie 348-9168
360 Sanctlllary Road
Naples, FL 34120
District:
Category: Corkscrew Sanctuary-Asst Mgr
09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Dr. Neno Spagna
3850 27th Avenue, S.W.
Naples, FL 34117
District:
Category: Community Planner
Dr. Stephen A. Bortone
1450 Merrihue Drive
Naples, FL 34102
District:
Category: Environmentalist
434-4635
455-2168
09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
262-0304 08/01/00 06/22/01 1 Year
1b~lay, Februery 06, 2001
Page 2 of 3
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee
Name Work Phone ApptWd Exp. Date Term
Home Phone DateRe-appt 2ndExpDate 2nd Term
Mr. Rodney D. Harvey
4099 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 200
Naples, FL 34103
District:
Category: Realtor
262-4333 09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
Mr. James S. Howard 591-7920
2253 Heritage Greens Drive 514-1584
Naples, FL 34119
District:
Category: Project Manager - Bonita Bay
06/27/00 06/22/01 1 Year
Ms. Dawn Jantsch
3620 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FL 34103
District:
Category: Chamber President
262--6376 09/14/99 06/22/01 2 Years
This 15 member committee was created on September 14, 1999 by Resolution No. 99-364A and
confirmed by Ord. No. 99-87 to advise the BCC with regard to data collection, analysis and land
development regulations to preserve the rural character without causing urban sprawl and the
protection of natural resources. The area to be addressed by this Committee will encompass the
Agricultural/Rural Areas and Conservation Areas.
FI. STAT
Staff.' John Dunnuck, Acting Community Development Administrator:. 403-238
Tuesday, February 06, 2001
Pttge 3 of 3
Am, GEND~ ITEM
m~o. /O /)
APR 2 2001
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5, 2001
TO:
FROM:
Rural Lands Oversight Committee
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 resmnes received for your review as follows:
James T. Homer
5708 Dea~ville Circle, #306
Naples, FL 34112
Leon F. Hesser
4858 Martinique Way
Naples, FL 34119
Aldo Rosa
9815 Clear Lake Circle
Naples, FL 34109
Chester P. Soling
1262 Grand Isle Court
Naples, FL 34108
Ty Agoston
360 10~ Avenue N-W
Naples, FL 34120
James A. McLaughlin
7079 Sugar Magnolia Circle
Naples, FL 34109
Please let me know, in writing, the reco~tion for appointment of the advisory committee
within the 41 day time-frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration.
Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questiom, please call me at
774-8097.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
SF
Attachments
APR 2 200'
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
Leon F. and Florence E. Hesser
Island Walk
4858 Martinique Way
Naples, FL 34119
Phone: (941) 254-1478
January 30, 2001
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Board of County Commissioners
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
Dear Ms. Filson:
Attached is a brief resume. I would be interested in serving on one of the advisory
committees. Off-hand, I expect that I would be most suitably qualified for the Rural
Land Assessment Area Oversight Committee.
Sincerely,
AGE"~ I~...,E M
No._~
APR 2 q 001
pg.
Name:
Address:
Education:
Experience:
1985 to :2000
1980 m 1984
1974 to 1978
1966to1973
1962 to 1965
Leon F. Hesser
Island Walk
4858 Martinique Way
Naples, Florida 34119
Visiting Scholar, Development Economies, Harvard University, 1970-71
Ph.D., Economics, Purdue University, 1962
M.S., Agricultural Economies, Purdue University, 1960
B.S., Agribusiness, Purdue University, 1958
Senior Consultant, Ronco Consulting Corporation, Washington, DC
Served as Agribusiness, Agricultmal, and Economic consultant on
developmem policy issues in a number of foreign countries, including
Ukraine, Russia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Zambia, among others.
Program Officer, International Agricultural Development Service
Headed teams to conduct technical and economic feasibility
studies and design economic development projects in Zambia (World
Bank), Malawi (World Bank), Egypt (USAID), Bangladesh (World Bank),
and Jordan (International Fund for Agricultural Development).
Director, Office of Agriculture, USAID, Department of State
Managed a $50 million per year budget to provide analytical and
technical support to U.S. technical assistance missions in many countries.
Director, Office of Agriculture, USAID Mission to Pakistan
-Was responsible for policy dialogue with senior officials of the
Government of Pakistan, for implementing US sponsored technical
assistance programs, and for preparing briefing papers for the Ambassador
and USAID Director.
Economist, Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Was responsible for analyzing the agricultural situation of six
states in the Tenth Fedexal Reserve District and drawing implications for
monetary policy of the United States.
AGENDA ITEI'I
blo
APR 2 2QO1
1::,~ ._.~J_~
~2/01/2881 15:~3 1941514~96! ~ I:~OSA PC~E ~2
I. would ~ your oom~ my n~ as a pa---to sm, ye ,mu mac of'the
dxn'g com'n~ ~ I bclic~ I would l~ ~n user
1-94'1-51~ Tel.
t.94.t-514-0961 Fax~
AGENDA ITEM
No .~
APR 2 ~+ 2001
P~.._.~-.~
01/31/2001 82:02 5929385 SOLING PAGE 01
CHESTER P. SOLING i ;~, .-, -~ ,~i,....~
~ Pdicm Marsh
1262 Grand Isle Court- Naples, FL - 34108 - (941) 592. 1402 - Fax (941)':S~ = 1431
Jantmry 31, 2001
BY FAX
EI~]O~ pM ~ ~ gtlrri~,h~m vita. I offer this for ~ ~~ ~ ~
to ~a~~omof~~ ~~~of~~
~~~ 0 ~ a ~k on go~ ~ of ~h I ~ m ~ ~);
Cm'rently I nm a volume~r with Tl~ Cona~'vma~ of Southwest Horkln, so I have
a great interest in the enviro~ as well ns governing.
I leave the choice to you for any assigntmnt you mi~ feel approX.
Ms. Suc Filson
3301 Tanmni Trail Eo
Naples, FL 341 I2
AGENDA I~M
No. /q2~_ _
APR 2h 2001
Pg.
01/31/2001 02:02 5929385 SOLING PAGE 02
Cs~ISTER P. SOLING
I am a ~ ~ in Ne~ York State and was in the ~ indus.,
houses in Vermont. I co~ 12 buildings into coops or condominiums and serv~ on
thc board of directors of all Additionally I served on the boards of two apartment
I have be~n a trustee of Syracuse University for over 14 years, having serv~ on
the ~ CommilI~ f~r 10 years. I am a mmnber of th~ Syracuse Univo~ity
Lilgsry Board and was presidem of it for 12 Imars. I have been on th~ Foundation Board
of Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts lbr 4 years. ~ I am a diroctor of the
Pelican Ivlarsh Owne~ Assoc~n.
I have bee~ a busimss partner with Loeb Rhoad~ where I was a n-zmber of the
New York Stoc~ Bxclm~e, Morgan Stanley and Samuel ZelL with both in real estate. I
initiaIed legislation to protect senior c'~izem in Co~cttt nnd to lioense home
At Pelican Marsh, I wns responsible for the removal of the stop signs for goff
caris on Pelican Mar~h Boulevard and the 2000, Parade of Home d~. I worked to get
WCI to have an earlier resignation of the Directors of the Foundation than would have
otherwise oc, onved. You ~ reco&,ni~ m~ ..sm. for tl~ many ktters I have written to
AGENDA ITEM
No .~
APR 2 4 2001
Ty A~os~on
~ lO~h Avmme ~
N~les, 1% ~120
Tel: :941
Fax: 941-45~-4310
agomtont(~)~oL~om
~*y~°mo~.~o~
3{, 2001
Board of Collier CommIy Commismio~
Ma. Sue Filson, ^amiuisUative ~t
I would h'ke to be ~onsidered for time position on the Rm'a{ Land ~ ,Area
~ Commir~.
Additiomlb,, unlike most on the Con~uiUee, I live in the area.
I am a full time resident of Collier County, a taxpayer, mud a r~'l{~cred vo~r.
AUad~ plea,~ find my resume.
yours,
T~ AgosWn
AGENDA I~M
No. /0
APR 2~ 2001
TIBOR AGOSTON
? Horseneck Rd., Montville, NJ 07045 · (201)227-2843
360 10th Avenue NW., Naples, Florida 33964 · (813) 455-8400
PURCHASING/MERCHANDISING
EXPERIENCE
1988 - Pre~nt
1979 -1988
1969- 1979
I965 - 1969
1960- 196,~
Groeery Merchandiser
Develop weekly advertising programs for ~=ccry depunment
Develop special advertising programs
.Present special programs to senior management
Buyer-Merchandiser
Develo~ roles programs
bi~intam ads-prices-schedules
Address seminars on sales and mcrchandisin~
Responsible for gros~ profit rrmrgins
Develop sales forecast~ and proirams
Mnke sale~ and product pres~t~tions to manngement
Grocery Buyer
National retail chain in Metro NY.NJ area
Responsible for 4.5 mil. inventory management
Evaluate new items proposals
Determine advertising and promotion effectiveness
Implement space management progranu
Owner-Operator
Totowa Spa, Paterson, New Jersey
Wholesale/Rctail toys*sundries-confectioneries
Sales Representative
Representated plush toy manufacturers to Northern NI retail and wholesale
~-~UCATION
1973 -1975
1976
PERSONAL
Rutgers, The Stat~ University
l~ De.l~,e, June, 1973
Mark,?nS Major
Rutr-'rs Graduate School of Business
~BA Degl~ee, December, I9q5
Mm'keting Mana~ment Mmjor
IBM Chica~o, minois
Computer Controlled Inventory Systems
Maintninance Systems-Design-Development
Height: 5"I0"
Weight: 175 1Ss.
Health: Excellent
Residence: Homeowner
Hobbies: Kiwanis International
Tennis-Swimming-Soccer
$occe~ Coaching
Bolud of Directors, Montviile Soccer Association
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2001 ·
pg.
James A. McLaughlin
7079 Sugar Magnolia Circle
Naples, FL 34109
Each comm. Rec'd Copy
DF JDC PSU JC
Thursday, January 18, 2001
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County, Florida
Collier County Courthouse
Naples, Florida
Commissioners:
Please consider this my formal application for an appointment to the Collier Cotmty Rural
Lands Assessment Committee.
As a brief resume, I have been a registered Collier County voter for over 33 years having
lived here year round since late 1967. I recently retired from Better Roads Inc, where I
was a Vice President. My work history basically was with Better Roads and/or its
affiliated for over 36 years, 32 of them in Collier County.
My educational background, is as a graduate of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin High School
and attendance at Purdue University in the Civil Engineering program for three years.
While serving in the U.S. Army, I attended and graduated number one fi'om the
topographical school at Ft. Belvoir, VA. Through the years I have attended many
construction seminars.
Previous governmental appointments were as a member of the Railroad Abandonment
committee, the Railroad Negotiation committee & the Mass Transportation committee for
Collier County. In the City of Naples I served on the Code Enforcement Board (8 years),
chairing it for 3 years and the RUDAT transportation committee. I also served on school
board committees.
Civic involvement includes past chairman (president) of the Chamber of Commerce, past
president of Naples North Rotary, vice president of Tiger Bay, past president of
NAC-PAC, various. Chamber and Rotary committees as well as a church council member.
A further list of committees, involvement and references can be furnished on request. My
phone number is 591-8844. I feel strongly that I could be a contributing member of this
committee and that my past education, involvement and residency qualify me for the
app~ointment
Thank you in advance for your consideration
Respectfully submitted:
) McLaughlin
NoAGENDA._.~_I~I~*~I-~ I
APR 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUD-99-10, KAREN K. BISHOP OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING T.O.S.
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL
WITH "ST" OVERLAYS TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS
MIRASOL PUD FOR A MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF NOT
MORE THAN 799 DWELLING UNITS AND TWO GOLF COURSES WITH RELATED
FACILITIES ON PROPERTY LYING NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND
WEST OF A NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF C.R. 951 IN SECTIONS 10, 15, AND 22,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 1558+_ ACRES.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the requested rezone is consistent
with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and is in the best
interest of the community.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The subject property lies on the north side of Immokalee Road. It includes most of the land in Section
22, all of Sections 10 and 15, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The Immokalee Road frontage lies
west of Collier Boulevard extended north.
The development strategy includes the authorization of 799 dwelling units of mixed structure types,
and two 18-hole golf courses, together with accessory clubhouse and recreation amenities. The
property will be accessed from Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard when extended due north.
Because of environmental conditions a significant portion of the site (i.e. 60%) will be retained as a
preserve area which will function as a storm drainage flow-way as part of a regional natUral drainage
system that extends northwesterly into Lee County and for all practical purposes bisects the property
into two development tracts. The most northerly portion is separated from the southern development
tract by the preserve flow-way. A stand alone 18-hole golf course is planned for the most northern
development tract.
Future Land Use Element - The subject properties are both within the area designated Urban-Mixed-
Use-Urban Residential, and Agricultural-Rural on the Future Land Use Map to the FLUE. Because
this petition was received prior to June 22, 1999, it predates the order of the Governor and Cabinet
which imposes a form of moratorium on the issuance of new development orders until completion of
certain planning studies, and amendments to the Growth Management Plan implementing the results
of those adopted planning studies. This petition did not go forward expeditiously upon its acceptance
into our review and processing system because staff were of the opinion that the PUD Master Plan was
at best speculative and lacked the degree of certainty we strive for in determining how environmental
APR .2 q 2001
conditions will dictate the layout of the PUD Master Plan. This degree of certainty can only be
determined by regional and state permitting processes, as in the final analysis they will determine the
limits of development areas, versus non-development areas. Without this determination PUD Master
Plans cannot be taken seriously. Staff has generally refused to go forward with a large scale PUD
without the degree of site analysis that goes into the state and regional permitting process. The
petitioner now has a better understanding of the development constraints which characterize this
property, as they have or are near completing their state and regional reviews leading to a
determination as to which parts of the subject site can be developed given whatever mitigation
arrangements that have to be made. Staff is of the opinion that the Master Plan as now designed is
creditable and therefore we are of the opinion that the review and resolution of this petition is timely.
FLUE Consistency - This petition is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, and in
consideration of' an administrative interpretation affirmed by the Collier County Board of
Commissioners that the cjustering of housing units is allowed, irrespective of the Agricultural Rural
designation, providing the density is consistent with the density rating system.
Density - This petition is consistent with the density rating system based on the fact that 320.7 acres
qualifies for a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre (1283 d.u.'s) and 1206.3 acres of agricultural
zoning which qualifies for a density 1 dwelling unit for each five (5) acres (242 dwelling units). It is
readily apparent that the petition seeks far less authorization to construct housing units than is
otherwise available through the density rating system. The overall density requested by this petition is
0.52 dwelling units per acre based on 799 dwelling units. Even though the residential development
pattern provides for cjustering on the agriculturally designation portion, the number of units on said
land shall not exceed 242 dwelling units. Should Growth management Plan amendments result in
allowing greater density in the current agriculturally designated area the PUD document has been
structured to allow for this condition.
Traffic - Based on the analysis in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), the site generated trips exceed
the significance test standard (5 percent of the LOS "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (C.R.
846) from 1-75 to C.R. 951 and C.R. 951 from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Immokalee Road is currently under construction from 1-75 to C.R. 951 as a four-lane facility. This
segment of Immokalee Road as improved is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service at
build-out of the Mirasol PUD. C.R. 951 is not projected to be deficient by the build-out of this project
based on the analysis provided in the TIS. Since the site generated trips will not lower the level of
service below the adopted LOS "D" standard for either of the significantly impacted roadways, this
petition is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element.
Coastal Management and Conservation Element - This petition is consistent with this element as it
preserves a far greater portion of the existing native vegetation than is required by the 25% threshold.
This petition preserves approximately 60% of the land area as a perpetual preserve area. In the final
analysis the actual amount of wetland retention will depend upon approval of the South Florida Water
Management District.
APR 2 2001
Open Space Element - This petition is consistent with the Open Space Element because it will retain
more than 60% of its area in open space. Open space areas inclusive of golf courses, water bodies, and
project open spaces (i.e. landscaped areas) will approximate 90% of the total site area.
Sanitary. Sewer and Water Distribution Elements - This petition may be inconsistent with the sewer
and water element to the extent that it proposes extension of these utilities outside of the sewer and
water service boundaries. For this petition to be consistent with the current requirements of the sewer
and water elements connection to the county's utility systems must be limited to the land within the
service boundaries. Land within the agriculturally designated areas may utilize on-site private septic
tank systems.
Following the Planning Commissioner's meeting there was an agreement that the PUD would be
amended to provide that land in the Agriculturally designated area would be developed with on-site
septic tank systems and wells. The PUD stipulation further provide that in the event of revisions to the
Growth Management Plan allowing the extension of county utilities into the non-urban area of this
PUD then said development within the non-urban area could be developed by extending said sewer and
water utilities. These revisions are now reflected in the PUD document.
Storm Water Management Element - This project falls within the jurisdiction of the South Florida
Water Management District. Permitting authorization fi.om SFWMD will make this consistent with
this element of the GMP.
Planning Review - This petition as described above is consistent with the FLUE to the GMP because
the FLUE map designated the area as lying both within Urban Residential and Agricultural-Rural area
at densities consistent with those required by each of these respective areas. The density proposed is
far less than is otherwise allowed, however, this is not so much the result of actions by the petitioner,
but rather is the result of environmental conditions which characterize this property. The total number
of dwelling units requested is 799 whereas technically the land qualifies for up to 1526 dwelling units.
Additionally, staff review of other applicable elements as modified following the CCPC meeting
supports the conclusion that this petition is consistent with the GMP.
With respect to the matter of compatibility this area of Collier County and in particular the area to the
south immediately adjacent Immokalee Road is entirely under development with residential
communities. Immediately west of the project, Section 21, lies the Olde Cypress PUD which is
actively under development as a residential golf course community. Clearly, Section 22, the subject
land, is now for all purposes a part of the urbanizing portion of Collier County, and the agricultural
zoning designation is appropriate for rezoning to an urban residential district as in the case of a PUD.
Moreover, the immediate availability of sanitary sewers notwithstanding the current capacity issues at
the North Collier Treatment Plant and potable water supplies along Immokalee Road adjacent the
subject property makes development given current area development patterns timely.
Staff is further of the opinion that the current sewer capacity problem at the North Naples Treatment
Plant will long be resolved prior to the commencement of any building activity within the Mirasol
APR 2 2001
PUD, otherwise, we would advise that provision be made for not allowing any development requiring
sanitary sewers to commence until the current capacity problem is corrected. The Agricultural-Rural
sections are to be developed in a manner consistent with provisions of the FLUE which have been
determined to allow cjustered housing so long as the density on the Agricultural portions does not
exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres of land. The singular use proposed for land in the Agricultural area
in the northern development tract is for a golf course and related facilities.
Legal Review - There are some further language clarifications which will be made to the PUD
Document prior to the BCC heating. At that time County legal staff will sign the ordinance for form
and legal sufficiency.
Traffic Relationship - This rezoning petition is consistent with applicable provisions of the Traffic
Circulation Element. The PUD document and Master Plan commit to the provision of the extension of
Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) along two potential alternate routes. The first alternative alignment
requires the applicant to provide a reservation of 100 feet on the entire eastern property boundary
providing for one-half of the necessary 200 feet of right-of-way. The second alternative alignment
would provide for the same reservation of 100 feet on the eastern boundary up to a point where the
alignment would traverse in a northwesterly direction across the designated preserve land to align with
the southeast comer of the Parkland PUD, whereupon the road extends due north to Bonita Beach Road
along the dividing line between the Parkland PUD and the subject property. This reservation will
require 200 feet of right-of-way along the northwest alignment through the preserve area, otherwise a
100 foot reservation is provided. An additional 100 feet of reservation will be required from adjacent
properties to establish a 200-foot right-of-way. Interconnection to the adjacent parcels, with the
exception of the property within the Activity Center of Immokalee Road and CR 951, is not proposed
by this application. The PUD document commits to a provision of interconnection with the Activity
Center to minimize local trips on the arterial system. Olde Cypress Develop is an existing gated
community. The proposed Terafina PUD is proposed as a gated community but will not provide a
likely interconnection to Mirasol due to the location of the flow way. Little opportunity is anticipated
for interconnection on the northern portion of Mirasol to either the Parklands or the undeveloped
property to the east due to environmental considerations. The remaining land area north of Immokalee
Road and to the southwest of Mirasol is accessed via Nursery Lane and Rose Boulevard. Relative to
land along the east side, it should be noted that the NW comer of Immokalee Road and C.R. 951
extension is in an activity center. Provision has be made to access a potential commercial development
from the interior of the Mirasol Master Plan. The remaining land to the southeast still allows for the
opportunity for local road development and circulation so as to not require interconnection with
Mirasol streets for primary access. Streets connecting with the Collier Boulevard/C.R. 951 extension
can adequately serve this area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This PUD by and of itself will not have a fiscal impact on the County. However, if this request meets
its objective, the land will be developed. The mere fact that new development has been approved will
result in a future fiscal impact on County public facilities.
APR .2 2001
Impact Fees
Park Impact Fee:
Library Impact Fee:
Fire Impact Fee:
School Impact Fee:
Road Impact Fee:
Radon Impact Fee:
EMS Impact Fee:
Bldg. Code Adm.:
Micro Film Surcharge:
Correctional Facilities
Golf Course
Residential Units
$578.00 per unit x 799 du's =
$180.52 per unit x 799 du's =
$0.15 per Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area
@ 1500 SF x 0.15 x 799 =
1500 per unit x 799 du's =
2368 per unit x 799
$.005 per Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area
x 1500 x 799+
$10.00 per unit x 799 --
$0.005 per Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area
x 1500 x 799 =
$2.00 per unit x 799
117.98 x 799 =
SUBTOTAL IMPACT FEES:
$ 461,822.00
$ 144,435.00
$ 17,999.00
$1,198,500.00
$1,892,032.00
$ 5,992.50
$ 7,990.00
$ 5,992.50
$ 1,598.00
$ 94,266.00
$3,830,587.00
Road Impact 156,334/18-holes x 2
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL
$ 312,668.00
$ 312,668.00
$4,143,255.00
Additionally, there is no guarantee that the project at build-out will have maximized their authorized
level of development. Other fees will include building permit review fees and utility fees associated
with connecting to the County's sewer and water system. Building permit fees and utility fees have
traditionally off-set the cost of administering the community development review process, whereas
utility fees are used on their proportionate share of impact to the County System. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates. The revenue that will be generated
depends on the value of the improvements. Nevertheless, it should be appreciated that not
withstanding the fiscal impact relationship, development takes place in an environment of concurrency
management. When level of service requirements fall below adopted standards, a mechanism is in
place to bring about a cessation of building activities. Certain LOS standards apply countywide and _
APR 2 q 2001
would therefore bring about a countywide concurrency determination versus roads that may have local
geographic concurrency implications.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
This rezoning was deemed consistent with the Collier County Growth Management and therefore has
no GMP impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental staff advise the loss approximately 582 acres of
wetlands while identifying that the development strategy entails the preservation of 729 acres of
wetlands (i.e. 56%). Without prejudice the fact remains that it is possible to obtain approval to
eliminate degraded wetlands through mitigation alternatives. This project acknowledges two forms of
mitigation, one enhancement of the quality of the remaining wetlands, and two, establishing part of a
regional drainage flow-way. The regional drainage flow-way through Mirasol is an important
component that is to be constructed at considerable cost to the Mirasol poject. Benefits from the
regional flow-way will extend to several thousand acres of land within the drainage basins.
Environmental staff has raised concerns that advise rewording one environmental stipulation.
Inasmuch as the EAC did not by a majority vote approve or deny the petition, staff recommendations
are not officially part of the EAC's recommendation. The petitioner disagrees with a staff
recommendation relative to stipulation 6.9A relative to a requirement for no net loss standard for
wetlands.
In terms of native vegetation preservation requirements this project preserves a far greater area than is
mandated by GMP requirements. Whereas the GMP requires preservation of 25% of the native
vegetation, the proposed plan of development will preserve 42% of the existing viably functioning
native vegetation.
Staff from the SFWMD were present at the EAC meeting and their testimony was essentially that they
had not completed their review of all of the projects in the area to determine their inter-relationships to
one another and the viability of the regional flow-ways as proposed.
Staff is of the opinion that there is no reason based on the application of sound planning practice not to
approve this petition and further given the fact that it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staff's analysis indicated 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.
Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code if during the course of site clearing,
excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development
m._l ';. BI_
APR 2 2001
within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the
Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted.
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Services staff recommended approval of this petition for rezoning to the PUD zoning
classification. The recommendations of staff are contained within the PUD Development
Commitments section. They include recommendations supported by provisions of the GMP and/or
LDC from Transportation, Environmental and Engineering and Planning staff both long range and
current.
EAC RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC heard this petition on March 7, 2001. The EAC failed to approve or deny this petition by a
majority of the members present. The vote was 4 for denial and 3 for approval. The verbatim minutes
of the EAC are enclosed within this executive summary submission.
The major issues were an unacceptable loss to more than 550 acres of wetlands on-site and a concern
that the development should have cjustered housing to afford more wetland preservation. A motion
was made to deny the project, based on an unacceptable loss of wetlands and the lack of effort by the
petitioner to design the project to have the least amount of impacts on the wetlands.
CCPC RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard this petition on April 5, 2001. The CCPC by a vote of 6 to 1 recommended approval
of this petition PUD-99-10 as described by the Ordinance for Adoption and Exhibits thereto PUD
Document and Master Plan.
APR 2 q 2001
:PARED~Y:
~ALD g.' lX~INO, AICP
PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
S.~u~AN MURRAY, AICP
INTERIM CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
ROBERT J. MULItERE, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
TRA/NSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR
APISROVED BY:
g/admin/PUD-99-10/RN/im
DATE
DATE
APR 2 ~ 2001
AGENDA ITEM 7-C
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FEBRUARY 16, 2001
PETITION NO: PUD-99-10, MIRASOL PUD
OWNER/AGENT:
Agent:
Karen Bishop
PMS Inc. of Naples
2335 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 408
Naples, FL 34103
Owner:
Mirasol Development, LLC
6025 Carlton Lakes Blvd.
Naples, FL 34104
REQUESTED ACTION:
This petition seeks to have certain land as herein described rezoned from their current rural
agricultural status to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development district for a residential golf course
form of development.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property lies on the north side of Immokalee Road. It includes most of the land in
Section 22, all of Sections 15 and 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The Immokalee
Road frontage lies west of Collier Boulevard extended north. (See location map on the
following page).
·
APR 2ti 2001'
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The development strategy includes the authorization of 799 dwelling units of mixed structure
types, and two 18-hole golf courses, together with accessory clubhouse and recreation amenities.
The property will be accessed from Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard when extended due
north. Because of environmental conditions a significant portion of the site (i.e. 60%) will be
retained as a preserve area which will function as a storm drainage flow-way as part of a regional
natural drainage system that extends northwesterly into Lee County and for all practical purposes
bisects the property into two development tracts. The most northerly portion is separated from
the southern development tract by the preserve flow-way. A stand alone 18-hole golf course is
planned for the most northern development tract.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Existing:
The existing properties are undeveloped and are all zoned "A"
Rural Agricultural. The southern properties are made up of an
aggregation of several smaller parcels.
Surrounding:
North-
To the north lies Lee County. This portion of Lee
County is undeveloped.
East
To the east the land is undeveloped but in part is
part of an earthmining operation by Florida Rock.
The most southeasterly portion of the property is
adjacent to a Nursery operation which lies
immediately west of Collier Blvd. extended north.
This land is zoned "A."
South -
The south boundary opposite Immokalee Road is
under development as residential communities (i.e.
Pebblebrooke, Laurel Wood) both zoned PUD.
Other parts of the south boundary north of
Immokalee Road are under development and zoned
Agricultural.
West -
Properties adjacent the west boundary are both
developed and undeveloped. Rose Lane and
Nursery Lane both lie adjacent to the subject
property, however all of the land is zoned "A" Rural
Agriculture.
APR 2 21}01
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The subject properties are both within the area designated Urban-Mixed Use-Urban Residential,
and Agricultural-Rural on the Future Land Use Map to the FLUE. Because this petition was
received prior to June 22, 1999, it predates the order of the Governor and Cabinet which imposes
a form of moratorium on the issuance of new development orders until completion of certain
planning studies, and amendments to the Growth Management Plan implementing the results of
those adopted planning studies. This petition did not go forward expeditiously upon its
acceptance into our review and processing system because staff were of the opinion that the PUD
master plan was at best speculative and lacked the degree of certainty we strive for in
determining how environmental conditions will dictate the layout of the PUD Master Plan. This
degree of certainty can only be determined by regional and state permitting processes, as in the
final analysis they will determine the limits of development areas, versus non-development areas.
Without this determination PUD Master Plans cannot be taken seriously. Staff has generally
refused to go forward with a large scale PUD without the degree of site analysis that goes into
the state and regional permitting process. The petitioner now has a better understanding of the
development constraints which characterize this property, as they have or are near completing
their state and regional reviews leading to a determination as to which parts of the subject site
can be developed given whatever mitigation arrangements that have to be made. Staff is of the
opinion that the Master Plan as now designed is creditable and therefore we are of the opinion
that the review and resolution of this petition is timely.
FLUE Consistency - This petition is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use element, and
in consideration of an administrative interpretation affirmed by the Collier County Board of
Commissioners that the cjustering of housing units is allowed, irrespective of the Agricultural
Rural designation, providing the density is consistent with the density rating system.
Density - This petition is consistent with the density rating system based on the fact that 320.7
acres qualifies for a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre (1283 d.u.'s) and 1206.3 acres of
agricultural zoning which qualifies for a density 1 dwelling unit for each five (5) acres (242
dwelling units). It is readily apparent that the petition seeks far less authorization to construct
housing units than is otherwise available through the density rating system. The overall density
requested by this petition is 0.52 dwelling units per acre based on 799 dwelling units. Even
though the residential development pattern provides for cjustering on the agriculturally
designated portion, the number of units on said land shall not exceed 242 dwelling units. Should
Growth Management Plan amendments result in allowing greater density in the current
agriculturally designated area the PUD document has been structured to allow for this condition.
APR 2 zt 2001
Traffic Element - Staff has reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has the
following comment: The ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition) indicates that the proposed
project will generate the following traffic in Phase One:
UNITS LAND USE TRIPS AM PEAK PM PEAK
560 DU Multi-family 2,815 ADT 200 255
239 DU Single-family 2,311 ADT 177 235
36 Holes Golf Course 1,287ADT 80 99
Total: 6,413 ADT* 457 589
TRIP ADJUSTMENTS:
INTERNAL CAPTURE: -616
SEASONAL OCCUPANCY:-768
* The total site generated trips after Trip Adjustments results in the following: 5,029 ADT.
Based on the analysis in the TIS, the site generated trips exceed the significance test standard (5
percent of the LOS "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) from 1-75 to C.R. 951.
However, since this segment is now under construction for improvement to 4 lanes by 2000, it is
expected to operate at an acceptable level of service at build-out. Therefore, this segment is
consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). C.R. 951 will also
exceed 5 percent of its LOS "C" standard at build-out for the segment from C.R. 846 to
Vanderbilt Beach Road. It should be noted that this segment of C.R. 951 is not projected to be
deficient by the build-out of this project. Since the site generated trips will not lower the level of
service below its adopted LOS "D" standard, this petition is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of
the TCE.
C.R. 951 is currently a 2 lane arterial road from C.R. 846 to Golden Gate Boulevard. It has a
traffic count of 12,217 LOS "D" and is not projected to be deficient by the build-out of the
project. As a result, this petition is consistent with Policy 1.3 and 1.4 of the TCE. The Peak
Season Daily Traffic was based on the Peak/Annual Ratio as shown in the County's
Transportation Planning Database.
As a consequence of the above findings this project is technically consistent with the policies of
the Traffic Circulation Element.
Coastal Management and Conservation Element - This petition is consistent with this element as
it preserves a far greater portion of the existing native vegetation than is required by the 25%
threshold. This petition preserves approximately 60% of the land area as a perpetual preserve
area. In the final analysis the actual amount of wetland retention will depend upon approval of
the South Florida Water Management District.
APR 2 2001
Open Space Element - This petition is consistent with the Open Space Element because it will
retain more th~n 60% of its area in open space. Open space areas inclusive of golf courses, water
bodies, and project open spaces (i.e. landscaped areas) will approximate 90% of the total site
area.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Distribution Elements - This petition is inconsistent with the sewer
and water element to the extent that it proposes extension of these utilities outside of the sewer
and water service boundaries. For this petition to be consistent with the current requirements of
the sewer and water elements connection to the county's utility systems must be limited to the
land within the service boundaries. Land within the agriculturally designated areas may utilize
on-site private septic tank systems or temporary treatment facilities.
Storm Water management Element - This project falls within the jurisdiction of the South
Florida Water management District. Permitting authorization from SFWMD will make this
consistent with this element of the GMP.
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW:
The petitioner's property is located outside an area of historic/archaeological probability as
designated on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no historic/archaeological
survey and assessment is required. The PUD Document shall contain the following information:
Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the course of site
clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found,
all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be
immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted.
EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL~ TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE:
The subject petition has been reviewed by the appropriate staff responsible for oversight related
to the above referenced areas of critical concern. This primarily includes a review by the
Community Development environmental and engineering staff, and the Transportation Services
Department staff. Staff recommendations are included in the Development commitment sections
of the PUD.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a
favorable determination must be based. This evaluation is intended to provide an objective
comprehensive overview of the impact of the proposed land use change, be they positive or
negative, culminating in a staff recommendation based on that comprehensive overview. The
ACiENDA I'rEM -~'
,APR 2 2001
listed criteria are specifically noted in Section 2.7.2.5. and 2.7.3.2.5. of the Land Development
Code thus requiring staff evaluation and comment, and shall be used as the basis for a
recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission to the Board of County
Commissioners. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff
review are listed under each of the criteria noted, and are categorized as either pro or con,
whichever the case may be. Staff review of each of the criterion is followed by a summary
conclusion culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with
mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff
report.
Appropriate evaluation of petitions for rezoning should establish a factual basis for supportive
action by appointed and elected decision makers. The evaluation by professional staff should
typically include an analysis of the petition's relationship to the community's future use plan,
and whether or not a rezoning action would be consistent with the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and all of its related elements. Other evaluation considerations should include
an assessment of adequacy of transportation, infrastructure (i.e., sewer, water, storm drainage and
private utilities) and other infrastructure (i.e., community facilities and services) and
compatibility with adjacent land uses, a consideration usually dealt with as a facet of analyzing
the relationship of the rezoning action to the long range plan for future land uses.
Relationship to Future and Existing Land Uses -- A discussion of this relationship, as it applies
specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the
proposed zoning action to the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan.
This petition as described above is consistent with the FLUE to the GMP because the FLUE map
designated the area as lying both within Urban Residential and Agricultural-Rural area at
densities consistent with those required by each of these respective areas. The density proposed
is far less than is otherwise allowed, however, this is not so much the result of actions by the
petitioner, but rather is the result of environmental conditions which characterize this property.
The total number of dwelling units requested is 799 whereas technically the land qualifies for up
to 1526 dwelling units.
With respect to the matter of compatibility this area of Collier County and in particular the area
to the south immediately adjacent Immokalee Road is entirely under development with
residential communities. Immediately west of the project, Section 21, lies the Olde Cypress
PUD) which is actively under development as a residential golf course community. Clearly,
Section 22 the subject land, is now for all purposes a part of the urbanizing portion of Collier
County, and the agricultural zoning designation is appropriate for rezoning to an urban
residential district as in the case of a PUD). Moreover, the immediate availability of sanitary
sewers and potable water supplies along Immokalee Road adjacent the subject property makes
APR 2 2001
development given current area development patterns timely. The Agricultural-Rural sections are
to be developed in a manner consistent with provisions of the FLUE which have been determined
to allow cjustered housing so long as the density on the Agricultural portions does not exceed 1
dwelling unit per 5 acres of land. This fact is academic, in any event, because the area of housing
for all practical purposes is limited to the Urban Designated area, and the density is less than is
otherwise allowed for in the urban residential area. The singular use proposed for land in the
Agricultural area in the northern development tract is for a golf course and related facilities.
Environmental Issues - Environmental staff advise the loss approximately 582 acres of wetlands
while identifying that the development strategy entails the preservation of 729 acres of wetlands
(i.e. 56 %). Without prejudice the fact remains that it is possible to obtain approval to eliminate
degraded wetlands through mitigation alternatives. This project acknowledges two forms of
mitigation, one enhancement of the quality of the remaining wetlands, and two, establishing part
of a regional drainage flow-way. The regional drainage flow-way through Mirasol is an
important component that is to be constructed at considerable cost to the Mirasol project.
Benefits from the regional flow-way will extend to several thousand acres of land within the
drainage basins.
In terms of native vegetation preservation requirements this project preserves a far greater area
than is mandated by GMP requirements. Whereas the GMP requires preservation of 25% of the
native vegetation, the proposed plan of development will preserve 42% of the existing viably
functioning native vegetation.
Staff is of the opinion that there is no reason based on the application of sound planning practice
not to approve this petition and further given the fact that it is consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
Traffic Relationship -- As stated above approval of this rezoning petition is consistent with
applicable provisions of the Traffic Circulation Element. This PUD document and Master Plan
makes provision for the extension of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) along two alternate routes.
One, due north along the east boundary providing a 100 foot reservation and two, an extension
due north and northwest across the preserve designated land to align with the southeast comer of
the Park Lands PUD, whereupon the road extends due north to Bonita Beach Road along the
dividing line between the Parkland PUD and the subject property. This reservation will require
200 feet of fight-of-way along the northwest alignment through the preserve area, otherwise a
100 foot reservation, is provided. An additional 100 feet of reservation will be required from
adjacent properties to establish a 200-foot fight-of-way. Relative to the matter of
interconnectivity this has potential application to properties lying both east and west of the
subject land in Section 22. Access to undeveloped land along the west boundary may be provided
by the extension of Nursery Lane and Rose Boulevard. The remaining land area to be accessed
via these roads is not so significant in transit area that an alternate route through the subject
~A
APR ,2 h 2001
property is necessary. Staff is of the opinion that Nursery Lane, and Rose Boulevard provide
adequate access opportunities to the remaining undeveloped property. Relative to land along the
east side, it should be noted that the NW comer of Immokalee Road and C.R. 951 extension is in
an activity center. Provision should be made to access a potential commercial development from
the interior of the Mirasol Master Plan. The remaining land again is not so significant in terms of
acreage that it requires interconnection with Mirasol streets. This area can be adequately served
by streets connecting with the C.R. 951 extension.
As structured the master Plan is very responsive to natural features preservation and in particular
its wetland determination. While there are some issues of utility service areas, it is unlikely that
these are an immediate problem because the likelihood of development in the non-urban
designated area is some years away because of the problems inherent in acquiring permitting
approvals for the extension of C.R. 951. By that time staff suggests a resolution of the rural
assessment study will have been completed and decision about the extension of sewer and water
services beyond the current utility service boundary area will have been resolved. At that time
this PUD) can be amended to reflect whatever opportunities are inherent from the GMP
amendments expected from the completed rural assessment study. '
PUD Document and Master Plan m The PUD Document is constructed in a fashion similar to
many PUD's approved in the recent past. Development utilizing the development standards
employed by this PUD are producing quality residential environments.
The Master Plan design has limited opportunities given the amount of land available for
residential purposes. Interior streets are intended to be private and most likely the development
will be privatized by virtue of controlled entrances. Staff does not see any advantage to the
collector interior street being opened to the public as it is so close to C.R. 951 that no benefit
would occrue to the public if said street were made public. Rather it may in all probability be
abused as a short cut through a residential subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition PUD-99-10,
Mirasol PUD as described by the Ordinance of Adoption and Exhibit thereto (i.e. PUD
Document and MasterPlan)
APR 2 2001
n, IT
CURREI~T PLANNING MANAGER
0~,, b:D' o'l
DATE
, REVIEWED !~Y:
R-~ERT J] I~I~JLHERTE, ~CP DATE
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
APPROVED BY:
J~HN M. DUNNUCK, III, INTERIM ADMIN. DATE
(~)MMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS.
Petition Number PUD-99-10
Staff Report for the March 1, 2001 CCPC meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
APR 2 ~ 2001
n. /?
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PUD-99-10
Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning
Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria:
The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
Pro: (i)
Intensifying land development patterns produce economies of scale
relative to public utilities, facilities, and services, which are currently
available in this area within the urban designated portion of the project.
(ii)
The extent that location choice is enhanced for residential environments
within the urban area reduces the push on development with the
Agricultural-Rural designated area save as provided by the Final Order.
(iii)
The subject property is served by a network of arterial roads, or future
arterial road (i.e.C.R. 951) providing easy access to a host of
community services and facilities.
Con: (i)
As with all actions that intensify urban development patterns there is
some loss to travel time for users of the same arterial road system.
Finding: Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattem of
development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in
the PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent
with County regulations. Any inadequacies which require supplementing the PUD
document will be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners as conditions
of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with
Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the Growth Management Plan.
Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense. -
-~--
Pro/Con: (i) Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified
control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation
and maintenance of common areas.
Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Growth Management Plan.
Pro: (i) The development strategy for the subject property is entirely
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan and
is consistent with the Governors and Cabinets Final Order from which this petition is
exempt.
Con: (i) None.
Finding[ The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Growth Management Plan. A more detailed description of this
conformity is addressed in the Staff Report.
Additional Finding: The subject property is designated Urban Mixed-Use-Urban
Residential and Agricultural Rural on the FLUE to the GMP. As such it authorizes
zoning actions aimed at allowing the land to be used for urban residential purposes at
the density proposed and Agricultural uses consistent with agricultural densities.
This petition has been reviewed by the appropriate staff for compliance with the
applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan, as noted below:
Future Land Use Element - Consistency with FLUE requirements is further described
as follows:
Residential Density - Approval would authorize seven hundred and ninety-nine (799)
dwelling units whose density would be 0.52 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent
with the density rating system to the FLUE.
Land Use - The urban residential sub-district allows all residential structure types and
other uses normally found in a residential environment such as recreational accessory
uses and golf course development. The Agricultural area allows a maximum of
241 dwelling units which may be cjustered in the Agriculturally designated area.
-2-
APR 2 2001
Recreation and Open Space Element - More than sixty (60%) of the land area is to be
developed as open space utilizing a system of golf course development, interconnected
lakes and preserve area.
This area is exclusive of the amount of open space that remains as each development
parcel or tract or lot is developed. Said amount of open space is equal to the open
space requirement of 60% for residential PUD's exclusive of that open space related to
actual residential development.
Other applicable element(s) - By virtue of development commitments and master plan
development strategy, staff is of the opinion that the Mirasol PUD is entirely consistent
the provisions of the Collier County GMP.
Staff review indicates that this petition has been designed to account for the necessary
relationships dictated by the GMP. Where appropriate, stipulations have been
generated to ensure consistency with the GMP during the permitting process.
Therefore, this petition has been deemed to be consistent with the Growth Management
Plan.
The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering
and screening requirements.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use
relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation (i.e. preserves,
lakes, golf course, etc.). External relationships are automatically regulated by the Land
Development Code to assure harmonious relationships between projects.
The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Finding: The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Development Code.
The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Finding: Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is
not a significant problem. (See finding No. 1, also applicable for this finding)
APR 2 2001
The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as
wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property
relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from
urban development. This assessment is described at length in the staff report adopted
by the CCPC. Relative to this petition, development of the subject property is timely;
because supporting infrastructure is available.
Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: This finding essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which
development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that
would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development
standards in this PUD are similar to those standards used for particular housing
structures and associated area requirements.
g/admin/PUD-99-10/RN/im
APR .2 2001
FINDINGS FOR REZONE
PUD-99-10
Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in
relation to the following, where applicable.
Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies and Future Land Use map and the elements of the Growth
Management Plan.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The proposed development is in compliance with the Future Land
Use Element of the Growth Management Plan for Collier County and all other
elements, their objectives and policies as regulated by the PUD document.
Companion PUD Findings evaluation as well as the adopted CCPC staff report
addresses this same finding.
2. The existing land use pattern:
Existing:
The existing properties are undeveloped and are all zoned "A"
Rural Agricultural. The southern properties are made up of an
aggregation of several smaller parcels.
Surrounding: North-
To the north lies Lee County. This portion of Lee
County is undeveloped.
East
To the east the land is undeveloped but in part is
part of an earthmining operation by Florida Rock.
The most southeasterly portion of the property is
adjacent to a Nursery operation, which lies
immediately west of Collier Blvd., extended
north. This land is zoned "A."
APR 2 200t
South -
The south boundary opposite Immokalee Road is
under development as residential communities
(i.e. Pebblebrooke, Laurel Wood) both zoned
PUD. Other parts of the south boundary north of
Immokalee Road are under development and
zoned Agricultural.
West -
Properties adjacent the west boundary are both
developed and undeveloped. Rose Lane and
Nursery Lane both lie adjacent to the subject
property, however all of the land is zoned "A"
Rural Agriculture.
The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The parcel is of a sufficient size that will not result in an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts because development of the
land simply implements a part of the GMP FLUE Urban Designation, an action
which is expected given that timing is appropriate. Availability of adequate
infrastructure, nearby urban development (i.e. Olde Cypress, Pebblebrooke,
Laural Wood, Schools, etc.) supports the timing relationship and justifies
approving the PUD and its development strategy.
Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The district boundaries are logically drawn.
Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing
conditions of the property and because its relationship to the FLUE (Future
Land Use Element of the GMP) is a positive one.
2
APR 2 2001
o
Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
Pro: (i)
The County's land use policy as reflected by the FLUE supports
an action to allow urban residential development and to utilize
the portion of the Agricultural-Rural sections as planned.
Con.'. (i)
Urban Mixed-Use development may not coincide with resident's
desire to maintain a natural atmosphere.
Finding: The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in
the neighborhood because the recommended development standards and other
conditions for approval have been promulgated and designed to ensure the least
amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments.
Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic
congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding
land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic,
including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise
affect public safety:
Pro: (i)
Development of the subject property is consistent with
provisions of the Traffic Element of the GMP, therefore traffic
intensity should not adversely affect the comfort and safety of
existing users on adjacent public roads.
(ii) Urban intensification is cost effective.
Finding: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for
consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Traffic Element of the GMP and was found
consistent, a statement advising that this project when developed will not
excessively increase traffic congestion. Additionally certain traffic
management system improvements are required as a condition of approval (i.e.
mm lanes, traffic signals, dedications, etc.). In the final analysis all projects
are subject to the Concurrency Management System.
Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem:
Pro: (I)
Road improvements precipitated by this development and water
management improvements to accommodate site development
are designed to accommodate the normal drainage requirement.
10.
(ii)
This project will provide land needed for a regional drainage
flow-way and to that extent should benefit neighboring land
uses.
Con: (i)
Urban intensification potentially can heighten the occasion for
area-wide flooding under the more severe rainfall event.
Finding: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of
land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub-
surface drainage generated by development activities as a condition of
approval. The water management system to serve the project will consist of an
interconnected lake system. Runoff from the developed areas will convey to
the lakes by sheetflow, catch basins, and culvert systems. The lake will then
discharge through control structures into the County's drainage system and the
flow-way as it travels the property.
Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent
areas:
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: All projects in Collier County are subject to the development
standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These
development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning
districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.)
were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not
adversely affect adjacent areas.
Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the
adjacent area:
Pro: (i)
Urban intensification typically increases the value of adjacent or
underutilized land.
(ii)
Development standards often do not reflect the quality of the
project when it actually develops. More often than not
developers have structured standards below the actual market
response in order to be on the safe side.
Con: (i) None.
-4-
APR 2 tt 2001
11.
12.
13.
14.
Finding: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,
which may be internal or external to the subject property that can affect
property values. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value
determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property
is given a new zoning designation may or may not affect the value.
Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the
zoning division of the Land Development Code is that their sound application
when combined with the administrative site development plan approval
process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in a
deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property.
Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management
Plan, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are
consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact the proposed
change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the
FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions
consistent with plans are in the public interest.
Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The subject property is zoned Rural Agriculture "A." To deny this
petition would deprive the owner of any reasonable use of the property
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP.
Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood or the County.
Pro/Con:
Evaluation not applicable.
-5-
15.
16.
17.
Finding:. The proposed development complies with the Growth Management
Plan, a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of
land uses deemed to be acceptable for this site.
Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
This site is zoned "A" Rural Agriculture. Whether or not there are other
similarly zoned residential areas is irrelevant.
The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration
which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of
potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: The site will be altered to the extent necessary to execute the
development strategy.
The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County
Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier
County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable.
Finding: Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service
determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established
relationships.
NOTE: GMP as used herein means the Collier County Growth Management Plan.
FLUE means the Future Land Use Element of the GMP.
g/admin/PUD-99-10/RN/im
-6-
APR 2 4 2001
Item IV.A
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2001
NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
Applicant/Developer:
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
Planned Unit Development Petition
No. PUD-99-10
Mirasol PUD
Mirasol Development, LLCmmunities, Inc.
Agnoli, Barber & Bmndage, Inc.
Turrell & Associates, Inc.
II.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located to the north side of Immokalee Road; bordered on the east
by Broken Back Road, future Collier Boulevard extension. The Collier County/Lee
County line is the northern property line and the western property borders agricultural
lands and the Ole/Cypress PUD. This project is located within Sections 10,15, and 22
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
IlL
DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING
N - Collier/Lee County line
S - Immokalee Road
E - Broken Back Rd.
Future Collier Boulevard Ext.
W - Agriculture
Woodlands PUD
DESCRIPTION
Residential
Road right of way
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
Undeveloped
Golf course/residential
n l& 8 /
APR 2 200l
EAC STAFF REPORT
Page 2 of 10
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.:
November 1,2000
The development strategy called for by the PUD regulatory document and its Master Plan
is that of a residential golf course community that will consist of up to 799 mixed
residential dwelling units. Because of the particular environmental sensitivity of the
property, a major portion of the land will be preserved as a flow way and other preserve
buffer area. Essentially the northern half of the property will constitute a perpetual
preserve with some exception in the most northerly portion of the property where
additional golf course development is anticipated. All of the housing tracts lie south of
the preserve area or flow-way.
Ve
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY,.:
Future Land Use Element;.
A portion of the site (i.e. 320.7 acres) is designated Urban-Mixed Use-Urban Residential,
the remainder of the property is designated Agricultural/Rural (i.e. 1206.3 acres). Because
the application was filed prior to June 22,1999 the owner is entitled to apply for rezoning
and is therefore not required to comply with Final Order No. AC 99-002 issued June 22,
1999 by the Administrative Commission (Florida Governor and Cabinet). Relevant to this
petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development o f various
housing structure types at a base density of 4 DU/A, and recreation and open space uses.
The Agricultural/Residential Subdistrict permits 1/D.U/5 Acres, and, recreation and open
space uses. The Board of County Commissioners have ruled that the cjustering of
allowable dwelling units is consistent with the FLUE based on their decision in the Twin
Eagles rezoning case. Based on the application of the Density Rating formula
considerably more dwelling units could have been requested. The number of Dwelling
units and land uses requested by this petition is determined to be consistent with
provisions of the FLUE.
Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element:
Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth
Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries
shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards".
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative
impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that
discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance
the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine syste~ ~". nC.,E~A
APR 2 2001
EAC STAFF REPORT
Page 3 of 10
November 1,2000
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and
interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation
during storm events.
With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following
Objectives and Policies apply:
Objective 6.2 states, "There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally
functioning marine and fresh water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands which
are addressed in Objective 6.3".
Policy 6.2.10 states, "Any development activity within a viable naturally functioning
fresh-water wetland not part of a contiguous flow way shall be mitigated in accordance
with current SFWMD mitigation rules. Mitigation may also include restoration of
previously disturbed wetlands or acquisition for public preservation of similar habitat".
Policy 6.2.13 states, "Proposed development on parcels containing viable 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".
Objective 6.3 states, "A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional zone
wetlands shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless otherwise
mitigated through the DEP and the COE permitting process and approved by the
County".
Objective 6.4 states, "A portion of each viable, naturally functioning non-wetland native
habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate".
Policy 6.4.6 states, "All new residential developments greater than 2.5 acres in the
Coastal Area and greater than 20 acres in the Coastal Urban Area shall retain 25% of the
viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site, including both the understory and
the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. When several
different native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will reasonably
attempt to preserve examples of all of them if possible. Areas of landscaping and open
space, which are planted with native plant species, shall be included in the 25%
requirement considering both understory and groundcover. Where a project has included
open space, recreational amenities, or preserved wetlands that meet or ex ,,,,,,~ ~g,.no,~; ~-.
minimum open space criteria of Collier County, this policy shall not be con tme~~
APR 2 2001
EAC STAFF REPORT November 1, 2000
Page 4 of 10
require a larger percentage of open space set aside to meet the 25% native vegetation
policy. This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the
wetlands alone constitute more than 25% of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for
parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed
activity".
This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County
Commissioners; to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal
agency permits are issued.
Policy 7.3.3 states, "The County will continue to prepare management guidelines to be
incorporated as stipulations and development orders and to inform land owners and the
general public of proper practices to reduce disturbances to eagle nests, red-cockaded
woodpeckers, Florida Panther, wood stork habitat and other species of special concern".
Policy 7.3.4 states, "Until management guidelines are prepared, the County will evaluate
and apply applicable recommendations of technical assistance to local govemment and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federal guidelines regarding the protection of species
of special status as stipulations to development orders".
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Water Manaeement:
The Water Management System is standard for projects of this type and size with a series
of interconnected lakes (approximate fifty) varying in size from an acre to almost 12
acres. The lake system handles water quality retention and peak flow attenuation.
The watershed (drainage basin) that flows through Mirasol covers approximately 300
miles according to a study done for SFWMD by the petitioner's engineer independent of
this petition.
The watershed has multiple outfalls to the west and southwest from the Imperial river
down to the Mirasol area. From the 1940's on, the watershed has been altered by roads,
canals, culverts, and weirs to the point where it is impossible to determine what
proportion of the original flow went out which outfall.
The petitioner's Engineer has done an excellent jo.b of identifying and quantifying these
flows.
APR 2 2001
EAC STAFF REPORT
Page 5 of 10
November 1,2000
This offsite flow will be routed through a wide, shallow (200' wide, 4' deep) swale (man-
made slough) nmning East to West through the Northern section of the site, and then into
a slough running south through the Old Cypress Project that outfalls to the Cocohatchee
Canal.
Site Description:
The subject property is an undeveloped parcel totaling 1555 acres in size. The South
Florida Water Management District has claimed about 1298 acres as jurisdictional
wetlands. The remaining 257 acres is comprised mainly of pine flatwoods, with about 8
acres being heavily invaded by Brazilian pepper. The project proposes to impact 208
acres of uplands and the overall impacts map states that 65 acres of uplands will be
preserved. These numbers are inconsistent with the total acres of uplands on site. There
is a difference of 15 acres of upland preserves between the numbers in section 5 of the
EIS and the site plans, which are attachments to the EIS
The soils data was provided in the EIS and shows that the majority of this site has
wetland soils of several types. These soils are typically found in sloughs and drainage
ways, cypress swamps and marshes and hydric flatwoods.
.Wetlands:
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) reviewed the wetland delineation
for the project, as seen by their attachment in the EIS. They determined that 1298 acres
of the total 1555 acres of the site are jurisdictional to SFWMD. The EIS states that 729
acres ofjurisdic~Jo~l wetlands will be preserved onsite. However the Site plan legend
identifies o~-l~aeres of preserved wetlands.
Approximately 165 acres of cypress wetlands, 24 acres of cypress/slash pine wetlands
and 933 acres ofhydric pine flatwoods exist onsite. The remaining wetlands have some
degree of exotic invasion and are characterized as 36 acres of disturbed prairie with
cypress and as identified by the consultant, monocultures of melaleuca or Brazilian
pepper.
The high water levels for this site were determined by water and lichen lines on various
trees. The levels varied from between 4 and 12 inches above ground, in and around the
cypress wetlands. This level represented the average high water levels currently being
experienced on this parcel. The level can be elevated as much as a foot and a half higher
during heavy storm events. Historic high water levels, based on the SFWMD vegetation
maps were more likely 4 to 6 inches lower.
The petitioner proposes ~for the loss o~82 acr~)of wetlands by preserving and
restoring the remaining9 acfes~)) They propose exotic vegetation removal as pa ~
APR 2 4 2001
EAC STAFF REPORT November 1, 2000
Page 6 of 10
mitigation and creation of a flow-way through the preserve as an enhancement to the
wetland characteristics within the preserve. A brief statement is made to the possibility
of off site purchase and preservation should on site proposals prove insufficient to offset
impacts. The mitigation plan will be coordinated with the SFWMD and reviewed by
Collier County Planning for consistency with the Growth Management Plan,
Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
Staff does not believe that this project is in compliance with the GMP without additional
on site preservation and/or extensive off site mitigation for the loss to 582 acres of
wetlands on site. Staff recommends that a diminimus amount of the cypress wetlands be
allowed to be impacted. That would mean that the petitioner should protect an additional -
Preservation Requirements:
The PUD as proposed greatly exceed 's~ive vegetation requirement by
providing for this site. Approximatel 170~T~ar, r-d of the most functional cypress or
cypress/pine wetlands will be preserved on site along with an addition?~~~i~s of
other wetlands and 50 acres of upland preserves. Providing these areas are set aside,
about 42% of the site would be preserved.
During the surveys for protected species, the consultant observed Wood storks perching
on trees near the southern access as well as feeding along the canal south of the property.
Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed on two occasions in trees adjacent to the higher
quality cypress wetlands on site. Bear tracts were observed on a dirt road to the east of
Section 10, so it would be likely that bear would be using this site, possibly as foraging
habitat.
The following are excerpts from the consultant's Threatened and Endangered Species
Report, which is an attachment to the ElS. The report lists the potential species within
the different vegetative communities on site.
Of those potential species that might occur within the pine flatwoods communities, "the
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, Florida Panther and Black Bear were highlighted by the US
Fish and Wildlife service (FWS -Andy Eller) as potentially occurring on this site or
utilizing portions for range or feeding grounds. A Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
study was required by FWS on the adjacent Parklands property. No RCW's were
observed during the adjacent property survey or during the Threatened and Endangered
species survey of this site. Due to the nature of the vegetation and dense melaleuca mid-
story vegetation, none are expected. Wood Storks (FE) were also highlighted as
potentially utilizing the site because of the wet nature of the existing conditions. Typical
habitat required by the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel consists of mature open slash pine
adjacent to cypress forests. The majority of the property does consist of pine fl ~'~'-'"~.1~ i~
No. I
APR 2 2001
EAC STAFF REPORT
Page ? of 10
November 1,2000
however the melaleuca infestation is heavy."
"Special interest in the property as Florida panther habitat was brought up in initial
conversations with agency personnel. Investigation of the site in the course of this study
has shown that the property offers, at best, limited use potential for the panther. The site
forms essentially a cul-de-sac at the outer limits of potential panther ranging towards
North Naples. It is surrounded by existing or proposed development and agricultural
activities. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) the closest known panther is an uncollared animal that ranges into Bird Swamp
Rookery approximately three miles to the northeast. During a site visit with Andy Eller
of USFWS,
potential panther tracks were observed and photographed, however these tracks were later
determined by FFWCC to be canine. The subject property offers a limited prey base,
limited denning opportunities due to the elevated water levels throughout the site and no
connectivity to other panther areas.
Development of the site is not expected to result in detrimental impacts to state or
federally listed wildlife species, primarily because past use patterns and altered
hydrology, as outlined above, have reduced the site's ability to support populations of
listed species.
...Proper management of the preserve area, coupled with the size of the preserve, and
limited access should serve to create an area of great use to several local listed species.
Wood storks will gain valuable forage area from the floe-way lake banks and marsh
areas. Fox squirrels will benefit from more natural hydrology and re-establishment of the
pine flatwoods community. Red-cockaded woodpeckers may find the site favorable to
set up a community in the preserve once all the melaleuca has been removed and a
midstory maintenance program has been established. Bears and panther would have
access to a large secondary forage area buffered from development by a series of lakes
and marshes that, with the removal of the exotic vegetation, will provide more varied and
stable forage base."
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Petition No. PUD-99-,
"Mirasol PUD" with the following stipulations:
Water Management:
That the petitioner obtain a SFWMD surface Water Management Permit prio
Development Plan Approval.
'to any Site
- ~I1T~t
APR 2 q 2001
EAC STAFF REPORT
Page 8 of 10
November 1,2000
Environmenta_l:
1. Amend Section V, Preserve Dis~ct, in thc PUD document as follows: A. Delete $.3 A $.
B. Remove "and utilitarian facilities" from 5.3 A 7.
C. Delete 5.3A 9.
D. Delete 5.3 A 10.
E. Delete all but the first sentence in 5.4 A.
F. Revise 5.4 B to read, "Lighting shall be arranged to prevent glare or
disturbance to the preserves."
G. Delete 5.4 H.
2. Revise the language in 6.3 C 1, to read as follows, "Reconfiguration of preserve
areas, jurisdictional wetland limits and mitigation features may be deemed minor
changes if there is no net loss created to wetlands or native vegetation preserves as
a result of the amendment."
3. Replace 6.9A, in the Environmental section of the PUD with the following
language, ", "Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the
State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit roles and Collier County
wetland rules, in effect at the time of any final development order approval.
At a minimum, the mitigation for proposed impacts to 582 acres of
wetlands shall meet the no-net loss standard of Collier County's Growth
Management Plan."
4. Revise 6.9 E, in the Environmental section of the PUD with the following
language, "Petitioner shall comply with all guidelines and
recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), regarding protected species. Habitat management plans shall be
submitted for review and approval, at the time of the next development
order submittal. Management plans shall be provided for the Florida
panther, Florida Black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, Wood Stork, Re-
cockaded woodpecker, and all other protected species which inhabit or
utilize this property."
5. Petitioner shall resolve the inconsistencies between the preservation
acreages in the EIS document and the ElS attachments, such as the Site
Plan and the FLUCCS map, prior to submitting the PUD document to the
BCC for approval. The correct acreages shall be approved by staff and
included in the legend on the PUD Master Plan.
APR 2 q 2001
,,. 3/,,
EAC STAFF REPORT
Page 9 of 9
November 1,2000
DATE
BARB~ S. B~URGESON ~
SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
....< ::i ? :,,_..//
./T~MAS E. KUCK, P.E.
'9,oNALB F. NINO,
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
DATE
DATE
ROBEI~ J. ltTIULH~RE, AICP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE
APPROVED BY:
JOHN 1~. DUNNUCK, III
INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATOR
DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pt. r?? --
March 7, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, March 7, 2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory
Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building 'F' of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Thomas Sansbury
Ed Carlson
Michael G. Coe
Alfred F. Gal, Jr.
William Hill
Erica Lynne
Alexandra "Aliie" Santoro
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer
Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist,
Development Services
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager
Page 1
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All righty, if we could call the roll,
see if we have a quorum.
MS. BURGESON: Gal.
MR. GAL: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Santoro.
MS. SANTORO: Here.
& ·
MS. BURGESON: Coe.
MR. COE: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Sansbury.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Here.
MS. BURGESON: Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Lynne.
MS. LYNNE: Here.
MS. BURGESON: And Hill.
MR. HILL: Here.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay, do we have any additions or
corrections or revisions to the agenda?
MS. BURGESON: To the agenda, we have one request, and
that is to move the old business, the discussion on wetland
policy, to the end of the meeting so that Mr. Lorenz can have
time to do the annual report and the growth management
subcommittee discussion before we needs to leave this
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the council?
Okay, sounds good.
MR. HILL: I'd just like 30 seconds under new business for
one little item.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, sir.
Okay, how about the minutes from way back, January 3rd. I
understand that there may be a correction on one item; is that
right, Mr. Carlson?
MR. CARLSON: I have no correction. I just cannot
understand the language at the bottom of the Page 8, last
paragraph. I don't think it's critical.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, understanding that, do
I hear a motion to approve the minutes from January 3?
MR. HILL: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill.
MR. CARLSON: Second.
Page 2
AGENDA
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY:
In favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY:
Okay, Mr. Nino.
Second by Mr. Carlson.
Passes unanimously.
Page 3 APR 2 ~, 2001
A review of this petition for consistency with element.~-~--~----
the growth management plan, future land u~e, transporta
MR. NINO: Good afternoon. Ron Nino, for the record. Let me
introduce you to the Mirasol PUD. I think you're going to find
that the major discussions here are exactly those that fall within
your bailiwick. And Barbara will be picking up the mantle after I
give some introductory description of what this petition is about.
Essentially you have a tract of land that lies -- one section of
that land lies within the urban boundary, two sections lie outside
of the urban boundary. Two sections therefore qual -- are
agricultural, and as much as they're in the agricultural area,
qualify for one dwelling unit for every five acres. The urban
portion qualifies for up to four units per acre. They've asked for
799 dwelling units.
Obviously when you run the math on those numbers, this
petition is not about .density, because the density is way below
that which they could otherwise achieve, even within the
thresholds that I've described.
The project involves two golf courses, one in the southern
portion of the tract. I'm sure a more iljustrative master plan will
be shown to you. But in this portion we have essentially 799
dwelling units, a wide swath of preserve land, the so-called
flowway, taking up also a portion of the northern section, and
then another 18-hole golf course in the northern section only.
This petition was submitted prior to the cut-off date for land
use changes within the agricultural area. That date was June
the 22nd of 1999. This petition has languished in-house for some
time because -- primarily because of our concern that we bring to
the decision-makers a master plan that has some credibility to it.
And this petition in our opinion wasn't sufficiently through the
permitting review process that developed the master plans that
would have any credibility to it. And we think they were at that
point, so we decided, we concurred, that it was timely to bring it
forward.
March 7, 2001
elements, open space -- coastal management, open space
elements, sewer and water elements, are all deemed to be
consistent with those provisions, with the caveat that the
development of any of the land within the agricultural area would
have to be by private pond site systems and not by extension of
the county sewer and water system.
With that, I would ask -- unless you have any questions, I
would ask Barbara to --
MR. CARLSON: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we eased into this
so gently, I forgot I need to make a disclosure, because I did talk
to Mr. Barber -- have a meeting with Mr. Barber about the
flowway concept, which is intensely interesting to me. We
talked about the greater Corkscrew watershed and how that's
related to this proposed flowway and really didn't get into more
details, other details of the development at all. But I did have
that meeting with Mr. Barber.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I'm remiss in not asking
members of the council, does anyone else want to disclose any
conversations they may have had with the petitioner regarding
this particular item?
Hearing none, go ahead.
MR. NINO: I'd ask Barbara --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson, go ahead.
MR. CARLSON: Ron, before you step down --
MR. NINO: We need to swear in.
MS. WHITE: I was going to suggest that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We need to do the swearing in. I
forgot about that. It's been a long time; it's been a whole month.
Anyone that is going to testify on this item, please rise and
be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.}
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Yes. As far as cjustering outside the urban
boundary and the ag. area, is there still outstanding litigation?
MR. NINO: No.
MR. CARLSON: Okay. So as far as the courts are
concerned, that's all been settled and --
MR. NINO: Correct. The -- our ruling -- our local
interpretation was appealed to the board. The board co
the planning director's opinion that cjustering was allow
Page 4
March 7, 2001
the Growth Management Plan. The board concurred with that.
And any challenge of that has gone by the wayside. MR. COE: Another question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, Mr. Coe.
MR. COE: Is there any other litigation that's pending on any
of the projects to include this one?
MR. NINO: I can't answer that question. I don't know.
MR. COE: Anybody know?
Second thing is, I understand that there is somewhat of a
disagreement, or there was a direction from Southwest Florida --
or South Florida Water Management that these two, three, four
projects coordinate, since this flowway is so important. Has that
been done?
MR. NINO: Well, we are attempting to coordinate this
project with Olde Cypress. I think we've already done the
coordination to the extent that Olde Cypress has -- its entire
eastern site functions as a preserve area.
MR. COE: My understanding is, though, that Olde Cypress
has now gone in to change the plan or something? MR. NINO: No, they haven't.
MR. COE: There's been nothing that Olde Cypress has
submitted?
MR. NINO: Not with us.
MR. COE: With anybody.
MR. NINO: I don't know if Olde Cypress is requesting any
change to their development order, any modification of their
Water Management District permit. I don't know. Do you know?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski, with Development
Services.
What commissioner-- Councilman Coe is talking about is
that -- and I think I e-mailed maybe all of you, maybe some of
you, something from the Water Management District saying that
they have problems with the project that are not yet resolved,
and they are trying to get the three developers to talk to each
other, and the three developers so far are not talking to each
other.
And I believe there is something that -- without the Water
Management District here to say otherwise, I can only go by the
e-mails that I have, which e-mail was at the en.d of
And they inferred that there was something go,ng on w,ln
Page 5 APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 201~1
other development, with Olde Cypress, therein for some
additional lands to the PUD.
MR. NINO: rm not aware of any application to our office for
modifications to the Olde Cypress PUD.
MS. BURGESON: I spoke with Karen Johnson last week
regarding this meeting, and she and Richard Thompson wanted
to attend this meeting. They had some very serious concerns
and wanted to be able to address the board's questions
regarding that. However, there was some court litigation that
they were possibly going to have to attend today. They were
hoping to be able to either get out of that early enough to attend
this meeting or hoping that it was going to be postponed. But it
appears that since they're not here, and they were very
interested in these two projects, that they were just not able to
attend today.
MR. COE: rd just like to kind of throw out my two cents. I
have a problem with this in that South Florida Water
Management has evidently voiced some displeasure on it,
number one.
Number two, they've requested that the developers
coordinate. That hasn't occurred.
Number three, evidently Big Cypress has come in --
evidently, just based on e-mail I've seen, they've come in to
request a change to something that we already approved that
may be a significant change for their overall project. So I have
some problems with hearing this project just straight out without
having everything done prior to it being presented to our group.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we ask the petitioner if they
have any information on Mr. Coe's question.
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the
Mirasol development.
The -- I didn't see the e-mail that went out, because I didn't
get a copy of it. But the issues of the three developers that are
in the flowway now, we have been working together for two
years. The litigation that they're discussing is on the Wildwood
project specifically, through the District. They went through an
ERP process, were denied, went through the special masters.
Had a hearing. There was a finding. That finding was that the
flowway would be a certain criteria through their project,
had to be a ditch section between four to six feet througl
Page 6
which
thec~e^~
APR ,2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
Wildwood project and through the Olde Cypress. So the only
revision that I'm aware of that the Olde Cypress would be in for
at the ERP level and Corps level is the future flowway being
constructed through that, because that's the outfall.
Now, at any other venue, whether they're in the county, I'm
not aware that they're in the county for their master plan change.
Because as far as I know, they have built their infrastructure,
their golf course is built, and they are now permitting the pods
inside. So I don't see that they would have any reason to come
back and change their master plan from that perspective, other
than maybe -- I'm aware that they have an interconnect to the
north that may not be necessary. That's the only thing that I can
imagine. And the Logan Road extension being a little wider.
Those are the only issues that I've heard from Olde Cypress.
Now, there is a comment that went out on the Parklands
project. The Parklands also at one time was to be a part of this
flowway. We have not been able to come to an agreement with
the Parklands project on how they're going to participate in this
flowway. So they are the only ones at this time who are not
participating in this flowway because they have a lot of other
things they need to do on their project first.
But within the three people that are part of this project now,
which is Mirasol's project, the Terasina (sic), which is the old
Wildwood, and Olde Cypress, we have been working together.
We have the same consultants. We have been -- we are almost
completed our agreement. We have met with the agencies based
on us being one big application. So I'm not sure what she was
referring to. But the only person that we've had interaction
issues with has been the Parkland project. And when you see
that they're not involved in this at this point, we don't even show
their project as part of this. But they can in the future be a part
of this. As soon as they finish their other issues within their
permitting process, they can be a part of this flowway at this
time.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'd like to apologize. I didn't copy the
petitioner on the Water Management District's e-mail, because I
assumed that they knew that they had problems with the
District.
MS. BISHOP: Well, and also, we've been in permitting for
this process almost two years. That's why we didn't mol'e 041~A~TE~
Page 7 APR: 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
zoning ahead early on, because we really wanted to get this
nailed down. This is a regional flowway. This isn't something
that just happens in the normal permitting time frames. We've
had to do a lot of work, and this includes, you know, south Lee
and northeast Collier and the flooding issues with that, and Ed
Carlson's issues.
So there have been a lot of reasons why we have taken this
time frame to do this work. But as far as not working together
the three, we are all in agreeance (sic). We are all on the same
page with that.
MR. COE: Well, evidently South Florida Management District
is not aware of that.
MS. BISHOP: And I haven't seen the memo so I can't -- do
you have a copy?
MR. COE: Basically they said that they wanted to have all
three put together and talking to each other.
The problem I have, Ron, are you and your staff prepared to
brief all of these projects, since they're all going to be affected
with this flowway? See, we've approved the Olde Cypress
project --
MR. NINO: Yes.
MR. COE: -- as it was presented to us --
MR. NINO: Correct.
MR. COE: -- I think with some changes that you -- that your
staff recommended.
Correct, and we're --
Now I'm finding out that there's something's
MR. NINO:
MR. COE:
totally new.
MR. NINO:
MR. COE:
And we're currently reviewing Terasina (sic).
See, I'm prepared to bring Olde Cypress back,
since it's a PUD. Don't they have to come back to us?
MR. NINO: If there's an amendment that needs to be
reconsidered, yes.
MR. COE: Well, see, we don't know if there's an amendment.
MR. NINO: We don't know if there's an amendment either.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I do know that Olde Cypress --
MR. NINO: It may not necessarily be the case that the PUD
has to be amended to accommodate the Water Management
District's requirements, because there is a considerable prese_r~._e~_
area within (~lde Cypress that may simply mean a modifilati~.~~
!
Page8 ~ AP~_®
March 7, 2001
the permit, which would not necessarily require an amendment
to the PUD.
MR. COE: See, we don't know that. In other words, we're
going to have a presentation --
MR. NINO.' Well, they're here.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, they're here. Why don't we
have --
MR. NINO: They're here, and let's let them have a go at it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, why don't we have Ms.
Johnson bring us up to date.
MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, rd request that you have her
sworn as well.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. And I al -- some other
individuals came in. Anyone that has not been sworn in on this
item, would they please stand and be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Johnson?
MS. JOHNSON: Excuse us for being late. There was an
accident on 1-75, so it took a little while to get here.
Could you discuss a little bit what you're talking about so I
know exactly what you want me to answer?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, Mr. Coe -- we have not begun
discussion of the item on Mirasol as yet. Mr. Coe had brought
the fact that -- regarding e-mail, and we did receive from you,
regarding the questions that South Florida has regarding the
projects, how it ties in with the Olde Cypress and how it ties in
with -- Wildwood is it, the other project? MS. JOHNSON: Wildwood.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: And your concerns. And Mr. Coe
was requesting that we examine your concerns before we start
reviewing the project.
MS. JOHNSON: Okay. I think basically in the e-mail what I
was getting at is a number of the projects out in this basin
overlap. And the District is trying to process them concurrently
so we can look at all the issues from a cumulative type of
standpoint.
The flowway proposal originated with the Mirasol project. It
came out of some internal discussions where we had -- we
recognize we have a flooding problem in the Bonita area,~
as a drainage problem in that basin. And we were askin.d th~~
APR ~2
Page 9
March 7, 2001
consultants to sort of think outside the box, if you will, to try to
address issues.
The Wildwood Lakes project, which is now I believe
Terafina, under your name, came in before the actual Mirasol in
the flowway proposal, and as a result now they overlap in
regards to that flowway.
Then we also have Olde Cypress, which I heard you
discussing when we came in, which is the old Woodlands DRI
project. And part of the discussions in the Wildwood Lakes
mediation, as well as in the Mirasol discussions, is everyone is
on the same page, that there does have to be a piece of the
flowway constructed through the Olde Cypress preserve. And
that will require a modification to the existing Olde Cypress
permit.
Any final approvals or actions on Wildwood Lakes are
contingent upon that piece of the flowway, because without that
piece of the flowway being constructed, the flowway will not
work. Mirasol understands this as well.
To date we have not gotten a permit modification request in.
The other overlap we have out there is the Parklands Ronto
development, where it's our understanding through the PUD
Parklands must provide access off of Immokalee Road north.
That access overlaps with the access to Wildwood Lakes. And
currently we have two different designs for the roadway and
roadway drainage from the two projects. So that's another area
we're investigating as an area of overlap between those two
projects as well.
I think that's the size of it. We have two or three others in
Lee County as well. But I think that's all of Collier County.
MS. BURGESON: Karen, can South Florida Water
Management District require Olde Cypress to do that
modification, to put this in, or are you --
MS. JOHNSON: No, Olde Cypress currently is in compliance
with our existing permit. This piece of the flowway is only
required as it goes to the Mirasol proposal or the Wildwood
Lakes proposal. If Mirasol and Wildwood Lakes presented
alternative proposals where we didn't need this flowway
concept, Olde Cypress would not need to modify their permit.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record.
Is there anything in the Mirasol submission that is cor
Page 10
tra~ ! ~ _j
APR 2 ~ 200f
March 7, 2001
to what you people think need to be done in that?
MS. JOHNSON: We have not finished reviewing the Mirasol
submittal. And part of the problems we've encountered is that in
trying to mesh two or three projects, we're -- consistently one or
another of them is behind on the most recent information. The
latest information we've gotten from Mirasol, we feel we're
closer to getting a semi-natural artificial flowway that may work
the way we've envisioned. We keep flip-flopping on designs, and
we're still working with some of the other agencies on concerns
such as wildlife and wetland hydro periods and such.
So until we get everything in at once where we feel it all
jives, we're not prepared to say whether the flowway is going to
work or not at this point.
There's also, you know, a lot of legal issues as well, who's
going to maintain it, who's going to build it, you know, who is it
going to go to ultimately. A lot of that stuff still remains to be
worked out too as the assurance is in that this thing will really
function in perpetuity.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question for the petitioner. Will
you be addressing in your presentation what's going on with Olde
Cypress and any work you may be having going on to assure that
flowway access?
MS. BISHOP: We were -- we will.
And also, just to clarify, that application was submitted,
according to our consultants, a month and a half ago to the
Corps, and the District. So now we're wondering how come the
District hasn't seen that modification.
MS. JOHNSON: Well, the original application has, and we've
had substantial amounts of information coming back and forth.
MS. BISHOP: For the Olde Cypress specifically.
MS. JOHNSON: No, not to my understanding.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Well, Corps has theirs, and so now
we're wondering what happened to yours, so -- but they were
made a month and a half ago, and apparently there's a black
hole, so we have to figure out what happened to the application.
But the -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But everyone is talking and
everyone is working together --
MS. BISHOP: The owners for Wildwood and *he o~,~- "
Olde Cypress are related, so there is an ongoing cooper;lltio~~
I
Page 11 I APR 2 ~ 2001
I
March 7, 2001
We've gotten letters from them saying we're in. So we do have in
fact those in place now. The attorneys are finishing up the legal
end of it, which is getting the who, whats, when, wheres, hows,
as far as that goes. But we have made those determinations and
we have come to agreement on how we're going to do it, who's
going to maintain it, who's going to build it, all of those things.
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I would again remind you that
should you approve it in its present form, you obviously
appreciate that that form will have to change based on the Water
Management District's ultimate permitting decision.
With all respect, I suggest that you ought to hear the
petition, you ought to hear Barbara's presentation, and then deal
with the applicant.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson has a question for Ms.
Johnson.
MR. CARLSON: You probably can't answer this, but I just
want to ask it, because in reviewing these two projects, there's a
substantial amount of impact to jurisdictional wetland in both of
them.
If the spatial extent of the existing wetlands out there was
greater than is proposed and there was less impact than these
projects proposed, would -- I mean, would that just maybe
eliminate the need for an artificial flowway like this?
MS. JOHNSON: My understand-- a lot of it goes back to the
south Lee County watershed study that was done after the
flooding in '95. The problem is that what we have there now,
even without the development, is not sufficient enough to
balance the water flows that come from all the way from Lake
Trafford during sizeable storms; not during the smaller storms
but during a sizeable flooding event.
What this was an attempt to do, because when we did
Wildwood Lakes, we look at the historic basic storage or flood
plain compensation issues, totally separate from a wetland
standpoint. And what it showed is that even the, quote, upland
areas on that project would be inundated in a 100-year storm,
which is your level of review for a flooding event of that size.
And what that meant, that any time you fill that area in that
100-year flood plain, you have to compensate for it somewhere
else in the basin, because you've displaced that water dur;
that storm event.
Page 12
APR,2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
What we've realized in the consultant's -- in the consulting
community as part of the partnering program we do, realized was
that there is no place really left in that basin, that entire
Corkscrew Basin, where you could put uplands that don't flood
back into the floodplain and compensate for that removal. So
they started looking at the alternative methods.
The purpose of the ditch, we can leave all the wetlands
there but we still wouldn't fix the flooding event. The purpose of
doing either a lake system or a channel was to try to get the
peak levels down. The purpose is not to drain the wetlands but
to instead of having it peak up so high and stay, it would come
up and then go down and level off.
What we're looking for, though, is some type of regional
benefit. At this point we're still toying with the issue of whether
it's a lake footprint or a channel footprint, do we require
mitigation for that actual footprint or do we only require
mitigation for wetlands that are filled or excavated within the
project itself, o
Because we're trying to balance it with a regional positive
effect; i.e., Bonita Springs won't have three feet of water for
three months, like they would. Or the Cocohatchee isn't taking
on more water and flooding people downstream in Collier County.
So we already know the capacity isn't enough there. And the
engineering proposal is to have a more positive outfall. But that
would have weirs in it so we're not consistently draining the
system. But when we needed to, we could get the water out into
the Cocohatchee and down into the bay and allow it to come
down.
MR. CARLSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY-' Ms. Lynne?
MS. LYNNE: Just before you got here -- the e-mail that you
sent out indicates that -- appears to indicate that you don't think
that the various developers are working together. And then just
before you came, the representative for the petitioner said oh,
no, we've been working together for two years. Could you just
explain?
MS. JOHNSON: Based on the last -- we've had several
mediation meetings with the Wildwood Lakes or the Terafina
!w. the
people, we've had a few meetings with Mirasol. You kn~
Mirasol people, in our opinion, from what we've seen sub
Page 13
nitt~l~^ ~?
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
based on our meetings, have tried very diligently to have
everybody come to the table.
I'm sure the petitioner would agree, there's so many
attorneys involved at this point, you're never really sure who's
agreed to what. And until it's actually in writing, we're not sure
they've resolved anything at that point. We keep hearing, you
know, we're going to do this, and then we go to a different
meeting and we hear something else.
So, I mean, I know they're working and they're meeting
together. What comes out on paper will be the final assurances
that we're going to require.
MS. LYNNE: So what are you looking for in terms of the
developers working together? What would you like to see if you
could have it just the way you want it?
MS. JOHNSON: There's several questions that we heard. A
lot of them have to do with who's going to construct the
flowway, how is it going to be constructed, and it has to be
phased appropriately. And of course Wildwood Lakes, which has
been in mediation hearings for a couple of years now, is on a
tighter time frame than Mirasol at that point. And they're also
supposed to be coordinating with the Olde Cypress development,
as Karen has indicated. You know, you have related parties
there and supposedly they're on board, but we still haven't seen
anything to process.
We need to know, you know, where's the dirt going to go.
You dig a channel or lakes, you know, who's going to use the
dirt. Because you can't use that dirt until you have a
construction permit, and if somebody's in for a conceptual
permit, you know, they can't do anything with that dirt.
Who is going to be the long-term managing entity of it?
We're talking three, possibly four different property owners,
which will ultimately turn into homeowners' associations. Is
there going to be a CDD, is one development going to be
ultimately responsible for it?
We've also discussed the possibility of giving it to the Big
Cypress Basin to manage, you know, but the Basin has certain
qualifications attached to accepting responsibility for that.
One of the caveats we have told everybody is that this
flowway and the outfall have got to be built, constructed ~
functioning before any dirt is put in the floodplain area. Sb ~ 'i ~
APR 2 ~ 2001
Page 14
March 7, 2001
timing is a big issue, that this has to be the first step in the
construction process. Because we can't start filling the
floodplain before we've got the construction there to make sure
we're not going to cause the flooding upstream any worse. So
there's a number of overlapping legal mechanism type issues.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. NEAL.' I'm Jerry Neal, and I'm representing Wildwood,
which is Terafina.
The plans that are submitted with South Florida Water
Management does show that the flowway, as it is to date
conceptual, hopefully close to approval, goes through
Wildwood/Terafina and it goes through Olde Cypress.
In the documents and in the agreement at the mediation
between South Florida and our client, it was agreed that the
section through Olde Cypress would be built, constructed by the
developer of Terafina, and that the southern one-third of Terafina
would be constructed at this time.
The stub of this proposed channel goes to the eastern
boundary of Terafina, where Mirasol will pick it up and take it on
through.
In the documentation that was submitted last week to South
Florida, they made a requirement in our homeowners documents
that we indicate and show that the responsible party for the
maintenance of the flowway through Olde Cypress would be the
Wildwood/Terafina people. That is now the documentation. It
was submitted last week.
Also, part of that agreement says that we'll take care of all
of the channel, as well as the flowway within the Wildwood
project.
The attorney for Wildwood has come to an agreement with
the owner of Olde Cypress, and that documentation was
supposed to have been sent to South Florida last week. It was a
separate submittal. We submitted our package from Naples and
he submitted his from Tallahassee. It should be to their hands,
because there is an agreement between Olde Cypress and
Wildwood.
The difference that may be between those two
developments and Mirasol is the fact that we're going to
· construct the channel flowway through Wildwood and throu;d~.--.-----
~J Olde Cypress. They're going to construct through Mirasol. ~:h~~
~ ~_.!
Page 15
APR 2 ~ 200'
~.~
March 7, 200-1
is the only difference that we have. There is no difference in
agreements or concepts. That's the only difference is who's
going to do the construction. It's shown on the plans that we're
going to do this. It's submitted. It's in mediation we're going to
do this. It's well documented that the two parties are going to
work together. And I'm surprised now to hear that they do not
think that the parties are working together. Because actually,
the same environmentalist that is working with Mirasol is the
very same one who filed for the amendment to go through Olde
Cypress.
MR. COE: Now, this is the amendment to what we approved.
MR. NEAL: This is to put the flowway with a channel 200
feet wide, four feet deep, meandering through that preserve area.
And it would also be totally revegetated with certain types of
plants for certain zones of water depth. And so you -- so you
actually have the same company representing both Olde Cypress
and Mirasol. So I don't understand where there's no
communication.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Question. Karen, you did say there
is a commonality of ownership between Olde Cypress and
Mirasol?
MR. NEAL: No.
MS. BISHOP: Not technically.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Not technically, okay.
MR. NEAL: Not between Mirasol--
MS. BISHOP: The consultants.
MR. NEAL: The consultants are --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The consultants are the same.
All right, why don't we go ahead and have Barbara make --
just go ahead with our -- what we usually do on a project. I think
we've clarified -- Mr. Coe had had some questions; we clarified
that people are talking to each other. Maybe not to the degree --
MR. CARLSON: Allie Santoro has --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, Allie, I'm sorry.
MS. SANTORO: I just have one clarification. You mentioned
Wildwood, that you were managing. I don't know if that's the
homeowners' association is going to manage the flowway in that
section. I don't know who the "who" is, and I want to be sure I
understand who's going to maintain it and manage it and so
forth.
Page 16
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
MR. NEAL: It was the very point of South Florida Water to
explain exactly how it's going to be handled. It states in the
homeowners' documentation that the developer's responsible
until such time as it's turned over to the homeowners'
association.
These homeowners' association documents have been
reviewed by South Florida Water Management, and it states in
there that the developer is responsible up to the time of turnover.
At the time of the turnover, the people on Terafina or Wildwood
are going to be responsible for the maintenance of that channel
as it goes through Olde Cypress.
this.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. BISHOP: I want to clarify just for the Mirasol end of
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay.
MS. BISHOP: It is our intention to have a CDD on this
property that would be the entity that was responsible for the
construction and the maintenance of this facility.
The flowway, as it goes through Mirasol, is going to be a
little different than it is going to be through the Wildwood and the
Olde Cypress. We -- after meeting with Fish and Wildlife and EPA
on our site, they would like to see some bird wading habitat, so
we are going to go with a string of lakes to increase bird wading
habitat. And I think the number where we're sitting at now is
almost five miles worth of shoreline for that habitat.
The ultimate goal, though, was to -- the intent was for the
flowway to really be managed by Big Cypress Basin and Clarence
Tears. So we'll be maintaining the look of it but ultimately
Clarence would be the entity who we are looking to be the
manager, since he's the big water king in that area.
The center of our preserve, we were looking to enjoin that
with the entity to the east of us, and I believe that's CREW, the
CREW lands. To ultimately the CDD will control it, we'll create
an agreement with the CDD with Clarence so that he's not having
to deal with five entities, and then from there we'll be
maintaining the look along our respective properties, because
we believe we'd probably do a better job than that guy with the
sprayer that nukes all the vegetation. So that's the kind of
things that we're looking to do.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Everybody's familiar with w haT~a
APR 2 ~ 2001
Page 17
March 7, 2001
CDD is? Council?
MS. SANTORO: Would you explain it?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Excuse me?
MS. LYNNE: No, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Tell me the chapter. Chapter 190
of Florida Statutes sets up a legislative ability to set up a taxing
district which has various powers such as drainage, things of
that source. And basically it's a state regulated thing that was
set up back in the days of the original DRI legislation. Originally
it was kind of a carrot, that if you did a DRI you had the ability to
do a CDD. It is a -- let Mr. White explain the statute.
MS. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney.
CDD's, Community Development Districts, are regulated
under Chapter 190, and they are given certain general powers
which include, for example, managing drainage and other traffic,
and typical things that are part of the infrastructure in a large
development.
Additionally, they can have some special powers, but they
have to request those. They're done, depending on their size,
either by ordinance or by I believe an administrative rule and
hearing. And typically they serve, as you will, at the function of a
master homeowner association or a homeowner association, I
guess would be the typical type of entity that they're analogous
to,
Their funding is that generally which is I guess partly given
to general purpose governments, but these are viewed as
somewhat of a special purpose government, if you will. They
have their own boards and act to a certain degree with their own
budgets independent of the county.
If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to try and
answer them.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. BURGESON: I'd like to make --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara, would you like to go ahead
with the -- what's the pleasure here of staff?
MS. BURGESON: Let me make a very brief presentation on
the environmental issues on this project. I think that if Tim Hall
wouldn't mind, it probably would be better for the board to listen
to a full more detailed description by Tim. He has a better
understanding of not only this project but how it fits in t
Page 18
APR 2 z~ 2001
March 7, 2001
with the other projects in the area.
Just a brief overview. The Mirasol project is a 1,555-acre
undeveloped tract of land right now.
Just a very brief history on the site. It was at one time
hydro-axed I think probably about eight years ago, to take out
most of the mid-story on the property, which was used at the
time for cattle grazing. And as a result of that, a great deal of
exotics have come in to those areas that were cleared of the
mid-story.
South Florida Water Management District claimed 1,298
acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site, which makes those
wetlands jurisdictional to Collier County. The remaining 250
some odd acres of uplands consist of pine flatwoods and a small
portion, about eight acres of land that is almost exclusively
exotics, and that's Brazilian pepper.
As I reviewed the ElS, there were some discrepancies
between the material that submitted on the acreage between the
ElS and the site plans that were presented to us. That difference
was 15 acres. And I've stipulated -- I just went through that,
even though there were some discrepancies, went through that
in my staff report and just required, as one of the stipulations of
approval, that that be resolved prior to the PUD document going
forward to the board so that we have the appropriate acreages
listed in the PUD master plan.
The petitioner is proposing to impact 582 acres of wetlands
on site. Their mitigation originally for that impact was to
preserve and to restore and improve the -- not only the
environmental aspects but the flowway and water management
aspects of the remaining 792 acres of wetlands on site.
Staff has a concern as to whether or not that is consistent
with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, conservation
coastal management element section, which requires no net less
of wetlands.
So again, as a stipulation of approval, we've stated that in
order for staff to accept this, there may need to be a great
number of off-site wetland acreages provided for mitigation to
make sure there's no net loss, or there may be some additional
wetlands to that will be preserved and added to the 792 acres of
on-site wetlands.
There is also a difference in the description of thosi
Page19
- AC, ENDA ~-M
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
wetlands that will be preserved on-site. 792 acres encompasses
the entire wetland boundary of the preserve area. However, it's
actually -- I think it's about 100 acres less that will be retained in
its existing native vegetation communities. The balance will be
those created flowway lakes along the north and south boundary
of that preserve area. So even though the entire boundary of the
preserve is 792, some of that is going to be recreated into lakes,
so it won't be kept and retained in current existing conditions.
The petitioner did rather extensive listed species surveys on
the project; identified a number of protective species that are
either utilizing the site, utilizing adjacent properties or have a
great potential to utilize this project, either in its current
condition or more likely in the future when they've done the
mitigation, removed exotics and enhanced the wetland area. It
will encourage those protected species to come back on the site
and use that, probably for foraging habitat more so than they are
right now.
The species that were identified on-site were wood storks,
mostly along on the southern edge of the property, because the
property itself is too heavily invaded with exotics. It has very
little actual on-site lake or shore area for wood storks. So it's
basically along the drainage canal along Immokalee Road that
the wood storks are using the property right now.
Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed on-site, as well as
some possibility for black bear to be currently using the site as
foraging habitat. The consultant had identified that black bear
exists and uses the property immediately adjacent to, and some
indications that it is also foraging on this property.
The agencies were concerned about the possibility of
red-cockaded woodpeckers and Florida panther using the
property. Again, because of the current conditions, because of
the exotics that exist on site and conditions with an elevated
flooding level right now, they expected, after discussing it back
and forth for probably the past year or so, that neither of those
species are currently utilizing this site; however, in the future
with the improvements, they expect that they may come back,
particularly the RCW and the panther, for reutilization, either as
foraging habitat or as cavity trees.
And staff has recommended approval of Mirasol PUD, with
the stipulations that were listed on Page 8. It's all on Page 8 ~0
Page 20 APR 2
March 7, 2001
your staff report.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And I have one other e-mail to share
with the council that I got on Monday and didn't forward to the
petitioner either. It's from Jim Mudd, the public utilities director.
And in North Naples, the sewage treatment plant is operating
over capacity. He says that a consent order is coming our way
from FDEP. DEP is only issuing DRI permits until the new
addition comes on line to the plant.
Mr. Mudd will be here at your next meeting to present news
on the plant and the new aquifer storage and recovery system.
At that time he'll probably tell you what the status of the plant is.
He said what the petitioner will be told is that they can build
at their own risk. No pre sales will be allowed until the north
plant extension comes on line. And he would let them know that
they will only be able to get a DRI permit from FDEP, but there's
some limitations presently at the north plant.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Petitioner-- excuse me.
MS. SANTORO: What's the framework for the north plant
then? Was there any? Is there a time frame where --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, he says they're presently under
-- they're expanding the plant and he expects the addition to be
done in November. That's if everything goes according to
schedule and we don't have a hurricane this summer.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the
owner.
This is going to be a little different than what we normally
do. Because this is so complicated, we have actually a power
point presentation to go through the water management end of
this flowway in the project, as well as the environment. And so
we're going to go ahead and have the engineer present that for
you, to give you some idea of what we're doing.
I did want to address the stipulations from staff in general.
We had no problem in general with everything that was
stipulated; however, we did make some language changes to
some degree of what the staff has asked for, which are in the
sections now, has been reworded. So it's not exactly like staff
has. So I want you guys to look at those and just see that. We
did -- the gist is there, but the wording is a little bit differ
One of the issues that we have is that we're still goi
Page 21
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
through this permitting process, and that, you know, we are out
for public notice, and that as soon as this public notice is over,
then we will have comments from other agencies and that we
may have to make more changes to this plan based on that
process. And so we want to have as much flexibility to be able
to give -- if there's more shoreline that we need or if we need to
readjust our preserves in some way, that we have that ability to
do that.
And then this whole process, as far as the no net loss of
wetlands, is a part of the basis of review for the agencies, so
that we feel that they're -- that's going to be covered under those
permits, the Corps permit and the District permit. And we will
have Fish and Wildlife and the Game Commission will all be a
part of that. And that our permit at the end will encompass all of
their comments and recommendations. So that language is just
a little bit different than what she has, so I wanted you to see
that.
Now, Rick Barber is going to start with the drainage end of
this. And once we go through this process, after we're
completed, if you have some questions, then we have brought all
our staff here so you guys can hopefully get the answers that
you're looking for.
MS. BURGESON: Karen, do you have a copy of that
proposed language change that you're --
MS. BISHOP: Yeah, they got a new PUD. I don't know, I'll
check.
MS. BURGESON: Do you have an extra copy of that PUD?
Because I haven't seen that.
MS. BISHOP: It's right there.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we take a break just for
a second. Are we trying to find some stuff here, or --
MS. BISHOP: We're going to make copies for you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, let's just go off the record for
just a second. Let's get the paperwork up so the lady down here
doesn't go nuts trying to record what's going on. (Recess.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, can we go back on the
record now? Can we bring ourselves back to order here? And identify yourself, sir.
MR. BARBER: For the record, Rick Barber with Agnoli.
Page 22
AC~.NDA"
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
were and then looked at what their capacities were and ti
Barber and Brundage. And I'm going to say we several times in
this presentation, and that "we" refers to the engineering
company, not Mirasol. Because we've done a lot of work on
restoration of flowways and it's confused some people before.
Before I start, anymore e-mails from anybody? Thank you.
We're really presented with a unique opportunity with this
project. And I'm excited about it. Because we can really get a
regional benefit, sort of a public/private partnership. And in spite
of what you heard in the beginning, we have made a lot of effort
in trying to get the three property owners to cooperate with each
other. And they really have. I mean, there's agreements and
that sort of thing. They're not formal legal agreements that
Water Management District would like to have, but as you know,
those things take a while to hammer out.
So with that said, what I'm going to do today, and I assume
that you want the 15-minute presentation rather than the
two-hour one, so I'm going to move this right along.
Just to give you an overview of the watershed and what we
discovered in the south Lee County study, which is really a
misnomer, it's really the Corkscrew Imperial Watershed, which
runs all the way from Lake Trafford to the Imperial River and the
Cocohatchee and all those outfalls.
I want to tell you what the adverse conditions were that we
had in 1995 and why we were hired to do the study that we did,
along with Johnson Engineering. I want to briefly show you
some of the area improvements that have taken place in the
north, mainly in Lee County, but they all affect the same
watershed. And that's the reason that you're going to see things
about Lee County today. And then we'll go specifically to this
flowway project and I'll give you an overview and tell you what
the site assessment and the restoration objectives are.
If you can see the yellow band around this -- and I think
you've got an exhibit up there. What we found in 1995 was that
there was a lot more water coming through some of the outfalls,
like the Imperial River, than we thought possible. Back then we
thought the Imperial basin was like about 86 square miles. And
there's a lot more water coming through there than we could
account for.
So we went through and identified what the major outfalls
len AGE~,k I'1'F.~
Page 23
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
also looked at how they flowed in 1995. And this gives you an
idea of what the outfalls were. The Estero River up at the north
end of the basin. There's a north and south branch. Halfway
Creek. Then some minor creeks in Bonita Springs called
Rosemary and Spring Creek and Oak Creek. They -- Oak Creek
and Litner (phonetic) Creek go into the Imperial River and out.
And of course you read about that's where the majority of
the flooding was. I think there was like 1,700 people evacuated
for eight weeks there. 390 homes and trailers were destroyed.
About eight million dollars worth of damage in the 1995 flood.
As we swing into Collier County, at the south end of the
basin, you see that we have the Cocohatchee east and west, the
Corkscrew Canal and Camp Keais Strand.
We researched and came up with capacities of all these.
And what we discovered was that when 1-75 was constructed,
they put the right size conveyances underneath the road;
however, they failed to put the tail to the end, if you will, or the
headwaters to the tail waters.
And some of the property owners, when they were faced
with all of a sudden having a bridge facing their land where they
had sheet flow maybe two or three inches deep across their
property before, now they have a bridge with a conveyance, and
so their reaction was to throw a berm up. And that really caused
a lot of the problems that we saw in '95 up in these northern
outfalls.
So a lot of the water that would have normally flowed out
Halfway Creek and the Estero River flowed south into Bonita
Springs.
The arrows are just showing you about what we thought the
direction of the flow was back in '95.
This is just a few slides of some of the flooding that took
place in '95: This is looking towards Worthington from the north.
This is Bonita Beach Road, flooded. It was the main
evacuation route out to 1-75 and it was unusable.
This is a road that intersects with Bonita Beach Road and
runs out towards the river, Edith Drive.
This is Imperial Bonita Estates and there's a bridge in the
background there that you can see, if you're looking at the
presentation.
One of the things that allowed us to produce a model
Page 24
O? ~J~)~ I'~
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
watershed for the first time was that Johnson Engineering went
out and actually did cross-sections in areas that had never been
topo'd before. Prior to this, the water management District and
engineering firms around used the USGS five-foot contour maps.
Well, as Mr. Carlson will tell you, five feet of elevation difference
in this area can mean miles of, you know, length that -- the usual
slope of land here is about a foot per mile, and probably in this
watershed it gets to a quarter foot per mile in some of the areas.
So we finally developed this generalized one-foot contour
map, that I think you have a copy of up there. That allowed us to
produce a computer model where we could use the information
we gathered about the outfalls and use the contours and be able
to predict that we made certain alterations to the watershed
what would happen to the flood levels. These are just examples
of what that computer model looked like.
Recent area improvements, starting up at the Estero River,
that was the condition the river was in, which is beautiful from
an environmental standpoint, but if it has to function like a piece
of infrastructure like it does now, those overhanging branches
collect debris and reduce the capacity of the stream. So this
river was cleaned and snagged.
This was the crossing under Corkscrew Road in the south
branch of the river. It was way undersized. This is what's there
today. I didn't mean to go back through that so quickly. But this
was a joint project between the Water Management District and
Lee County.
This is the flowway that now has been constructed at the
Brooks project on Halfway Creek. This was a bridge that's been
taken out across Halfway Creek. Florida Power and Light
decided they could live without it.
This was the railroad crossing, and it was improved of four
box culverts. And that was a South Florida project.
The Imperial River had to be cleaned and snagged. And
remember I showed you the bridge at Imperial Bonita Estates?
And this is the new bridge that was constructed with FEMA
money.
This was a house that flooded in '95. It's since been
purchased and removed from the floodplain.
This is the new weir that's been constructed. This was
FEMA money and Water Management District participatior
Page 25
wit1~^ ~ _~.~"'
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001 '*
Lee County. This will allow us to control how much water gets
into the river and be able to bleed down some of the areas faster.
This is a project that Mr. Carlson did. He replaced four
36-inch pipe with four 72's up on a tram road, which would let
water come down through the Corkscrew swamp a little quicker.
This is Camp Keais Strand, in eastern Collier County. It
really drains Lake Trafford south. But we found an old road; I'm
sure Ed knew about it, but there were a lot of us that didn't. The
road's up here at the top, if you can see the curser. We found
that that holds up water and makes it flow to the west, rather
than let it go down Camp Keais Strand, at the same time that
you're trying to rehydrate Fakahatchee Strand, which Camp
Keais Strand feeds. So one of the outcomes of that '95 study is
we'll be able to get the cooperation of the property owner and
have more water go down the Camp Keais Strand.
These were satellite monitoring stations that are going to be
added out in the swamp, so we can tell what the water levels are
and tell is we have problems ahead of time.
And of course one of the things that's going on out there is
the CREW land purchase, the CREW trust purchase, so that some
of the impact can be lessened and some of the land restored.
Recent restoration successes like we're going to try to do
here at Mirasol is The Brooks. That's the way it looked in '97.
That's the way it looks today. And what that was was a
ephemeral pasture, and now it's an open flowway.
And one that you can see from your car as you travel down
Goodlette is the Cocohatchee Strand and Pelican Marsh that was
-- had all the exotics removed from it.
Now, this is Collier's really first chance at restoration of a
regional flowway. And when I say flowway, this is really a
remnant of what was there. Because of man's intervention in a
lot of places, roads, berms, that sort of thing, what used to be
maybe 10 miles of sheet flow has been reduced to almost 270
feet. And I'll show you what that means here. That's why we
have to go to a channel system with weirs to control it.
The restoration objectives were to restore and create
wetlands to approximate historic conditions and functions,
improve the conveyances, as Karen explained to you -- Karen
Johnson, with the Water Management District -- to alleviate
flooding from upstream, and also to improve the wildlife
Page 26
APR 2 4 2001
March 7, 2001
that's out there.
Where we're talking about is near Broken Back Road, which
is next to the Mulepen Quarry. It's about 1,100 acres in total
size, and serves as a flowway between the Imperial Corkscrew
Basin and the Cocohatchee River.
This was a -- an attempt to figure out what the flows that
other projects were going to allow from the north down to the
Cocohatchee and make sure that there was enough conveyance
there to serve all these requests that were being made.
Those are the nine sections we're talking about. The
Mirasol project is Section 10, 15 and 22.
In our site assessment, we looked at habitat height,
hydrology, vegetation composition, wildlife utilization, as you're
going to hear from Turrell & Associates, and also adjacent land
uses.
One of the things that we had available in a computer model
that I told you about that we did the hydraulics on that we could
predict what was going to happen in the 315 square mile basin
was we added a component, sort of an ecological assessment.
Rayanne Boylen (phonetic) worked on this for us. And what she
did was inventoried all the vegetation in the 315 square mile
watershed, and then when we made predictions about water
level changes, what that would do to the vegetation and
consequently the wildlife usage. So that's part of the study that
we're doing here. The same 315 square mile watershed, but
focused on this Cocohatchee west outfall.
That was just an example of the type of flux mapping that
she did to get us there.
This is about what we think the flow looked like in -- prior to
Piper's Ranch being developed and the berm around it. We think
sheet flow went as the diagram showing it, a wide, wide area.
After Piper's Ranch was developed, we think that's the way
it looked, where it came around the farms to the north and also
the Mulepen Quarry. So we had about two miles of sheet flow in
1995. And you remember that's when the storm was.
This is the way it looks today, after the Olde Cypress project
was constructed. And also the berm along the north bank of the
Cocohatchee River. It now restricts the flow to -- well, to the
smaller area, which I'll show you in a minute.
Because of that restriction, in 1985 there was a wet an ld~
APR 2 ~ 2001
Page 27
March 7, 2001
jurisdiction map produced for South Florida, and we had 507
acres of wetlands on this site. This is Mirasol itself.
And because of the things that had happened since 1985 --
as I mentioned, the Olde Cypress project being built and the
berms on the north side of the Cocohatchee -- we now have 1,317
acres of wetlands on site. So it's gotten much deeper out there.
Because of that too, I guess the -- and Tim Hall with Turrell is
going to talk to you more about this. That, with the hydro-axing
that took place, the melaleuca infestation has gotten much,
much worse.
After the berm was built, this is how it looked in 1999, after
about a six-inch storm. You can see that there is a lot of water
that comes down that way. But the bank wasn't really
constructed to accommodate it.
The berm that was constructed, they had 14 24-inch pipes
that were laid on the land surface, and that was supposed to
help equalize the flow, but it didn't seem to accommodate it.
This is how the outfall looks today. There's about a
1,000-foot weir there, with rip-rap in front of it.
What we're proposing that the Mirasol outfall to come out is
next to a piece of commercial property that's being developed as
we speak. We expect to have a pipe connection so we reduce
the erosion possibilities, and an upstream weir there.
Here's the distances between that piece of commercial
property and the Olde Cypress Golf Course. So remember, I told
you we had at least two miles of sheet flow in 1995 and we're
down to 270 feet between that commercial property and the golf
course construction. So that's why conveyance really has to be
added, to make the system perform and work.
We could go in and build Mirasol today without adding the
conveyance or the flowway restor-- do the flowway restoration.
We could just pipe it into the Cocohatchee. But we knew that
this outfall was one of the last areas that could take this kind of
water, and we knew that this would be a regional benefit. And
the project sponsor really felt it would be the most responsible
thing to do is to build the flowway that's being proposed. Water
Management District feels the same way.
That's the current configuration, as you can see. It runs
down through the Wildwood or Terafina proje, ct, into Olde ~..
Cypress. On the Mirasol project, we're showmng it as a se.l....~v~l
!
J APR242001
Page
28
March 7, 2001
lakes that are connected by a four-foot deep conveyance.
Those are some of the benefits to improve hydration that
stays wet longer into the dry season, higher quality conservation,
after we get done with the restoration efforts in the center of it.
Enhanced habitats. Turrell is going to talk about that. And really
promotes the natural vegetation, because we won't have those
two-foot high, three-foot high peeks.
We do propose two sets of weirs so it's a cascading system;
one out at the Cocohatchee Canal and two up in the Mirasol
project itself. That's so it's stepped down very gradually; try to
hold the water as high as the natural ground that's there.
The advantages that we see really is about a seven-tenth
difference in a 25-year storm. Between -- and this is at the
project itself. It makes a better difference up in Bonita area,
because in the '95 floods, we found the water levels at the Kehl
(phonetic} Canal and the Kehl weir were exactly the same as
they were at 951 in the Cocohatchee Canal.
What it means to the ground around there is that even in the
normal wet season after say a four or five-inch storm, we had
two feet of flooding on the site. And in an improved condition,
we hold that down to about 12 inches. So those wetlands that
normally get inundated will still be inundated, it just won't be as
high.
I'll flip through these graphs pretty quickly here.
This just shows again that the peeks are taken off, what you
find out there now.
That's the typical section as it goes through the Wildwood
and Olde Cypress project. It's really four feet deep. We say four
to six here, but they're going to limit us to four in the permitting
process.
We show an area on the shelf -- or the literal zone of the
flowway that is designed to trap feed source for wood storks, as
the water slowly subsides in the dry season. That's true to scale
what the section will really look like.
And those -- that's the summary. We want to restore the
historic drainage patterns; we want to improve the conveyance
that's going over the site now; and we hope this will -- or know
this will help alleviate the flooding.
These are some of the critters that live near or arour~i-tl~ ....
that Tim Hall is going to speak about. ~~
Page 29 APR 2 ~ 200~
March 7, 2001
And again, this is really a regional solution. It's not just the
Mirasol project, it's a public/private thing that we're trying to
accomplish here. And we hope this goal gets accomplished.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Any questions for Mr.
Barber?.
MR. CARLSON: I have one.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: That was a new piece of information for me
with the jurisdictional wetlands in '85 versus '99. Who did the '85
wetlands delineation?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Have you been sworn in, sir?.
MR. HALL: Yes, I have. Tim Hall, Turrell & Associates.
That depiction of the 1985 wasn't an actual jurisdictional
determination, it's a jurisdictional estimate that I believe was
done as part of the state-wide inventory for upland versus
wetlands. That's what that information was taken from. MR. CARLSON: By? By who?
MR. HALL: Who did it? The maps are available up at the
South Florida Water Management District offices.
MR. CARLSON: So they were done by the Water
Management District, State of Florida, Fish & Wildlife Service?
MS. JOHNSON: Basically I think they -- I don't know if actual
staff at the Water Management did it, but they basically used
aerial photographs, et cetera. The District staff actually has
been on the site two or three times over the past, I would say,
five, six, or seven years to do different jurisdictional
determinations. We did one before the hydro-axing took place.
We've done a couple others. We did kind of a thumbnail one
when the CREW trust was looking at purchasing the property.
None of those have ever formally been adopted as formal
jurisdictional boundaries.
The line we're working with now is the line District staff
feels is appropriate, and is based on soils, hydrology and
vegetation. Wetlands were not created on the site in the past
five years, in District staff's opinion.
MR. CARLSON: Well, if that's what that '85 map is, I have
experience with looking at those wetlands designations based
on high level aerial photography, and I have found them to be
very inaccurate in a lot of cases.
MR. HALL: Right. I know, sir. And I'm not disputin!
Page 30
thd~?^l~
APR 2 4 2001
March 7, 2001
That's just a depiction of what is shown in the record, as far as
what's available to myself as a consultant to review.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else for Mr. Barber?.
Hearing none -- one minute break. How's that? Two; make it
two.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are we ready? Okay, Ms. Bishop,
what's your next little plan here?
MS. BISHOP: Todd Turrell is going to go through the birds
and bunny part of this, and the vegetation stuff, along with Tim,
to -- just to bring together the environmental end of this. And at
the end I'll have a little summary about some of the internal
project stuff and then just what the whole -- you know, just what
we're trying to accomplish.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. TURRELL: And my name is Todd Turrell, and I'll keep
this as brief as possible. I think you all are starting to realize the
complexity of this project.
Both Rick and myself have been working on this property for
eight or 10 years. And it's kind of come to the point where we
think the project's together enough, you know, to bring it in front
of you, which is why we're here today.
My firm has been retained to lead the permit effort with both
the Water Management District and the Corps for Mirasol,
Wildwood, Terafina, whatever it is, and also Olde Cypress. So all
three of those owners are on board. I wanted to clear that up so
there is no further confusion with that. And you can imagine the
difficulty in getting three large owners together like that.
There's an application pending with the Corps of Engineers.
That public notice should come out here probably within the next
30 to 60 days. Those same applications are in with the Water
Management District.
I -- Rick's gone through the flowway for the most part, but I
just wanted to make sure everybody understood that in between
the two blue lines you see there is entirely preserved lands. The
owner is, in the Mirasol case, preserving nearly half of the land
out there.
Now, you've heard that a lot of that is wetlands. And we're
', the current jurisdictional, with the Water Management District is
what we're -- what we're going with. We're not disputing t~^rr~,
~.~ B ~
Page 31 APR 2 4
March 7, 2001
any way. However, there's no question that over the last 15 to
20 years that some of the land on this site has gone from uplands
to wetlands. And I've got some pictures and documentation of
that.
But the mitigation ratios and the way this is processed is
completely on today's jurisdictional. However, time has not been
kind to this land from a standpoint of driving it into more
wetlands.
The existing conditions out there are mixed pine and
cypress wetlands, with very extensive invasion by melaleuca.
There's a couple isolated small cypress domes. Those cypress
domes are being preserved in their entirety. And then there's
some remnants, saw palmetto and pine uplands. Where's also
some large saw palmetto prairies out there where all the
palmettos are dead because they drowned. And I've got some
pictures of those coming up.
What has degraded this site is surrounding agricultural
practices. They actually pump during the wet season onto this
land, which elevates it even above what the flooding that has
caused by the watershed basin changes that Rick went through.
The southern two sections were hydro-axed. And of course
cattle grazing's ongoing. And all of those have led to an
extensive amount of invasion by melaleuca.
Here you can see some of the agricultural activities that are
around it. This shows some of the pumping that goes on. That
arrow points to the south. That is our project that you're looking
at to the south. Those agricultural fields you see in the
foreground pump into that area and it runs right down onto this
land.
This is one of the areas that I told you about where these
are palmettos and you can see this in a number of areas out
there. It's an old palmetto prairie that was once an uplands that
is now in a jurisdictional area and the palmettos are dead. And
as far as we can determine, they drowned. Because in that area
right there, you'll have two to three feet of standing water in
today's condition, and certainly that was not the case 15 years
ago, or the palmettos would have never grown there in the first
place.
So once again, we're living with today's jurisdiction,
want everybody to understand they are adversely affecte
March 7, 2001
watershed Changes in the region.
There's that same thing that Ed, that you had questioned.
I don't -- I really don't think that that is too far off. And if you
went prior to 1980, maybe back into the Seventies, certainly the
amount of uplands and wetlands on this site might be
flip-flopped. And I truly believe that by looking at the site.
There's another picture of another palmetto prairie area that
is dead palmettos. And it gets so wet out there -- you'll see a
little seedling pine there in the foreground -- it's so wet you don't
see any four or five-year-old seedlings, because sooner or later, it
may not be this year, but next year the water will get so high the
pines drown. And those pines are drowning in areas that are
pine flatwoods. They're hydric pine flatwoods, but they're pine
flatwoods.
Last summer about a third of the upper area burned. This is
an area that was not hydro-axed. Strangely enough, now what's
coming back into there is melaleuca that's just as dense as the
areas that were hydro-axed. So the melaleuca map in red here is
50 percent or greater melaleuca.
Pretty much after the burn that occurred, everything you see
in red there is going to be 75 percent or greater melaleuca. So
not only in the development areas is it melaleuca, but also in the
flowway area it is heavy, heavy, heavy melaleuca. That's why
the mitigation on-site in between the flowway is incredibly
expensive to get the melaleuca out of there. But we feel that
has some regional wildlife benefits that Tim Hall will get into.
This is just a couple of different locations that we wanted to
actually show you a little bit of video footage of what's actually
out there. It will just take just a second. That arrow shows
where we are on the property, what you're about to see.
Okay, this is in one of the former palmetto areas. You can
see the palmettos in the foreground. And I don't know, is that
sound just coming through here only? It's basically -- that's a
pan view of dead palmetto prairie that has drowned.
This video is the burn area where the melaleuca are coming
back real heavy. The black you see are the pine trees that are
burned. All the other green you see in there is invading
melaleuca.
MR. HILL: Was that a planned burn or an accidental
MR. TURRELL: No, it was a lightning strike. And th; ~t f~~
Page 33 APR 2.~ 2001
March 7, 2001
stretched all the way from the Mirasol project down into what is
Wildwood. And I would venture a professional guess that that
entire burn area will be 75 percent or greater melaleuca at the
end of the day, because the seed sources in that area are just
overwhelming everything native.
And this is a view of a typical area of the melaleuca in there.
And you can see how dense it is.
I don't know if you can hear that, but what I'm saying is that
the melaleuca is so dense that the native wildlife in the area
basically can't use it. Barbara had presented part of that in her
staff report.
And our plan is by removing all that melaleuca out of the
700-acre preserve to add habitat that -- some of the endangered
species and -- okay, with that, Tim?
MR. COE: Could I ask you a question, please? You said you
also represented the Olde Cypress project. MR. TURRELL: That's right.
MR. COE: Could you tell us what amendment they're coming
in with?
MR. TURRELL: You know, as far as the county is concerned,
I really don't know what -- I really don't know what would be
required, if anything. We are simply modifying an existing South
Florida Water Management District permit and Corps of
Engineers permit. So what we've applied for is a state and
federal modification. George?
MS. BURGESON.' The only -- may I just interject something
here? The only thing that we might need to consider is that
typically preservation areas cannot be cleared or filled or ditched
or dredged. So we need to take a look at how the PUD document
is written in terms of that language for the preservation areas.
We may have to readdress that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir?
MR. HERMANSON: My name is George Hermanson with
Hole-Montes. We also represent Olde Cypress. We did all the
engineering on the project that's built now.
And I guess I was going to say something before Barbara
mentioned that, that the land use really for the Olde Cypress is
not changing at all. Where the flowway is going to be is
preserved. It's in a conservation easement and so forth.
Page 34
II
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
staff determines that we really have to run an amendment
through to sanction the construction of flowways through there,
we can do that. I don't believe that's true, but we'll -- if we have
to do it, we'll do it.
MR. TURRELL: And I will add that we're mitigating for the
impacts down in Olde Cypress, and those ratios and stuff have
been pretty well hammered out with the Water Management
District and the Corps.
MR. COE: Well, the only reason I brought this up two or
three times, and I don't know if I'm misunderstanding or
somebody else is misunderstanding, but when that project was
brought before that project and approved, we approved it in that
there wasn't going to be ditching, changing and what have you in
the flowway. It was just going to stay the way it is.
Now I'm kind of figuring out that you all, whoever you is, are
take making changes to that and there may be some ditching,
moving, shoving and pulling in that area that was very specific to
us that it wasn't going to occur. And if so, doesn't that have to
come back before the EAC?
MR. TURRELL: I don't know the answer to that. What we're
proposing to do will be in accordance with state and federal
permit modifications. You know, we're just modifying an existing
permit, we're not permitting new roads or anything else in there.
It's simply--
MR. COE: What I'm saying is we have two different things
here, two or three different things here. MR. TURRELL: I know, it's--
MR. COE: You've got federal and you've got state and you've
got us. Us, we approved it as it was in our understanding when
we approved it. Specifically there was going to be no changes in
that flowway, if I remember correctly. I'm not positive. Now, if
so -- and then you all go out and now you're permitting with the
state or federal or the and it's a change to what we approved,
doesn't it have to come back to us for reapproval? You know, I'm
just questioning.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, also from Hole, Montes &
Associates, planning director.
I'm not an attorney, you know that.
Page 35
However, my get
bra FC~.N~A ~TEM~---
APR 2 z~ 2001
March 7, 2001
understanding of Chapter 380 requirements which govern,
amongst other things, how developments and regional impacts
are structured is that when changes are required to those plants
by state or federal permitting agencies, that those changes may
move forward without necessitating amendments to the DRI.
And that's kind of a vested right type protection, as I understand
it, provided that they're driven by environmental considerations.
I just offer that for the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Olde Cypress is a Chapter 380 DRI?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you.
MR. CARLSON: Can I ask a question, just before you leave
the mike? Because this is very important to me. This is critical
to me, this whole idea that artificial manipulation of the water,
the pumping from the ago fields has turned former upland to
wetland, and now we're looking at wetland impacts and
jurisdictional impacts to former uplands. I mean, I think that's
really -- I mean, to me it's crucial. And so I'm looking at drowned
palmettos.
Have you done any maps? Have you gone back to good
aerial photos from, you know, the really great ones from the
Fifties and the Sixties that are at the Soil Conservation Service
Office and tried to quantify just how much upland was converted
to wetland by the present water management strategies around
the site?
MR. TURRELL: No, we haven't. We have not gone back to
historical aerials, Ed. We -- I don't know, have we mapped old
palmetto prairies that are so obvious?
MR. HALL: Tim Hall, with Turrell & Associates.
I have requested some of that data, and we are working on
it. One of the problems with that is again what we determine is
going to be based on just what we can see, not anything that
was actually ground truthed.
The other thing with the old information that may show
different vegetation types is that the way that wetlands have
been determined has changed over the course of years. Different
vegetations and all have been deemed as different -- at one time,
you know, if you had pine trees, it was considered uplands. And
the way that that has been looked at has changed over the years _
as the science of wetland determination and the import; ncd~l~
Page 36
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
wetlands has increased. So that's -- it is in the works, but it
hasn't been completed as of yet.
MR. TURRELL: But I might mention one other thing, though,
Ed. I was at dinner a couple weeks ago at a lady's house that
immediately abuts this, and they've lived there for 20 years. In
the last five to 10 years they've had events where they've had to
move out of their house because the water got so high. That
wasn't the case 20 years ago.
So I think if you talk to some of the locals that actually live
down there and ask them if that water has gotten
catastrophically higher in the last decade, you're going to get a
unanimous yes. So -- and I believe that to be true from what I've
seen in the field.
And we can try to quantify areas of palmetto prairie,
because that would be the obvious uplands that has transitioned
into wetlands. But I would say that that's not all that's
transitioned. I'm sure that some of those pine flatwoods were
formerly upland pine flatwoods. All of the pine flatwoods now
are hydric pine flatwoods. The only uplands left on-site are the
palmettos that were high enough that they didn't drown. But
essentially all of the pinelands on there are now hydric
jurisdictional.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: How does the section on soils information fit
with the wetlands? Because all of the information on soils
indicates that these soils are all wetland soils.
MR. TURRELL: Yeah, we don't deny that. But palmetto
prairies are not jurisdictional.
MS. LYNNE: Okay. My only comment is, is that as someone
who has interviewed people from this whole county, over
especially the Big Cypress and Everglades area from the
Twenties through the Fifties, that there's been huge changes in
water level that aren't necessarily due -- I mean, in this case it
might be true that it's due to the agricultural practices. But
historically speaking, there are dramatic changes in water levels
in the natural system; and even that the propagation of some
plant species and animals are dependent on those large
fluctuations.
MR. TURRELL: Well, I think -- and I'm not blaming
hydraulically that's changed °ut there °n the agriculturllpage 37
March 7, 2001
pumping or practices, but what Rick's presentation was trying to
show you is due to things like Piper's berm, some of the other
areas you concentrated a 100 square mile watershed that used
to sheet flow all down onto Immokalee Road, it's all coming
through this property now, because it can't go anywhere else.
So I really, really don't think there's any question about the
increased hydro periods.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Yeah, I think someone that grew up
in the woods in Florida looking at those dead palmettos and
those palmetto roots, there's no question in my mind that two
years ago it was pretty high up in the air.
MR. TURRELL: I've stood in those palmetto areas in three
feet of water, you know, with stuff like arrow root and stuff
floating by. I mean, that doesn't happen except for maybe in a
hurricane or something. And that happens almost every year out
there.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Okay, any other questions?
MR. HALL: Tim Hall, with Turrell & Associates.
I was just going to go through some of the species' concerns
on the site. You're kind of going to hear me be very repetitive.
You've already heard Rick and Todd talk about the elevated
hydro periods, the infestation of melaleuca, the way that it's
spreading, and the degradation of the existing systems that are
there on the site.
Most of the endangered species that are either occurring or
were recognized by the wildlife agencies as having the potential
to occur on this site need upland support for -- to meet their
needs, either for denning, for feeding, for resting. The uplands
are a critical part of that support and the echo system necessary
for really all of the species that were -- with possibly the
exception of wood storks all of the species that are current on
the site. So I just wanted to run through them real quick.
The Florida panther is probably the most notable. While no
sign of panthers have been seen on the property, none of the
radio telemetry data shows that the panthers have been on the
property. They do show that in 1989 there was a panther that
crossed through Section 11, which is the section immediately to
the east. And in 1995 there was a panther that came up to the
southeast corner of Immokalee Road and 951 and then t~ ~rnegle~,Te
around and went back. So those are the two -- the close Bt ,~~
APR 2 4 2001
Page 38
March 7, 2001
forage.
That entire distance adds about six miles worth of s
instances of radio collared animals on the property.
There are animals that are known to use the CREW lands,
Corkscrew Swamp. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission advised me that they believe that there's an
uncollared animal that is using Bird Rookery Swamp, which is
three miles to the east. A panther can travel 10 to 15 miles in a
night in part of their forage activities, foraging activities moving
throughout their home range.
So with animals known to be within that 15-mile radius, we
have to assume that there is the potential that the animals would
come onto the site. However, because of the degraded
condition, there's a limited forage base, there's limited denning
opportunities. We don't believe that the property as it exists
right now offers a very viable environment for their use.
Black bears are very similar to the Florida panther in that
they have pretty substantial home ranges; they travel across big
open areas; they feed a lot on mast, tree seeds, acorns, palmetto
berries. Occasionally they will take the tops out of palmettos or
cabbage palms and eat the hearts of palm.
And again, it's a matter of restoring -- getting rid of the
melaleuca, taking the peeks off of these flooding events,
allowing those upland areas to regenerate and create a more
viable habitat for the black bears as well.
The wood storks are -- there's a large population. And I
believe, from what I've read, it's getting larger all the time. Or at
least they had a good year. And in connection with that, there
are the flowway and the lake system that's proposed to go
through this property.
As Rick said earlier, or maybe it was Karen, you're looking
at the two edges of that flowway, as well as that entire -- the
areas where it's only four feet deep at different times of the year,
that entire 200-foot section will be available. As the water levels
rise or drop, they'll have different areas of that cross-section
available for feeding or foraging.
Our intent is to make that a non-level surface, so that it
won't be like a concrete dike. It will have different areas that
will pool at different times. This helps to concentrate the food
source and give the wood storks a little more opportunity to
Page 39
March 7, 2001
for them to utilize.
MR. CARLSON: Can I ask you a question about that now?
MR. HALL: Sure.
MR. CARLSON: Because the artist rendering that we saw
with that shallow flowway is not the cross-section that's going to
be in this project. The cross-section that's going to be in this
project is dominated by lakes, unless I'm mistaken.
MR. HALL: Well, no, the cross-section in this flowway is
dominated -- it has pools that will remain open water year round.
However, the edge of those lakes will be a more -- a gentler
slope that's normally found within a project, and the connectivity
between those lakes is still that four-foot cross-section. MR. CARLSON: But how deep are those lakes?
MR. HALL: That hasn't exactly been hammered out yet.
Somewhere probably between 12 and 20 feet is what we're
requesting.
MR. CARLSON: Yeah, but then those areas won't be
available for wading birds, because they're --
MR. HALL: No, the areas -- those areas won't, but the
shorelines along those areas will. So that's what I was saying is
that there's about six miles of shoreline, but in the four-foot
sections, as the water level raises and lowers, that entire
cross-section of that four-foot areas --
MR. CARLSON: Yeah, but there's very little of that in this
project, in the Mirasol project. There's very little four-foot deep
sections.
MR. HALL: All of the -- yeah, all of -- there's less than in the
remainder of the flowway, yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: Thank you.
MR. HALL: The fox squirrel and the red-cockaded
woodpecker, I'll kind of talk about those at the same time. Both
of them, like the open pine flatwood community with limited
midstory, they like the open fields of view. That's not available
on this property as it exists right now. The concentration of
melaleuca again is just too thick.
The pine trees that are left on the property are stressed,
whether its due to the rapid fluctuations in water levels, the
elevated levels now during the rainy season, the drought
conditions that we're experiencing now. You can kind of see a
measure of that stress when the fire went through that Cod~
Page 40
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
talked about. A lot of the pine trees that were burned in that fire
did not survive. And as most of you I'm sure know, that pine
trees are normally suited to fire. They need fire to help maintain
their community. And the fact that the fire did go through killed
them is just a measure that the trees were stressed to the point
where they couldn't withstand that added problem, that added
concern.
The benefits of the flowway as we're proposing it would be
not only the stormwater and flood management, but the fact that
we have taken into account the -- you know, the environmental
issues, the species issues on the site. We're trying to provide a
large contiguous system within the three projects that has
connectivity to lands that are already held in the public trust, in
the CREW system, to maintain that connectivity and to clean -- to
get rid of or eradicate the exotic infestation and help the
reestablishment of the native communities that were historically
there on the site.
And that's really about all I have to offer. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Questions? Bill? No? Okay.
MS. BISHOP: Okay, to recap, I wanted to address the -- Ed's
concerns about the lakes.
Just to let everyone know~ we did in fact originally have the
four-foot to six-foot section there and it was based on a field
meeting with EPA and Fish & Wildlife, where they were not --
they didn't like that system and wanted us to put lakes in so that
we had more of a cross-section availability for birds.
We will in fact have those four-foot sections in between the
lakes. And it's kind of hard to see on that master plan, but on the
bigger plans here, you can see that we have lakes, and then in
between the connection is a four-foot swale cross-section.
Furthermore, we'll also have littoral areas, and the water at
high points I think will go from one lake across the flowway up to
the other lake, so you will still see more availability for the wood
storks than you do now. I mean, I enjoy seeing them on the ditch
on Immokalee Road there, because that's the only time I've seen
them ever.
We have tried to do what we were requested by the Fish &
Wildlife people and EPA to try to address their concern.;
getting more wading habitat out there.
Page 41
March 7, 2001
MR. CARLSON: Well, it might make sense to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, but it makes no sense to me. You'd have more
habitat there with a four-foot deep ditch all through the property
than you do with those lakes.
MS. BISHOP: Well, but there is a reality to -- the water level
sits -- I just happen to live across the street from there. The
lakes at our project sit about seven foot below existing ground.
And that's pretty much all year round. And as of-- we've had that
project built now since '96, and the water has never ever gotten
up to where it reaches my wetland in there to recharge that
wetland or to go back -- or to go out the control structure.
So yeah, I understand what you're saying about the four
foot, but then there is some opportunity that with the littorals
and some of the shaping of the lakes, that we might be able to
provide still some longer habitat periods.
MR. HALL: Yeah, if I might, you have to consider that the
water table in that area drops between three and five feet. So
during the -- the very heart of the dry season, the standing water
in those lakes is going to be the only water there. So that
shoreline will still be available; whereas~ the four-foot section
will then be dry.
MR. CARLSON: Yeah, my point is for wood storks, a lake
shoreline has very little value --
MR. HALL: Right. No, I understand, because of the slope
and the fact that they only feed in a certain depth, you're limited
to the actual area. Even though the lake may be 200 foot wide,
there's probably only a foot of usable area along the shoreline.
MR. CARLSON: And the fish he's hunting can escape.
MR. HALL: Right.
MR. CARLSON: So you really never hardly ever see them
hunting in that sort of habitat.
MR. HALL: Right. And I do understand that. But we also
need to consider that the project is being designed for the whole
spectrum of wildlife, and we've done what we can for the wood
storks. And the opinion that we were given by the Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Association is that the -- or I'm sorry, Conservation
Commission -- was that the open water would provide a
long-term benefit for a lot of other species as well.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Thank you. Anything else
petitioner?
Page 42
from the
A~IDA I'1~...1~
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
MS. BISHOP: Well, I did want to notice that we were
actually saving some existing vegetation within our project,
which is the cypress domes that we have highlighted, which is
really the only thing worth saving. And we have made sure that
we were able to do that. So I just wanted to make sure everyone
noticed that, that yes, you saw the melaleuca maps, and yes, it's
a mess, but there are still a couple little places where we've
managed to save those domes and work around them so that
they're not obliterated like everything else will be obliterated.
Also, I want to point out, the financial end of building this
flowway, which is something we've not really touched on, the
economics of this. This flowway, the cost of digging these lakes,
just through the Mirasol project alone, is about four million
dollars to do this. So you're looking at having to come up with an
economic way to be able to afford to be in this public/private
partnership and to be able to provide the funding, as well as the
construction to be able to make that work. So that works
hand-in-hand with our project from that perspective, and I
wanted to make sure you guys knew that. Any questions?
MR. CARLSON: Will that fill be stockpiled and used in the
project?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. We'll use that fill on the golf course
and then we do have a substantial amount of rock on the site and
we'll be using -- setting up a crushing operation to use the rock
on the roads and underneath the building pads themselves. We'll
be using stone wall construction so that we have the ability
where we can save.
The intent is to try to create -- I mean, it really-- I mean,
anyone that goes through these projects now know that it's
really not a good thing to have a big farm field where there's
been no vegetation, how long it takes for your project to have
some character to it, some age to it.
So the way that we're setting up this project is that the
intent is for us to try to save as much vegetation on a lot-by-lot
basis or on a tract-by-tract basis by utilizing construction
practices such as stem wall construction, as well as maximum
lot coverages, those kinds of things, which are on or beyond
anything that Collier County would require to us do.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any more questions from t;
council or the petitioner? Yes, ma'am.
Page 43
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
MS. SANTORO: I'm just curious, and it really doesn't have as
much environmentally, but you have a second golf course up in
the northern corner, but I don't know whether there's access
above or whether you're just going to have a small private road
or ~l
MS. BISHOP: Well, Parklands, right now there is access, just
to give you a kind of transportation element. Okay, never mind.
There is an easement through here. It's the Livingston Road
east-west easement. The 951 corridor, which of course nobody
wants to discuss necessarily starts here, comes across and ends
up here.
It is our intent to utilize the Logan Boulevard, which exists
now, to come across here and to add -- to go into our course
through the existing proposed easements that are here.
Now, the Parklands, I've seen their plan recently, they
propose to bring Logan up and bring it up to this point. And in
that case, then I will not be doing this, I'll be utilizing the internal
public roadway system that they will have up there.
And also I want to stress that we're still not finished
working through our environmental process and our
configuration. That golf course may change, that flowway may
get larger, it may move. So right now this is the best plan that
we have that we've submitted, but we still haven't finished our
public. We're out for public notice at the core level, and so we
will have other commenting agencies, and so there may be some
changes to that degree.
MR. CARLSON: I'm not done yet.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You're not done?
MS. LYNNE: I'm not either. Go ahead.
MR. CARLSON: The stem wall construction. I'm trying to
envision the stem wall construction. You're saying that the
elevations of the floors in these homes will be set at a certain
level so they don't flood. MS. BISHOP: Right.
MR. CARLSON: But you will not have fill dirt around these
homes, you'll have native vegetation?
MS. BISHOP: We're looking to have a pad area that will have
some vegetation around it. But the stem wall will keep you from
having to fill these areas.
We're going to have a buffer across the backs of all
Page 44
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
from the flowway at that time. And we'll be using all the
quality practices that are required by all the agencies.
lots that are intended to be natural buffers, I want to say similar
to what you see at Collier's Reserve, and that you are going to be
mandated to protect and even revegetate these areas around
these homes. And the stem wall construction keeps you from
having to put fill, which in fact kills the native vegetation. I
mean, a pine tree can't take six inches of fill on it, let alone three
or four feet.
So that's the intent, to start from the beginning, looking at
how we can go about trying to -- the stuff that's out there, which
is hard to see, as you saw those videos. But if we see a tree in
there or a group of trees that we can save, then we'll be looking
to remove the melaleuca and not put fill in there, to keep them in
their natural states, and with enhancement.
MR. CARLSON: How much of the project is detached
single-family homes?
MS. BISHOP: A majority of it.
MR. CARLSON: So my vision of a home with a lawn with a
lawn service is not what's going to happen here?
MS. BISHOP: Well, actually, we will have a service to that
degree. There will be a little area around the house that has
that. But the majority of the lot, which is a bigger lot than what
you may see in some of the other subdivisions, will have areas
that they're not allowed to go in, and that they will not be
allowed to maintain. They'll be maintained as a part of the
preserves and the common areas from the master association
and the CDD.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LYNNE: The golf course and the water flow is going like
this. What about the fertilizers and so forth used on the golf
course, are they going to be dumped into our flowway?
MS. BISHOP: All of the -- well, as the -- the way that the
flowway is designed, and I may have to get Mr. Barber to discuss
that more in detail -- is that the -- they're interconnected to some
degree.
But all of the golf courses go into a secondary drainage
system that goes into the lakes before it goes into the flowway.
So there will be no direct flow from our project into the flowway
because the flooding event that our project takes in flooding
Page 45
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
And I think that the great thing about the technology
nowadays is that more and more golf courses are being built in
areas where the concerns of pesticides and herbicides have
reached a pointed to where their shelf life is a couple of days and
then they're gone.
MS. LYNNE: Is that true, Ed?
MR. CARLSON: Not nitrogen and phosphorus.
MS. BISHOP: Well, some of them, but -
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Well, I want to take --
MS. BISHOP: They -- but you limit the uses when --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me make --
MS. BISHOP: -- you do those.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I have to take issue every time
that's brought up, okay, because I've got 10 years of examining
outflow from golf courses with the practices that are used today,
and the requirements the District has on retaining on-site.
I can tell you right now that I doubt if there's a golf course
around here right now that the quality of the water discharged
from the golf courses is a higher quality than the receiving body,
that the time release on things -- and yes, there are some
nitrates and phosphates, but two things affect that: Number one,
the economics of how you apply it. You can't just go out there
and spread it all over the place anymore because you can't afford
to.
And secondly, the manner in which the internal water areas
are constructed with the littoral zones and everything, that we're
getting some tremendous water qualities. And I just came back
from a conference on just this item and how many of the EPA
people were there and saying -- the EPA has done studies on this
-- that the golf -- quality of golf course water in the last 20 years
has improved like 500 percent.
So I will match that the effluent that comes off our -- or the
discharge that comes off our golf courses with any body of water
natural in this county right now.
MR. CARLSON: Even mine?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Even yours.
MR. CARLSON: You're on.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. LYNNE: I'm sorry. Ed, do you agree with that?
I understand that the golf courses are being better
Page 46
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
managed, and I guess what I'm asking you is what have you put
in place do that? Because as far as I can tell, South Florida
Water Management is saying we're going to create this big
flowway. And if there's going to be a lot of nitrogen and
phosphates dumped in, is that going to be a problem? And it
doesn't seem like a good place to be putting in a lot of fertilizer.
MS. BISHOP: Well, and keeping in mind that what's coming,
this water that's coming in is from ag. pumping and from places
that aren't necessarily doing water quality before they send it to
me. So the water coming in that flowway I'm guessing is
probably at a lot lower quality than what I'm having inside my
project.
And what you'll get is the mixing of some sort, which would
bring the water quality back up. But most of the chemicals that
I'm aware of now that they're utilizing have a -- need to start
breaking down within 24 hours.
MS. LYNNE: Those are pesticides. But nitrogen and
phosphorous and those cause a lot of trouble in some areas. I
don't know if they are going to cause trouble in areas here.
I mean, for example, if there were a lot of nitrogen and
phosphates coming into the wetland preserve, that could
stimulate a lot of growth of cattails, right, which would outgrow
everything else?
MS. BISHOP: Actually, our owner's here, and I was asking if
he's finished that yet.
We are working with a golf course architect, as most of the
projects that I've worked with lately, where the intent is to bring
that maintenance level down to a minimum, try to create more
natural air so you're not having to put so much of the pesticides
and herbicides on there. But I don't --
MS. LYNNE: Excuse me, you keep saying pesticides and
herbicides and I keep saying fertilizer. Those are different
things.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Fertilizer, excuse me. I'm sorry.
MS. LYNNE.' No, no, it doesn't--
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥.' And I meant in my response
fertilizer, okay?
MS. LYNNE: I heard your response.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You heard my response. A
telling you, I've got 15 years experience doing it. And y;
Page 47
nd I'm
APR 2 4 200f
March 7, 2001
premise that golf courses emit all these nitrates and phosphates
is wrong. And there is no facts to prove it in what goes on today.
20 years ago you were entirely right. Today you're not. MS. LYNNE: And a different question.
Is there going to be access to that golf course off 9517
MS. BISHOP: Which golf course, the northern one?
MS. LYNNE: The northern golf course.
MS. BISHOP: Well, depending on which way 951 goes, it is
the intent that we would have access off of either that road or
another internal road. It could be that road, but if that road's not
built within the, you know, time frame that we need to utilize
that.area, then we'll use whatever roadways are available at that
time.
We're not going to be a part of the 951 -- the building of 951.
We have been required by Transportation Department to reserve
the right-of-way, but they don't even know, they haven't done
their corridor study or any of those things, so we don't know
which side it's going to be on. We just have a provision that says
okay when you figure it out, let us know and we'll work with you
to -- on the right-of-way alignment, is essentially what we're
going to do.
MS. LYNNE: So you could have a lot of your private traffic
up and down on 951 then, if that's the quickest way to get to the
golf course.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's remember something, we are
the EAC, not the county traffic --
MS. BISHOP: Well, and keeping in mind --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- county commission on traffic,
okay.
MS. BISHOP: -- too that our-- one is that they're two
separate projects and that the internal project, the project on the
south, is not going to be connected to the one on the north.
They're not the same ownership, as far as the people who live
there don't automatically have the right to go up there.
The other thing is, too, that we have three miles of 951
within our project in that the access that we would have at the
most would be two access points; one is that you see on our
southern project, and then on the northern project if in fac' at
the end of our permitting that northern project's configura~
still there and not moved somewhere else or not changed.
Page 48
ion~. _^~
B~' ~
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
that's two accesses in three miles, so that's still a limited
access off of 951.
MS. LYNNE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: One more parting comment. You had your
soap box.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay, you got it.
MR. CARLSON: This will be about 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You got it, Ed.
MS. BISHOP: Is this going to hurt?
MR. CARLSON: No. No, it's not. But it's about the question
of the nutrients and the discussion that just went on here. You
know --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have a different opinion.
MR. CARLSON: Well, the wetland communities here, this
whole natural system, evolved in very Iow nutrient conditions.
You know, the Everglades and the Big Cypress, the amount of
nitrogen phosphorus historically in our systems was trace, very,
very Iow. And so when you add those, even small amounts of
those nutrients, it has tremendous impacts on the plants
communities.
Now, there's a golf course program that people associate
the word Audubon with the golf course program, and they
encourage golf courses to do all kinds of good things like use
less herbicides and nutrients.
Okay? But the reason that the National Audubon Society is
not a part of that is because it's very expensive to document
exactly what effect that sort of golf course certification program
has.
If you did the science and did the water quality analysis, I'll
tell you what, it would cost you a lot more than the few thousand
bucks it cost you to get certified now. It would be tens of
thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the science
isn't there. And that's just the fact that yes, less nutrients are
being applied and coming off, but nobody knows exactly how
much.
MS. BISHOP: Well, and I also might want to suggest that
that map I gave you that shows that the watershed for this area
is 300 acres, that a lot of that is farm fields. And I would ;luess
they use fertilizers on that farm field. I could be wrong~ an~l~"i~
Page 49
APR 2
March 7, 2001
pesticides and herbicides. And that there is no -- if you look at
some of these, they don't have the sophisticated water quality
systems that a planned development has or that a golf course
has. And that they're being pumped over. Some of them do,
okay.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Let me just say something on that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. Hold it. For the
record?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Neale Montgomery.
There has been water quality monitoring going on between
the golf course and the Gulf on Bonita Bay's project for over 15
years. Pelican Landing also was required by that county to do
between the golf course and where the water discharges to the
bay, water quality monitoring now since I want to say '92.
That data was assembled and turned over to the county and
that's been spanned for that whole course of time. And what
they found is that there isn't any adverse impact from those golf
courses on the water quality. And that data has been gathered
on an ongoing basis.
And Karen's already told you some of the reasons is
because fertilizers and pesticides are so expensive now you
can't afford to do that. And while not everybody's an Audubon
course, I think the regulating agencies are starting to make you
file those kind of criteria that says, you know, reduce the areas,
you know, that you have the manicured stuff so you can reduce
the amount of fertilizers and pesticides that you have on it. You
know, use more natural vegetation that require those things.
And those sort of things are happening. And that's a lot of
reasons why you're not seeing the adverse water quality.
And plus, I think in the older days they used to use Nebacure
(phonetic} on the golf courses, and that's not allowed anymore.
MR. CARLSON: Well, to--
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I've got to say something. That's
not true.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Not here anyway.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's not true.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yeah, it's been outlawed.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, Ma'am, not yet.
But Ed, you're right. And just in the fact that the res~
has not been done to the degree, and presently the USGA
Page 50
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
combination with the Superintendents' Association, has
budgeted about five million dollars in the next two years to do
the studies just as you're saying, to see what effect this program
really has. And ! think you're going to see more factual
information, to answer your question.
But you're right, there's not enough factual information for
me to say what I said --
MR. CARLSON: And then to do a good experiment, you
know, the opportunity is to know what the baseline
concentrations were before these golf courses went in, that
opportunity is not there anymore, so --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, moving right along. Are
there any other questions for the petitioner? Any other questions
the council has for staff or for the District?
MR. HILL: One quick one, Mr. Chairman.
When we started out, we questioned the fact that the people
are not getting together. And as I remember, Parklands was also
mentioned in this consortium. Are they -- they're not involved in
the actual flowway, though, are they?.
MS. BISHOP: At this time they're not. It's anticipated that
they will be a part of the flowway at the time that they get their
other issues within their project resolved. But at this point
they're not a part of the flowway. But you can see that it's --
MR. HILL: So the footprint will change then?
MS. BISHOP: Well, the flowway, the final permitting of the
flowway, maybe before the northern lakes get built, maybe it
crosses the Parklands property. Maybe they have an extension
of the flowway at this point. We haven't really looked at what
they're doing, because they have a lot of other issues they need
to resolve first.
But you can see by virtue of the way this thing is prepared
that they can in fact, you know, with contribution of land, as well
as this channel, can be a part of that project, a part of the
solution for issues here.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. GAL: One question. The general development
commitments that you provided to us, is that in response to the
staff comments?
MS. BISHOP: Right. The one specifically that she -- ti
was two or three of them on there that she specifically ha~
Page 51
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
requested some things. We had language there that was a little
bit different than what she had, so I wanted to point that out to
you directly, that we weren't saying no, we don't want to do it,
but we worded it a little bit differently.
MR. GAL: And will the staff have opportunity to provide
additional comments, or no?
MS. BISHOP: I'm not sure. Until the BCC hits, the staff has
plenty of opportunity to comment on the project, till we go to the
BCC. And at that point all the comments are usually completed
by then. So we still have to go to the Planning Commission, as
well as the County Commission.
MS. BURGESON: Yeah, I would not recommend changing
any of the staff stipulations in the staff report that staff's
recommended. However, if there's changes to the PUD
document that Karen wants us to take a look at that we can
either agree upon, as long as they're not in conflict with what
this board wishes, that we can work on that between now and
when that goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
However, if we're asked -- if I'm asked to make some
changes that are in conflict, there would not be any opportunity
for that to come back to this board.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Even the utility director Jim Mudd's
comments about no pre-sales, I'd be willing to say that that
would probably be better brought before the Board of County
Commissioners than added as a stipulation now.
MS. LYNNE: Why? Why should that wait for the BCC?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because the BCC probably has the
final word. It's pre-sales of the condo that -- or the development
that you're not allowing.
You could put it as a stipulation now if you want, but the
BCC will look at that same stipulation and decide whether or not
they want it. It will be brought before them.
MS. LYNNE: Isn't it an environmental issue, though, that --
to hold the CO's back until completion of the wetlands area, the
flowway?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, it's not the flowway, it's the
expansion of the North Naples--
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Utility plant.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- wastewater treatment plant.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. People here from th .~ puJ~nzu
Page 52 AI~I~ 2 ~ 200~
March 7, 2001
that would like to address the Mirasol?
Please come up. And have you been sworn?
MS. BOGGS: Yes, I have.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Please come up and identify
yourself.
MS. BOGGS.' Susan Boggs. B-O-G-G-S. And I'm here purely
as a private citizen who's been a property owner in Naples since
1966. And I do have a question.
How much of this development extends beyond the urban
boundary?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who would like to address that?
Could somebody address that?
Section 22, which is the southern end, is in the
MS. BOGGS:
MS. BISHOP:
urban boundary.
MS. BOGGS:
MS. BISHOP:
Yes.
The section where the golf course is on the
north side and the Section t 5 in the center is over the urban
boundary,
MS. BOGGS: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought
that Governor Bush had placed a moratorium on development
outside the --
MS. BISHOP: We were submitted prior to that moratorium,
so we are exempt from that -- from Governor Bush's moratorium
on those areas.
However, our project, we have been keeping up with what's
been going on with that fringe and rural committees. And the
stuff that they are bringing forward for approval are the same
things that we're doing here already. Without having to be
mandated, we are doing those kinds of things.
MS. BOGGS: I'm not for one moment suggesting you're not
trying very hard --
MS. BISHOP: Oh, no, no.
MS. BOGGS: -- to do the right thing. I've just been here such
a long time, and the very thought of -- is it 799 more units on that
death trap known as the Immokalee Road? Fills me with horror,
quite frankly. And it's nothing personal.
MS. BISHOP: No, no. And of course, keep in mind the
density is already available there, that we're not asking for more
density; that the density that we're having is actually le ==_ ,hz..
what we could put on those things already. N~ I~ ~
Page 53
APR 2
March 7, 2001
MS. BOGGS: I know. And I wish I could just put a stop to
the whole thing, but of course I can't.
And the other question I have is -- and it's not really a
question. I think it's unfortunate that necessary flowways to
protect particularly the environment and the species has to be
paid for by a developer and not by the county. And again, this is
no offense to you at all, but it smacks of the inmates running the
asylum.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I would think that that may be -- perhaps
that might be a good thing, since the county taxes would have to
go up and then everyone would be paying, even though I'm all --
when it's public --
MS. BOGGS: I would be prepared to pay more. I really
would.
MS. BISHOP: Right. But the coffers -- as we know from our
transportation element, the coffers just aren't there. So if these
things need to be built, the only way that the public can get
these is to go into partnerships. But keep in mind that the public
is ruling the permitting process here. It's the state and the feds
that are determining what I have to do. I'm living within their
rules. So I'm just writing the check. After they tell me we've
beat you up enough, write your check.
MS. BOGGS: Okay. You just gave me a wonderful
opportunity to say what I thought. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much.
Yes, ma'am?
MS. BURGESON: I just wanted to let the board know that
Ron Nino had to attend another meeting up at Development
Services. So if there's any more planning questions specific to
this project, I will probably not be able to help you with those
answers.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am?
MS. AVALONE: My name is Kathleen Avalone and I'm
co-founder of the Citizens for Protection of Animals of Southwest
Florida.
What we would like to see is the northern section, which is
outside the urban boundary, and in Priority II Panther Habitat
kept as the preserve. And if there must be two golf courses,
which I'm not sure why there should be, but if there mu.,
the second golf course in the southern part, which is ou
Page 54
t be~ put.
APR 2 zt 2001
March 7, 2001
urban boundary, instead of planning units for that section. Is
that a doable thing?
MS. BISHOP: No, ma'am. I mean, we may be able to utilize
the golf course. The golf course on the north end at this point,
like I said, they're still going through the permitting process and
that golf course may move from there, but the urban boundary
line is the smaller piece on the bottom line.
And to make this project viable, first to be able to pay for
the flowway, we have to be able to sell the project. We have to
be able to sell people to here and buy it. If I can't sell the
project, then I can't afford to build the flowway. And unfortu --
MS. AVALONE: Well, I'm not saying the whole southern
section being golf course and no units. I'm just saying instead of
dividing it up that way, take the northern section, keep that as a
preserve, since it abuts the CREW lands, and the section that
you've already designated as a preserve would make it a larger
one.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I would have to utilize that golf course to
the south, which means I would push everything to the north.
And rm not suggesting that's not a doable thing, rm not -- as a
matter of fact, that may be something that during the public
notice process that we end up doing to answer comments such
as yourselves or EPA or Fish & Wildlife. And we are not going to
say no to that. Obviously it's the economics of getting this to
work. I have to have two golf courses. Can I utilize them on this
south half? Perhaps I can. We can do that analysis and see.
And that will be a part of this permitting process that we go
through with the Corps and the District. So that is a part of that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much.
Yes, ma'am.
MS. POPLOCK: Ronnie Poplock, Collier County Audubon
Society.
Wow, I guess great minds think alike, because I was going
to -- I had very similar thoughts to Ms. Avalone in terms of the
golf course being on the north of the -- that would be great if that
could be moved down below and let that land up north alone.
That's what I was thinking as well.
And I'm thinking -- I'm not a golfer, so I don't know why
Mirasol needs two golf courses. But I think if.we're talki~
words like responsibility today and conservation today, I~ro~ I
Page 55
APR 2 ~ 2~0~
March 7, 2001
the most responsible thing here to do would be to leave that golf
course up off the north, if that's doable, you know, if it's feasible.
So that would be -- I guess that would be what I'd like to leave
you as the Audubon's suggestion.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much.
Okay, council, do we have any more questions for anyone?
If we do not, what's the pleasure? Mr. Carlson, you started this.
MR. CARLSON: I started this? Well, I'll tell you, we get
project after project that comes to us and we look at these
projects with wetlands that aren't wetlands, because there's no
water. And, you know, we put up with all this wetlands loss. We
voted for a lot of wetlands loss on this board, because there's
absolutely no way to restore or rehydrate those wetlands.
So here I'm looking at a project, I'm reviewing this project
and here's wetlands with water finally. And I'm going my God,
they're taking off 50 percent of the -- more than 50 percent of
these wetlands in this project and finally we have viable
wetlands that's totally unacceptable. And now it turns out that
water is the enemy here. I mean, we can't win. You understand
my frustration here. Here we finally have real wetlands with
water, and water's bad here. And there's more wetlands than
they should be, because there's more water than they should be.
MR. GAL: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Yes.
MR. GAL: Does this group of people here have authority to
approve a project with a stipulation that the golf course in the
north is moved to the south? Is that within our authority?
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: No, sir, I don't think we do, unless
there's an environmental -- a strict environmental reason that we
are stipulating that.
MS. BURGESON: The EAC and previous boards that
functioned as this board does did have the authority and did at
times require that projects be brought back to them. We saw not
too infrequently projects that were continued to future meetings
with redesign, and they were asked to redesign so that
environmental issues could be better addressed.
MR. CARLSON: Well, you know, I look back at the history of
what we do, and the Land Development Code is very sul
And you read things like shall be no unacceptable net I¢
Page 56
]ective.
ss d~EN~^ ~TEM-
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
....... viable naturally functioning wetlands and that sort of thing. And
I believe it's county policy not to count exotic removal as
mitigation for wetland loss, that's another thing we've got to
consider, and that the development should be cjustered to have
the largest contiguous wetland area and the least amount of
impact.
And I mean, a project came before us, the Winding Cypress.
And --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I couldn't vote on it.
MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Well, we passed it like that. I mean,
they preserved 80 percent of the wetlands on that site. And they
did it by I think having better cjustering. The residential units
were closer together and they had more multi-unit stacked up
buildings. I don't want to get too technical for you.
But, you know, if we do set a precedent here about what's
an acceptable wetlands loss, then I have a religious problem
with writing off 50 percent of the wetlands on the site because
it's going to be single-family homes and two golf courses and it
just takes that much space. I mean, I just -- I have a real
problem with that, especially we got -- we finally got wetlands
with water here.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill?
MR. HILL: Did you address me, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, I just wondered if you had
a comment, sir.
MR. HILL: Yes. I have to agree with what Ed's saying. What
appears to me to be a positive in this effect is flood control. And
I think there's a reasonably good mix here between preservation
of a certain amount of wetlands and the establishment of a
reasonably good solution to what has been a flood control
problem.
I would love to see more of the wetlands preserved, and I
think they could be. And I can't give you a figure, but I think
more could be preserved, and the flood control process take
place.
Now, this goes into the economics of the situation, I agree.
But if there is a partnership between private and public efforts
from an economic standpoint, as well as environmental
- . standpoint, I think maybe we can solve both of these
, cooperative effort, both economically and environment~ll~(i~--~_L~__~
57 I APR2~'2001 !
Page ~'-
March 7, 2001
Therefore, I am prepared to approve the concept in this
particular project, but with significant changes in wetland
preservation, which I think can be accomplished.
In light of what the time window seems to be in all of this, I
think all of the heads can get together, the four potential
developments, South Florida Water Management District, and I
think we need to ensure that the comments made previously at
the very beginning of this discussion are taken to heart.
And my final comment would be I don't want to vote on this
project until I see a little more cooperative effort and some
agreements and mediation take place between the interested
parties. In that case, my vote would be at this time not to
approve it as presented, with the caveat that we all work
together a little more stringently to put together a better
proposal.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Santoro?
MR. HILL: Does that make sense? No.
MS. BISHOP: Well, if you're asking me, I'm going to suggest
to you that, you know, I could appreciate that that memo made it
sound like we're not cooperating, and that isn't the case.
There is one element of the four properties that seems to be
not cooperating yet, but they will get their ducks in a row and
they will be a part of the big picture.
The project after us, which is Terafina, which is Wildwood,
they also are in this, and they are also here to say we are in this.
We have spent two years working on this. There has been
cooperation. Some of the details are still ongoing, but this is still
at this level is zoning. This is not, you know, we're going for the
environmental permitting at the state and the federal agencies,
which has been ongoing and which we have -- the client has
spent a tremendous amount of resources and dollars to get us to
here.
So the zoning end of this, which is why we're here today, is
something that we believe can be voted on positively with the
knowledge that the District, as well as the Corps and all the
other commenting agencies that go with those two permits will
bring us to the point where we have the best project that could
be permitted and that everybody is on board.
Because if can t get my perm,ts, ,f for some reasol~-d,]N~_
get mY permits' then all the z°ning in the w°rld d°es n°t gi~~IPage 58' I AP~2~ ~(}I
March 7, 2001
the ability to build this project. It's just zoning. It's not
permitting. I still have to do that. And if I cannot accomplish
that, then my zoning doesn't mean a thing.
So you need to keep that in your head that it doesn't mean a
thing if I can't get my permits at the state and federal level, and
that I will have to have that cooperation to get those permits.
So I believe we're going to be there. And since the
consultants for Terafina and Olde Cypress are here, I believe
you'll get on the record that they are on board with the flowway,
that the details of the agreement with the attorneys is taking a
while but is going to happen, or I won't get my permits. I mean,
that's a given.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Santoro, do you have any
comments?
MS. SANTORO: Well, I listened to Bill, and I didn't know if he
was voting to table this, but I --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm still wondering that myself.
MS. SANTORO: I know.
MR. HILL: I'm on the verge.
MS. SANTORO: I would be more comfortable tabling it for
one month to have Southwest Florida get all the information in
writing that supposedly is floating around and have them come
back with a more comfortable feeling that there's mutual
cooperation.
And I know you've said that, but there's papers that are here
and they haven't got -- I'd also -- that would give a chance I think
for developers to look at the suggestions from county to the
one-to-one mitigation of the 582 acres. I don't see that as
specifically addressed. The addition of staff's recommendation,
the addition of the additional 9.7 cypress wetlands acreage.
I just -- and you have given us a sheet today. I've read it.
It's pretty general. I'm not comfortable with all or the lack of all
the information that I need to make an absolute decision to vote
on it today.
MS. BISHOP: And I'd like to just suggest that the funding for
this project is going to be based on getting the zoning. And we
were scheduled to see you guys last month, and without the
quorum we were pushed to this month. And that another month
would put us in a place where we may have problems w~[~---~------~
entity that we are trying to create here.
APR 2 ~ 2001
Page 59
March 7, 2001
And that as far as the one-to-one mitigation, I want to point
out that the -- that anything above 75 percent melaleuca
infestation is not considered in the Collier County policy as
natural viable functioning wetlands. And so we do take a little
exception to the fact that someone's going to want a one-to-one
mitigation on these when the fact is that this stuff is melaleuca,
and what am I mitigating for when that melaleuca's gone, there's
no vege --
MS. BURGESON: I need to interject here. That doesn't --
that's not true. To say that it's greater than 75 percent
melaleuca does not mean than it's not viable wetlands. It does
mean that it may not be considered viable native vegetation. MS. BISHOP: And functioning.
MS. BURGESON: But with the soils and the hydrology, that
can still be a viable functioning wetland.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Well, obviously we have some
disagreement with that, because we've done a lot of research.
But still, notwithstanding that, that this is still just zoning, and
that this is not the permits to build this project, and that we still
have work to do to get that done. And that I was under the
impression that the -- that this board looks at that from that
perspective, knowing that I still have to do all of that permitting
at that end.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe?
MR. COE: Well, I fairly well expressed myself all day long.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you.
MR. COE: So I don't have anything further to say.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You just said it.
Ms. Lynne, what do you have to comment?
MS. LYNNE: I'm concerned about the amount of wetland
that's being taken out of use here. According to the soils report,
this is all hydric soils. This is all viable wetlands. We're looking
at taking out some 500 acres of wetland, and that's a significant
amount, in an area where we've already looked, as shown by
your displays, where we -- it's already a bottleneck. And this
project's talking about taking out another 500 acres from a
bottleneck.
I do like -- I do like the effort that's gone into the proposal to
date. The job done by the environmental consultants I thought
was good. The species lists were good. And I think then i's sm~ten~
Page 60 APR 2 ~ 2001
.._
March 7, 2001
real potential here. At the same time, I think there needs to be
more cjustering and more preservation of wetland. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal?
MR. GAL: My recommendation if any is that we vote on it up
or down today, subject to stipulations, and that we don't table it
or that there aren't any further discussions. If I'm going to
approve today, I approve it subject to some sort of stipulation, if
it's possible, that the project redesign so that northern portion is
moved to the south. And if there has to be a second golf course
at that, to move so that land abutting the CREW preserve
remains.
And I'd also, if I was going to approve it today, it would be
subject to stipulation that any language -- or recommendations
by the staff, that their language remains exactly the same and
it's approved contingent to that.
MS. BURGESON: Typically if there's any design changes,
then it's continued and brought back to this board, but not for
staff to just administratively review.
MR. GAL: Well, we could theoretically approve it and then it
would have to come back, though, as redesigned, correct.
MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. HILL: One additional positive thing that struck me. In
the Environmental Impact Statement on Page 7 in the wetlands,
the statement's made that according to the 1985 Southwest
Florida Management District FLUCS maps, the wetland area in
the site has increased almost threefold in the last 15, 20 years.
No where is there a justification or reason that has caused
that rather unnatural increase, other than perhaps flood
situations in areas that feed into this. Is there a reason for that
increase?
MS. BISHOP: Well, what we believe is that we are the direct
result of cumulative and secondary impacts of projects that have
been mostly ag'd itself of upstream. And this is what happens
because of all the things that were -- that the ag. works, as well
as some developments have happened upstream, all of a sudden
now we're getting all this water. And frankly it doesn't -- at the
agencies they don't care how you got wet, they just know you're
So you're permitting from today's, not from what h
APR 2 ~ 2001
Page 61
wet,
March 7, 2001
before. Yes, we can see it. Yes, that's a part of our argument,
that, you know, that we are now having to deal with the
cumulative and secondary impacts of other peoples actions. And
so we feel that, you know, we shouldn't be penalized to that
degree, because we're being stuck with this.
So now we're working to do this. We're preparing a plan and
a project that takes a substantial amount of money to do, that
has what we believe to be a regional benefit, and what we
believe, you know, with the policies and the comp. plan, which
Policy 6.2.3 says altered or disturbed wetlands are considered
not viable, not naturally functioning degraded wetland
ecosystem.
So we are going to take something that's already been
identified as something that is not some of the stuff that we
would like to save, and create what is not out there now.
So, you know, we're looking at the bigger picture here and
not just the fact that we've got some numbers, we're going to
take numbers minus numbers and here's what your numbers are.
It's -- this is not just a numbers game. This is a game that
started 15, 20 years ago and that has -- this project has become
inundated with this water, and now we're stuck dealing with it,
and here's what we're going to do to solve that problem.
Because this problem's going to be here whether or
project's here or not, you know. And the fact is to some degree,
you almost consider this a taking, because permission's been
given to pump across our property and it wasn't given by us. So
we're stuck with that. And we're trying to work this out.
We've created what we believe is a plan that -- and
notwithstanding the comments about the northern golf course,
that may in fact be something that we end up doing through this
permitting process, that what we are doing is making every
effort to make this project something that's viable for us that we
can afford to fix this public entity which is going to be a flowway
and a big preserve area.
MR. HILL: Well, a lot do these wetlands that exist if in fact
the statement is true has happened and you said it's largely
agriculture. Potential -- possibly.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I gave you those maps to look at so that
you could .k. ind .o.f see for yourself. Those maps are reall);-~
very reveal,ng, ,f you look at the -- it's mostly ag. There Are ~~" I
Page 62 J AP.R,2. 2001
! ....
March 7, 2001
developments to the north here. You have Parklands, and just to
the north of Section 10 is Section 3 in Lee County, and that's also
a farm field, which you saw on our slides.
To the east of that is Section 2 and 1. Those are also farm
fields. And they were also bermed up. So the water that used to
come there now goes around and comes through us.
MR. HILL: Yeah, but I want to pursue that, because we've
had a discussion about nutrients, pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers, et cetera.
In the past 15 years there's been a tremendous amount of
efforts put into constructing wetlands for wastewater treatment.
And I'm not so sure that these wetlands may not be serving that
very viable function, if indeed this is an agricultural runoff.
I mean, we seem to say well, there's melaleuca there,
therefore, it's not a viable wetland. Well, I'm not so sure. And
maybe we need the data that we were talking about earlier, to
see indeed what the water quality is in here. Because it may
well be serving as a functioning filter for the agricultural runoff,
whether it's pumped or whether it's naturally flowing through the
property.
MS. BISHOP: I would say that's probably to some degree.
But the water backs up. I mean, as far as the filter goes, you're
not having the grasses. You don't have the understory, you don't
have the ground cover, that like, say, the sea of grass, the
Everglades, if you fly over that you see the sea of grass, you
don't see melaleuca. I mean, that's not a part of what they call
the sea of grass.
So here what we have is melaleuca, no mid-story, no
understory, and it's dog hair melaleuca. And it's hard for me to
believe that what is going to function as well as what we're
proposing, which is to remove the melaleuca, allow for some
natural plantings to come back on their own, as well as us to be
planting areas. And then creating the flowways itself allows for
some attenuation for the -- any of those issues or herbicides or
pesticides to be dealt with in the lake system itself.
And keep in mind that we say the word lake. I mean, these
are glorified ditches all through Collier County. We call these
things lakes, but the intent is to convey water. So ultimately the
receiving source of this is the Cocohatchee, which is another
ditch. So there is a series of these until it reaches the o ;tf~^~
Page 63 APR 2 ~ 200!
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, Mr. Hill? My comment is, you
know, I understand where Mr. Carlson's coming from, because
it's one time we got a lot of water. Most of the times we're
looking at wetlands that have been degraded and vegetation's
changed and melaleucas are in there because we don't have any
water anymore. All of a sudden we got something that's water.
But I also have a problem with hearing someone say these
are viable productive wetlands when I look at a picture of dead
melaleuca roots and nothing but -- I mean dead palmetto roots
and nothing but wetlands. I mean, obviously this site's been
altered. It's been altered in the opposite manner than most of
the sites that we see. And something's got to be done to bring it
back.
We've got the opportunity here that I think is an opportunity
that I haven't seen occur before. We have three or possibly four
landowners who are willing to work together to create a
somewhat natural flowway system, which is something I've
never seen before. And it's something I know the District is
looking to see.
I have full confidence in Mrs. Johnson's operation that none
of these individual developments are going to get a permit unless
everybody works together. It's not going to happen. And I think
that -- you know, I look to the District to solve those kinds of
things. And as far as I can see, they do those in this case. They
know there's a problem, and they know there's a problem
upstream. There's no -- and from the floods before. And this will
help solve that problem.
And I think that we're missing an opportunity here to move
forward in somewhat which is a public/private multiple
landowner operation. And is it perfect? No, it's not perfect.
Maybe the golf course needs to be moved. I don't know.
But by saying not moving forward with this is saying, you
know, we appreciate working together, we appreciate the effort
that's being taken here, you still have to work on it a little bit.
The staff has made some good comments, the District is going to
make a heck of a lot more comments, but let's move forward.
And I think we're missing an opportunity if we don't do that.
Okay, what kind of action do we want to take? What's the
pleasure?
MR. CARLSON: One more question. Who's responsii
Page 64
le
March 7, 2001
long-term compliance? Who inspects for 20 years from now the
melaleuca situation or--
MS. BURGESON: Collier County has annual monitoring
requirements, but that is only until build-out of the project. And
build-out of the project is when it is at that point where it's I
think 80 percent complete. After that point it's -- it is strictly up
to the homeowners' association to comply, unless it's turned in
as a code enforcement violation.
And even on the annual monitoring reports, we often don't
get responses. For instance, we've submitted two, three and
four years of annual monitoring reports that may all read about
the same that say there's an exotic problem in your preserve
areas that needs to be fixed. Sometimes it ends up having to go
into a code enforcement case to resolve the issue, because
we're so understaffed that we just don't -- it's difficult for county
staff to be proactive in making sure that those projects maintain
their required agreement to annual maintenance for exotics.
MS. BISHOP: And might I suggest that once this is a
conservation easement, that it's in perpetuity that I have to take
care of this. So by the District and the corps permit alone, I have
to keep this area free of exotics. There is no choice.~
And the intent -- what our intent is on this project, after we
get it ready and are finished with the plantings and the
restoration and the creation, is to turn it over to CREW to see if
they would like to have that. Then that becomes theirs. And
from that perspective, then they would be the entity; after we've
made it all nice, then they're the entity who would keep that up.
But the conservation easements don't allow you to hurry the
vestation (sic) or you are in violation of your permits and your
easements.
MR. CARLSON: There's a big difference between the CREW
project and the CREW trust.
MS. BISHOP: True, I understand that. And this is the trust.
MR. CARLSON: So are we looking at the CREW, the South
Florida Water Management District via the CREW project would
inherit the conservation area?
MS. BISHOP: In they want it. I mean, obviously the
homeowners associations are ulti -- in our permitting process,
it's going to be the master association CDD that's going to be
ultimately responsible for the permit now. If they choos~"~"-~
March 7, 2001
~' ~ some type of overall entity, and that's the paperwork we'r,
this from us, then we will give that to them. But obviously they'll
have to maintain the same level of exotic free area as we will as
under the CDD.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Oh, Allie, excuse me.
MS. SANTORO: Could I expand a little bit? I'm waiting for--
it's Karen, right? I'm waiting for a response. It's not just this
project, but then we have the one next door, then we might have
Parklands, then we're going to have Lee County. I think you need
an overall person that's monitoring the program.
And I'm not belittling the county if they don't have the
money. But this is regional. So who's going to take a look?
Who's going to monitor? Who's going to make sure that the
homeowners in one section keeps the materials functioning
versus the somebody who's got a more sophisticated water
operation?
MS. JOHNSON: Karen Johnson, for the record.
That's a good question. That's some of the questions we've
asked. We've heard them talk about a CDD. That's one of the
options we proposed for the attorneys up front~ because that
would put together under one umbrella.
Karen mentions giving the property to CREW. As some of
you know, CREW does not have the ability -- or the CREW trust
does not have the ability to manage or restore lands. Therefore,
by default it actually goes to the Water Management District
through the CREW program.
The caveats on that are that we require audits, phase one
audits of the minimum of the property before it's given to us. It
also has to either come with monies to accomplish the
restoration and the long-term management or they will have to
do the restoration up front and monitor it for a minimum of five
years until the District agrees all the restoration is successful,
and then we can take over the management. But that also
comes with a price tag. The District is not -- no longer funding
management of mitigation areas for private landowners.
So those are similar questions of the questions we're asking
of each applicant through the process, and specifically as
regards to flowway. Any on-site preserves we feel can be
managed on a project-by-project basis via homeowners'
association. But for the flowway itself, we would like to see
~till
AGENDA
Page 66
APR 2 ~ 2001'
March 7, 2001
looking for back to us.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Ms. Johnson, am I correct that you
wouldn't issue a permit until you're satisfied that there will be
somebody to maintain it?
MS. JOHNSON: That's correct, we will not.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL: Very quick, Mr. Chairman. I guess I sounded
more negative than I meant to sound, but I would approve the
project, considering the importance of the flood relief and flood
control, if somehow we can build into the approval an attempt
through all the agencies to look and see if we cannot achieve the
same thing and preserve more acreage, more wetland acreage,
effective wetland acreage.
Maybe that is part of what you're going to do, and maybe
that's part of what the permitting agencies are going to ask you
to do. But if it goes through here with an approval, I certainly
would want that very strongly stated in the approval that we
don't like the magnitude of the wetlands which are lost, even
though some of them are very badly infested with melaleuca;
that somehow we create and solve the same problems and save
more effective and functional wetlands in the process.
MS. BISHOP: I think that's a great idea. And I'm sure Mr.
Neiswander, who's owned this property for a pretty long time,
wasn't too happy about not having as much uplands as he used
to have either, so, you know, our process will be to, through the
agencies, to take their comments and to justify our project
through that, whether it be moving the golf course, less impacts,
whatever it may be, mitigation, adjacent mitigation or buying
upland for mitigation. All of those things are a part of that
process to get your permitting.
This is just zoning. So this doesn't give me the ability to do
anything more than to move to the next -- to the Planning
Commission and get their review and then to the board. I still
cannot even pull one local permit without having the Corps and
the District permit in place.
MR. HILL: From an economics standpoint, is there any way
to build Lee County into the economic picture, since we are
alleviating Bonita Springs?
MS. BISHOP: You've been talking to Clarence Tear
you? I can tell.
Page 67
No. Jo~ J~ I
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
Unfortunatelygetting that -- you know, opening that
Pandora's box would probably turn this project into a 10-year
ordeal, trying to get everybody together on this. We've accepted
the financial responsibility to do this. That's the whole point
here. We have taken that on and have decided this is how we're
going to do it, and so that's what we're trying to accomplish
through this process.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Barber?
MR. BARBER: Rick Barber, for the record.
One of the things I tried to show you in the beginning was
that there has been a lot of effort on Lee County's part to
alleviate some of the things that we saw in '95. A vast majority
of the water that comes down through here is from Collier
County. If you go out to Lake Trafford in that area, in Ed's area
north of there, that is Collier County. So it's Collier County
water. Not that water knows political boundaries. But this is the
first opportunity for Collier County to get involved in the process.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, would you entertain a
motion with that particular stipulation that you just made?
MR. HILL: Yes, I would. I move we give tentative -- that's
not fair -- we give approval to this projeCt, with the stipulation
that in the ensuing permitting process every effort is made to
have total cooperation between all agencies and developers, and
an attempt be made to increase -- or decrease the impacted
wetlands, the loss of wetlands. Is that too lengthy?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sounds good to me.
Do I hear a second to that motion?
MR. GAL: I'll second the stipulation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any discussion on the motion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion. Aye.
MR. HILL: Aye.
MR. GAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All opposed?
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
MR. COE: Aye.
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Four opposed. The motion fails.
Page 68
AC-~A ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
.,.
Four negative, three positive.
Do I hear a replacement vote? Folks, we've got to dc
March 7, 2001
something.
MR. GAL: I'll move for approval of the project, subject to
staff recommendations and stipulations provided to this council
earlier.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, the motion is to approve it as
the staff recommendations are in the staff report; is that
correct?
MR. GAL.' That's correct.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Do I hear a second to that motion?
MR. HILL: To get it on the table, I second it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Second. Discussion on that motion.
Hearing none, all those in favor of that motion.
MR. GAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye.
Opposed?
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
MR. COE: Aye.
MS. SANTORO: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: It fails, five opposed, two in favor.
Is that correct?
Okay, Mr. Carlson, why don't you try.
MR. CARLSON: Oh, boy.
MR. HILL: Ed, I know you're -- if you'll let me interrupt, I
know how you feel, and I'm sympathetic, but I think we have an
opportunity here to make some positive steps in Collier County
from the standpoint combined effect of flood control and wetland
preservation. So I would hate to see us lose this opportunity to
make some substantial statements to both developers and the
county. Maybe my motion was not strong enough to say that, but
I hope we don't lose this opportunity to make some progress.
MR. CARLSON: Well, a statement is what I'm trying to make.
I -- this project has a lot of positive points. The flowway concept
and working together is very positive. I just think if we're going
to send a message to anyone who proposes developing in an
area that is this wet and has this much jurisdictional wetland,
that when they're looking at cjustering and they're looking at
designing their project, that they are bending' over backwards to
have a minimal impact on wetlands that have water. And I just --
I can't send the message otherwise. I just can't do it. ~m~
Page 69
,APR 2 ~ 200!
March 7, 2001
I would recommend denial, based on the fact that as
subjective as these objectives are that we have before us, you
know, we don't say in this county there'll be zero wetlands loss,
we don't say 90 percent -- or 10 percent loss is okay or 20
percent loss, we don't have that number to work with. We have
these words like acceptable or unacceptable.
And if I have to vote, it's going to be when I look at this
development plan, even though it looks like there's a lot of
preserve there and there's been a lot of work in working with this
flowway, and I respect the work Mr. Barber's done, he's worked
very hard, when I look at the proposed development and I look at
has the development had the least amount of impact, has the
cjustering had the least amount -- been designed to have the
least amount of impact, I just don't feel it. I just don't feel that
way.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have a motion on the floor for
denial. Is there a second to the .motion? MR. COE.' Second.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY'. Second by Mr. Coe.
Favor of the motion?
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
MS. LYNNE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One, two.
MR. CARLSON: (Indicates.)
MR. COE: (Indicates.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Three, four.
Opposed to the motion?
Aye.
MR. GAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Two.
MR. HILL: (Indicates.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Three.
The motion passes four to three to deny -- recommend denial
to the Board of County Commissioners.
MS. BURGESON: No, it does not. We need a vote of five for
it to be a motion. To be a formal motion, the board needs five
votes.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We didn't get it.
MR. GAL: What was that?
MS. SANTORO: No action.
Page 70
AGENDA ~TEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. COE: Vote for denial again.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, vote for denial. Okay.
Basically support of Mr. Carlson's motion. Poll the County
Commission -- I mean poll the council. Mr. Hill?
MR. HILL: Nay.
MS. LYNNE.' Aye.
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Nay.
MR. COE: Aye.
MS. SANTORO: Aye.
MR. GAL: Nay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Same thing, four in favor, three. So
it seems that we're at a deadlock on that.
So at this point there has been three -- excuse me, two
motions before the board that have failed; one to approve, it fell
four to three, and one to deny, it --
MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I could rise to a point of order, I
believe the two motions, 4-3, both passed.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed, excuse me, you're right.
MS. WHITE: There's a distinction as to whether they
constitute official action on the part of the council. I think that
you have two parallel motions that I believe will send the same
message, which is that there was a recommendation of denial,
although it's not official action on the part of the EAC.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I think that's all we can do,
unless the council wants to try something else.
MR. HILL: Well, didn't this arise in one other project, that if
we don't have official action, the BCC doesn't see it, unless they
read the minutes, but if there is an official action, it gets to the
BCC? Am I correct?
MR. BELLOWS: No. For the record, Ray Bellows, principal
planner.
The staff report in the executive summary that goes to the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
reflects the action by the board and will say how the vote was
taken, reasons for denial and that there was not an official --
Okay, thank you everybody
Page 71
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY:
much.
March 7, 2001
MS. BURGESON: You need to take a break?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we take a little break, Barb?
Folks? Thanks. (Recess.)
MS. BURGESON: Just as a matter of timing, I wanted to go
through the -- I wanted to go through the rest of the agenda here
very quickly.
We have this one other PUD, land use petition for Terafina.
Since Bill Lorenz had to attend another meeting at 3:30, he had
to leave. However, Mack Hatcher is here, and Bill wanted to try
to have Mack make some presentation or discussions regarding
the annual report, and also to get the commission's comments on
the wetlands policy. If there were any issues that the
commission wanted to make sure that staff had for Bill's review,
we were going to stay and allow the commission to present
those positions.
The growth management subcommittee discussion on Bill's
part, obviously we'll have to wait till next meeting, unless one of
the committee members'wants to bring the board up to date on
that.
And I'm not sure how long the members are available, if
we're going to keep a quorum. I just wanted to get everybody's --
a feel for--
MR. COE: I'm good till 5:30.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm good for the duration. How's
the rest of them; how are we doing?
MS. SANTORO: Good for the duration.
MR. GAL: I'll be here forever.
MR. HILL: Would you put that in the form of a motion?
MS. LYNNE: I'm here for the duration.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, it looks like we have six --
where are we, six right? Yeah, we'll have six people to be here
past 5:30.
Okay, let's go ahead with the agenda, Barbara, if we could.
Staff people the same thing? I mean, do we want to try one of
the staff items before we hear the petition, or what do you want
to do?
MS. BURGESON: No, we're all fine. I probably will be
leaving a little bit early, so if you could just run the agen a
without me, that's fine.
Page 72
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 q 2001
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barb, it will be very difficult for me,
you know that.
Okay, go ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: Do we have to be sworn in?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, swear in, everybody that's
going to comment on this one.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the
principal planner with the planning services.
Petitioner is proposing to rezone 646 acres from agriculture
to planned unit development.
As was previously discussed on the last petition, this
project is located in the urban residential area. It's adjacent to
the Mirasol PUD that was just heard. To the north is the
Parklands PUD. To the south is the Olde Cypress PUD.
The petitioner proposes 850 dwelling units. The master plan
also provides for 126 acres of golf course and open space and
approximately seven acres for a golf course clubhouse. There's
also a proposal for a village commercial area that will serve the
development.
The subject site is located in the urban residential district
on the Future Land Use Map, which permits these types of uses.
It's consistent with the Growth Management Plan in terms of
density, which has a base density of four units per acre.
Proposed density of this project is about 1.3 units per acre.
It's consistent with the traffic circulation element and the
other elements of the Growth Management Plan.
I'd be happy to answer any planning questions that you
might have.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions from the council?
Hearing none, Steve?
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger,
Development Services.
The subject property, as Ray mentioned, sits next to the
PUD you just heard, Mirasol. Mirasol would be this proposed PUD
in the map on this area here. And Terafina would sit immediately
to the west of it.
It also shares a portion of the proposed flowway, which will
go through the project and down and through Olde CyprE
you've already heard plenty about.
Page 73
SS, .4~RI~A iTEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
p~. //'~_
March 7, 2001
The site, as you can see from the aerial on the wall, is all
vegetated. Noticeable features are some cypress domes. They
sit in this area here. The cypress surround areas, which are
mainly herbaceous, with deeper water vegetation, mostly
willows, some pop ash, things of this nature. There's also a
cypress dome in this area.
There are also cypress areas more scattered and spread out
in a slough type setting on the lower east side of the project.
Most of the project is heavily invaded with melaleuca. You
saw a slide presentation earlier about a fire which went through
Mirasol. That fire burnt extensive areas of this PUD, mostly in
the center, on over into this way here.
I did have a chance to walk the property with the
consultant. We took a transect. We walked up to this way
through the pine flatwoods on this portion, through the edge of
the cypress dome, We walked up through this way.
This area is heavily invaded with melaleuca. I do have a
picture of the staff report. It was -- most of the pines were dead.
Pretty much all of them are dead. And it looked pretty ghostly
when we walked through it because the frost had just went
through and actually killed the sprouts on the melaleuca. So
there were -- there was no green pretty much for this whole
portion when I walked it. It was pretty depressing.
We took the transect back this way. There's an extensive
area of pine flatwoods in this portion. Looks pretty nice. I have
a picture of it in the staff report.
And then we went down to this portion here. This area has
the mixed cypress I was just talking about.
The petitioner is proposing to preserve all the cypress
domes, as a matter of fact, all the cypress on the project, except
for what will be needed to construct the flowway.
The cypress dome shows up here, the one we walked
through, and the other one sits on this portion of the property
here. This portion preserve, as proposed, is mostly upland.
The project site has quite a bit of wetlands. It's 646 acres
total. It's 533 acres of wetlands. And the petitioner is proposing
impact of a little more than 50 percent, 280 acres.
Mitigation proposed will be construction of the flowway, and
that will be in this area, this large preserve, on the eastern
portion of the project. Removal of exotics and also rev
Page 74 APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
with native species. Apparently there have been discussions
with the Water Management District. They're requiring about a
million dollars worth of off-site mitigation for compensation for
wetlands losses on this property.
As far as protected species on site, protected species, the
only one observed as far as animals was a Big Cypress fox
squirrel on the western portion of the project. There are some
documented cavity trees on the northwest portion of the PUD,
but those have since been abandoned and the trees are dying.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Tim
Hall is here also to answer any questions specific to the site.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Lenberger?
MR. CARLSON: Water levels. What are the water levels on
the site?
MR. LENBERGER: I put the elevations in the staff report.
Let me get those for you.
MR. CARLSON: Does this project suffer from the same water
regime as the previous project?
MR. LENBERGER: No, it's the same as the other project.
MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert Duane from
Hole, Montes & Associates. I'll be very brief, as I think the
presentations have highlighted some of the saline points.
MS. LYNNE: Can you speak a little louder?
MR. DUANE: Yes.
MS. LYNNE: I can't hear you.
MR. DUANE: We are an 850-acre -- 850-unit project on
almost one section of land. We are proposing 274 acres of both
uplands and wetland preserve areas in our project. It's depicted
on the wall there in the dark green areas, are our preserve area
which comprise about 45 percent of the project. I would point
out to you that's substantially in excess of the minimum
requirements, as it should be for this project. But I note that we
have almost exceeded by twofold the base requirement of 25
percent.
We have a recommendation of approval here. I concur with
your staff that we comply with your comprehensive plan as it
exists today in the half a dozen policies that are set forth in your
staff report.
Unlike the project that was before you today, we are
in the urban area, and we're sandwiched in between OId~
Page 75
entirely
APE :2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
Cypress and the Parklands. So I think there are some
distinctions we can make between this project and the project
that went before you today.
We are also working toward regional solutions of the
flowway as you now know. We are far along into the permitting
process, perhaps even a little further than the project that you
heard earlier on your agenda. Karen can ad-lib for me.
But we hope to have our permit, if we're lucky, as soon as
May. But we've also been in the permitting process for some
time.
Well, that was my optimistic prediction. We've been at this
for some time, just like the project has that was before you. And
if you look at our master plan here, we only have 140 acres of our
section in actual area for residential development or residential
pods; albeit, we do have a golf course that's approximately 120
acres in area or so.
And I would be frank with you to tell you that were we --
unlike the project before us that had two or three sections of
land, to reach out in this project and go beyond the preserve
areas that we have here, we either lose the golf course or we
lose o'ur 140 acres of residential development, which supports
our 850 units, which is a gross density of about 1.3 units per
acre. Not a high density project.
I think Ray pointed out to you that we're entitled to four.
But a predominant pattern of development is going to be
single-family for this particular project.
Just to close, my opinion, we meet your requirements and
we're consistent with the comprehensive plan.
And our team here consists of Mr. Barber, whom you heard
earlier, George Hermanson, senior vice president of my company,
Jerry Neal, who's also a project engineer. Tim Hall, who is our
environmental consultant. And I'm the consultant on the
planning and land development issues, and I'd be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, can we take a break for just
a second, because we're going to -- (Brief recess.)
MR. DUANE.' Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Hermanson to
make just a brief comment.
MR. HERMANSON'. Just to bring you up-to-date on
Page 76
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
As you notice, there is really only one stipulation that staff is
recommending, which is that we sustain our South Florida Water
Management permit. And I wanted to give you just an update on
where we are on that.
Notwithstanding the fact that formalization of the
agreement of the properties has to be made to maintain the
flowway like you discussed earlier, I believe the technical issues
on the project are substantially resolved. We made a
re-submittal to the South Florida Management District last week.
And I think we have addressed all of those satisfactorily.
We may get a couple of clarification-type issues that may
come up, but I don't believe there's anything substantial with
respect to the plan. So I think we're doing pretty good on the
Water Management permit. We can resolve the agreement issue
on the flowway. We'll be all set.
And, of course, our Corps permit is in with the other permits
that are going to come up for public notice before. So I think --
I'm pretty optimistic about our permitting situation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Question to the petitioner?
Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: This particular development
then is within the growth management line, is it?
MR. DUANE.' Yes. It's entirely within the boundary of the
urban area and it's straddled in between projects that already
have zoning to the north and south of us. The Old Cypress PUD
has --
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Whereas the one next-door is --
MR. DUANE: Right. The one next-door was a little further to
the east and abutted the CREW lands. So I appreciate you
recognizing that.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: And there's no problem with
water or sewers for your particular location?
MR. DUANE: Well, we're served by the same sewage
treatment plant that you may have discussed earlier. And there
will be improvements coming on-line. And if the capacity is not
there when we're ready to pull permits, then we won't be putting
houses up, only infrastructure. CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: How much of the project
jurisdictional wetland?
Page 77
area is
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
MR. DUANE: I would refer to Mr. Hall, but a substantial
portion of it is jurisdictional wetlands, as I understand it. 533 of
our 646 acres.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So what does that work out to;
does somebody have a calculator?
But basically my question is --
COMMISSIONER COE: 95 percent, 94 percent.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: How then does the design of
your residential project minimize impacts to the jurisdictional
wetlands?
MR. DUANE: Well, we've minimized our impacts by providing
you almost 300 acres of our section and contributing to a
flowway and preserving an upland area that Mr. Lenberger
pointed out to you that is already here. And we've concentrated
our development in the areas of lower quality wetlands. I think
I'm just echoing Mr. Lenberger at this point. But have preserved
the heart of it, as we should do.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: But if this was an area that is
already wetland, why would protecting 300 acres for a flowway --
why -- I mean, that just seems like a given to leave the wetlands
in wetlands and minimize the spatial extent of the wetlands it's
impacted.
I mean, you're not giving anything by giving away a couple of
hundred or 300 acres for a flowway. It has to be there.
MR. DUANE: But we're also giving areas outside the
flowway. We're substantially exceeding your minimal
requirements that we should. We comply -- and I don't mean to
be flippant, Mr. Carlson.
We comply with Objective 6.2, 6.2(10), 6.2(13), 6.3, 6.4 and
6.4(6) as determined by your staff. I think that also needs to be
given some weight today. We comply with your requirements as
we understand them.
And we're allowed a certain allowed -- a certain amount of
latitude in impacting these lower quality wetlands, provided that
we provide the mitigation that is called for in your plan as it
exists today. Would you disagree with that?
I am not trying to be argumentative, but I will just leave it at
that. That's on the record. Your staff will --
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, I just think that --_
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can I do one thing real qu~ck tf~..~,
| 2ooi, |
Page
78
March 7, 2001
effort at minimizing the impact on the wetlands.
what you were talking about.
important in the middle of this because Karen has got to get out
of here for a second? Can you -- you don't?
Don't you guys have to head back pretty soon? I just
wanted to stop for a second and see if you all had any comments
on this particular petition, anything you wanted to say on this
petition.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you guys. I'm sorry.
MR. THOMPSON: Richard Thompson, for the record. We
have a lot of history on this project. I mean, we denied it two
years ago. It has been, what, two, two and a half years in
mitigation trying to come up with a plan that works.
We are getting closer to an engineering plan for the
community. However, we did get a set of plans last Friday --
which the last time we sent out comments on this we were still
lacking plans for the flowway. We now have a set of plans for
the flowway and we have a set of plans for this development.
And the two don't match.
So we're still having the failure to communicate that we
discussed earlier about the flowway and the design plans for this
are not utilizing the same information and the same assumptions.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would the petitioner like to address
that?
MR. DUANE: We agree with the stipulation that we've got to
get a permit and we have to resolve these issues with the
district. Just off the plans here -- I'm not sure this is the best
forum to--
MR. THOMPSON: It's not.
MR. DUANE: So--
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, okay. Thank you very much.
We really appreciate you ali's input in coming to see us today. I
know you guys had a tough time getting up here.
Okay. Mr. Carlson, I interrupted you. Go right ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I forgot what I was going to say.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It happens when you get old.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Age does it.
COMMISSIONER COE: With the hair goes the brain.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: You were stating that there is
going to be loss of wetlands here and that there is no obvious
I belie, ,~ th~t'.~
AGENDA ITEl
Page 79
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: I guess one thing that bothers me
-- and I don't know if it's important or not. Maybe other people on
the Board know. I don't like to see cypress domes destroyed
even if -- and put into the middle of a flowway. Cypress domes
have got some really useful functions. And just to flood them out
I don't think is, in general, a good idea.
MR. HALL: Tim Hall, for the record.
I just wanted to address both yours and, I think, some of Mr.
Carlson's concerns. The jurisdictional on this property showed
that there was 133 acres of uplands. The problem is that the
uplands aren't all contiguous. They're not in one big lump sum.
They're spread out all throughout -- throughout mostly the
western portion of the project, which is where they have
attempted to put the residential and the golf course
development.
The developer has also attempted to -- or has also managed
to design the system to where those wetland areas are still
hydrologically connected to the flowway in a manner such that
when the -- when the elevation within the flowway preserve that
was presented during the last presentation elevates, that water
has the potential to flow back into the internal preserves and act
as additional storage capacity for that drainage basin.
The cypress dome is not being impacted. The two cypress
domes that Steve had mentioned are not being -- the one is
contained in the preserve area that you see in the lower corner.
The dark green. That's one of the domes with a buffer around it.
It is not just the dome. There is some upland and marginal
wetlands surrounding that dome. So it is not right up against the
development. It is contained within it. And, as I said before, it is
still connected hydrologically so that the water table within the
dome will elevate and lower as it does now.
The other preserve up to the north contains mostly uplands.
The applicant, the developer -- we could have minimized our
wetland impacts by constructing some of the residential and
some of the golf course within those uplands. However, those
were the areas that historically had the RCWs.
And based on conversations with the wildlife agencies, it
Page 80
was determined that an attempt would be made to keep those
APR 2 q 2001
areas in preserve and hopefully entice the woodpeckers
March 7~ 2001
back into the area. It's wide enough and the existing vegetation,
with a little management -- basically some removal of melaleuca
that's coming into it and some mid-story management, taking out
some of the wax myrtle or that mid-story vegetation and opening
up the views between the remaining pine trees, would help to
facilitate that.
I'm not arguing that there's a lot of-- there are a lot of
impacts -- wetland impacts associated with this as well, but
some of those impacts are a result of conversations that we've
had with wildlife agencies in an attempt to preserve the uplands
that are necessary to the species that would be utilizing the
area.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON.. So the trees didn't burn up in
that red-cockaded woodpecker area; those pines are still fine?
MR. HALL-' No. The trees that had the cavities in them -- I
believe all but one are dead. The one that is remaining was
being used by a downy. The one cavity -- the one remaining
cavity was being used last year by a downy.
I apologize in that I did not do the original threatened and
endangered species survey on this site. I have done some
follow-up work since I became involved with it. And I have seen
no other activity.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON.. Okay.
MR. HALL.. The fire -- as I had explained earlier on the other
one, the fire caused a lot of damage through there in that the
trees that were already stressed -- I believe because of the
fluctuating water levels, the fire either killed them outright or
stressed them further to where the bark -- a bark beetle
infestation came in and killed off the rest of them.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY-' Questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER HILL,, What's the distribution of multifamily
and single-family?
MR. DUANE= The 850 units can be either single or
multifamily. It's the option of the developer.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HILL,, Could you further minimize impact on
the wetlands by cjustering -- and I'll use the term high-rise,
multi-story as opposed to single-family; the concentration?
MR. DUANE-- Well, that's theoretically possible, but ~"~'=~-c~~
preference for my client is for this to have more of a mi~ of~ ~ ~
Page 81
APR 2 ~ 2001.
//£
March 7, 2001
single-family uses than multifamily uses on the project. If we did
what you suggest, which is, again, possible, we could probably
avail ourselves of a great number of more units in this project.
But we've chosen to keep it at a Iow density project at about one
dwelling unit per acre.
MR. HALL: Tim Hall again. Something else I might just want
to draw your attention to briefly is that the preserve on the
eastern boundary was designed to match up with either what's
existing or what is proposed for the developments to the north
and to the south. The line on the southern boundary matches up
with the existing Old Cypress preserve boundary. It doesn't -- if
we went further to the west, you would have the preserve up
against the residential component of Old Cypress. And on the
north side, it matches up with the boundary that is proposed in
the Parklands DRI.
Another thing that the developer did was he did give up
some of his residential lots to -- to keep wooded areas so that, in
essence, a corridor or at least a -- there is a pathway from all of
the preserve areas to the larger preserve area without anything
having to go through somebody's yard. There's either a forested
or a golf course connection from all of those preserve areas to
the large preserve area outside.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you.
Any discussion? Hearing none, what is the pleasure?
COMMISSIONER HILL: I guess it needs to be said -- and
back to my question about multi-story. The County, and in
particular this Council, has the charge to protect the
environmental aspects of Collier County. When you come to
residential development with the requirements that are
stipulated in the land development code, particularly with
respect to wetlands, functioning wetlands -- I don't want to
sound nasty, but developer's preference as opposed to
multifamily versus single-family I don't think is a ma]or -- is a
major factor in what we can consider here.
We have to weigh property rights and the environmental
problems. And that scale is not easy all the time. And you can
get the same density -- you can get a higher density if you want,
more towards what is allowed, and still minimize -- further
minimize the impact on wetlands.
And that's where we're coming from.
Page 82
And that's a di
APR ,2 .~ 2001
March 7, 2001
balance to -- to find. And I think we need to perhaps put more
pressure on developers to consider those sources.
MR. DUANE: I understand your point. And my point is that
this is a market-driven project. I don't know that there's a
market for high-rise development at this location.
Cjustering, we all use that term. But we have 140 acres out
of our 650 acres that we're actually constructing units on. So
that represents a minority of the project area.
But I understand your point, but the market is for a plan
somewhat what you see today. I'm not aware that there is
anything that mandates us to be multifamily or single-family, but
philosophically I understand your point entirely.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many units are we planning to
put on here?
MR. DUANE: There would be a maximum of 850 units on 646
acres at 1.3 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But I mean on the 140.
MR. DUANE: On the 140 it would be probably closer to six or
seven units per acre.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Six or seven units per acre. You're
talking multifamily housing. You're talking villas on 50.foot lots
or you're talking two-story condos.
MR. DUANE: Or the density goes down.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. Or the density goes down.
COMMISSIONER HILL: I understand that. But all I'm saying
is to look for a balance between environmental impacts and
density. I think that's one of the problems this Council has in
resolving proposals of this nature.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any other discussion on this
particular petition?
Okay. Public comment. I forgot about that. Nobody is here.
Yes, sir.
MR. NEALE: Jerry Neale. I just need to stress one thing
that -- unfortunately they have left. But the wetland issue of this
development has been approved and it was approved by South
Florida Water Management somewhere around September,
November of last year. The only thing we're working out is the
flowway design as to what kind of channel.
I don't know if you were aware of the fact that South
is on record. They have already approved the plan, as far
Page 83
as~ 1~, R,
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
impacts and our proposed mitigation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The pleasure of the Council.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just ask that if there is any
disclosures required regarding contacts --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I forgot about disclosures. Sorry
about that.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Did anyone have any discussion
with the petitioner regarding this item?
Hearing none, what is the pleasure?
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I thought that when the South
Florida Water District people were here they still had some
concerns.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: On the flowways.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO:
gave the permit, but --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO:
Yeah. And he's saying that they
That's not what he said.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COE: Only on what impacts for the
wetlands.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Oh, not the flowways?
COMMISSIONER COE.' Not the flowways.
MR. HERMANSON: May I try to answer that? George
Hermanson again.
I don't really know what Richard was saying. There was --
we had a very extensive meeting with him about a month ago
before we made our last submittal. He said the flowway cross
section you have doesn't match what we are looking at here. He
has put these dimensions on here. He put them on just like you
said.
And so I don't really know what he means by they don't
match. But on the way out he said, "Let's have a meeting next
week." So Rick and I are going to go up and resolve it.
It's just a matter of putting the dimensions on the drawings
that he wants. And maybe we're having a misunderstanding
there, but that is not an issue. We'll put any dimension they
want. It is not a problem. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think it's that simple. T!
district did tell me that they have other problems with thi
Page 84
APR 2 4 2001
March 7, 2001
project as they were leaving.
MR. HERMANSON: Did they say what?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. I don't know.
MR. HERMANSON: The only -- I can bring our comment
letter that we got. There were no concerns within the project.
As Jerry mentioned, the wetland issues have been resolved. We
have had no additional comments about the wetlands.
There were a lot of clarifications as to the way the drawings
appeared. We've taken care of that. We may get a call on some
minor -- straggler issues is what I call them. But I don't know
what the flowway issues -- other than possibly some dimensional
changes and formulating the agreement for the maintenance of
the system.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The district has left and I have heard
two people in a row say that they don't have any problems with
this project. But they did tell me that they do before they left
and they hung around purposely to talk about this project, so -
MR. HERMANSON: About the flowway?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, no. About the whole project, yes,
and the flowway. They said that the big problem with the
flowway was that the two sets of drawings that they have don't
match. But they told me they had other problems with the
project. I don't know what they are.
MR. HERMANSON: I don't know. Maybe it's a question of:
Is the glass half full or half empty? I don't know how to -- I don't
know how to address those, Start, because that isn't the tone of
their letter at all.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But the bottom line is that you
don't get a permit until they agree to it.
MR. HERMANSON: That's correct.
We have to cross every
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. NEALE: May I interject one thing?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me.
MR. NEALE: The points that we're referring to that have
already been approved -- because we are going through this
procedure with South Florida Water Management, they are
documented by the attorney on our side, the attorney for South
Florida Water Management, and the mediator attorney thid~___
appointed by the courts. So the things we're saying, we ~:a~~
Page 85 I .~PR2~
2001
March 7, 2001
you the legal documents that say what we're saying is the facts.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Very good.
Okay. Let's decide what we're doing here, folks.
Mr. Hill, you were so articulate before when you put that one
together, do you want to try it again?
COMMISSIONER HILL: No. I have -- I have a problem with
what's been quoted here as -- with respect to the procedure. We
now find that supposedly, according to the representative of the
developer, that South Florida Water Management District has
already approved all of the wetland considerations. That
disappointments me if that is the case. That that has been done
prior to it coming before the Environmental Advisory Council.
Something is it out of order here if that indeed is the case.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, really the unfortunate fact is
that South Florida doesn't pay a lot of attention to us when it
comes to wetland designations.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Well, maybe we have to change that
or at least try to change it. I mean, if this Council is to have any
viable position in Collier County, maybe we need to strengthen
our horns a little bit or sharpen them or do something with it.
Maybe we'll be heard at some point in time.
We've been given the charge of coming up with wet --
improved wetland ordinances. Well, good heavens, why waste --
spin our wheels if nobody is going to pay any attention to --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, the County Commission will
be paying attention to us. And that's the process.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Are you sure about that?
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: South Florida has their set of rules.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥: But that's where that wetlands is
going to go. I mean, South Florida has their set of rules that they
follow -- they have to follow. And what -- you know, those rules
are not necessarily -- as I mentioned when we were talking about
our wetland ordinance, they are not necessarily the same rules
that we're putting
together. They're very close, but those rules are not going to
change for something we do.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes.
Page 86
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 200t
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: One of the things that we're
looking at is wetlands ordinance. And I have heard two
developers come in and say -- one specifically said 75 percent
melaleuca, well, then it is not jurisdictional wetlands. It is
interesting that both of these projects are coming in with 50
percent of wetlands being affected and they're melaleuca
infected.
We all looked at that and said we don't want that greater
than 75 percent making it a Type III. We want anything with a
flowway being a Type I. So our mentality is saying, "Don't affect
more than five percent at the most of an area."
And you're all coming in affecting 50 percent. And I think
this is -- and on top of that we had --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Remember, that's an ordinance that
has not been passed by the County Commission.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I know. But I'm saying mentally
this is what this Board is about. And the question that the South
Florida Water group came and said they still have questions on it,
the question that the design is not minimizing -- I looked and you
don't have to have a golf course or a clubhouse. That's 133 more
acres that you could give to the wetlands.
So the question is: Is the design the greatest to allow for
the least impact on wetlands? I think these are real questions
that are coming up.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that somewhere in our
equation when we're looking at things -- it is like a conversation I
had one day with a staff person who was very -- that said, "Why
do you need 18 holes; why can't you just have 177"
There are some viabilities to a project that we have to look
at. And the viability is it has to be matched with the
environmental concerns. To have an 18-hole golf course is
something that this developer is attempting to bring in within the
wetland regulations that presently exist. Whether -- again,
whether it's perfect or not, I don't know.
I think we have an opportunity again here with the flowway
set up and a considerable number of -- a high number of wetlands
preserved and enhanced because the quality we have out there.
And, again, I think we're missing an opportunity. It's not perfect,
no,
Does it mess up a lot of areas that are wetlands, acc ^~rd~[~'~'
Page 87
APR 2/t 2001
March 7, 2001
to Mr. Carlson? I agree with him 100 percent. But what happens
if this doesn't happen? Where does this land go? Where does
that other piece of land go?
There gets to be more melaleucas. There gets to be more
fires. There gets to be more people dumping trash out there.
This is an opportunity to start turning things around in this
particular area and creating some flood relief and creating some
positives, although there are some negatives. And that's -- that's
all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I just want to add to it. I don't
want to be totally negative. I had wanted to see both of these
tabled for a little bit of looking at the design of the South Florida
Water Management Group. So I'm just -- I'm just not completely
sold right at this point. It is not that I think it is totally bad.
And I do think it's good. The flowway needs improvement.
You will help prevent flooding up in Bonita Springs.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Where do we move on this?
Somebody has got to make a motion one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, let me ask one more thing
real quick. Maybe there's no quick answer.
But this went before the South Florida Management District
governing board and they recommended denial?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes, it did. I wasn't involved in the
project at the time. I believe the flowway area was smaller.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yeah. Well, that was going to
be my next question. What has changed since that?
MR. HERMANSON: Well, the flowway has gotten larger. The
flowway, as a concept, didn't exist at that time. It was maybe in
some people's minds, but it wasn't brought to the point where it
is now.
This would not have participated in the flowway. So the
difference is the flowway is a little bigger. They're participating
in the flowway and the off-site mitigation. Those are the three
big things that have happened.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Was there no flowway just
because the land to the east was just not slated for development
and that was going to be the flowway?
MR. HERMANSON: I think when Mirasol jumped in that's
~--. when the opportunity came and that's when Mr. Barker's= ;;tm "'~t .
_. ' invo,ved in trying to bring the so'ution to he'p not on'y tl~es;~_~~ I
Page 88 I APR 2~ 2001
I
March 7, 2001
projects, but help the -- the environmental issues and the flood
issues, too.
That's what really jump-started it. Until that happened,
there was no way this project could stand on its own and say,
"We can do this and help the area."
And I did want to mention one thing. I hope you all aren't
concerned with the fact that we are -- maybe aren't as far along
with the Water Management District than we are. I realize that
this is more complicated than most projects that you've seen.
But in the vast majority of cases the zoning is approved first or is
issued first. Very seldom do I come to this Council and say, "1
have my Water Management District permit already or my Corps
permit."
The majority of cases that comes a little later. We're
usually in the process, like we are now, and we have a lot of
questions that have to be answered yet. Because that's much
more detailed than land use. This is just land use.
We have to -- we have to put every dimension on the
drawings just the way they want it. And that's the way it's going
to be on this one, too. So I would hope that the fact that we are
not inches away from the permit doesn't concern you overly so
because that's the way it is on most projects.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Based on excessive impact on
wetlands and
the questions which seem to exist with respect to South Florida
Water Management District, I move we recommend denial.
COMMISSIONER COE: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Coe. Any
discussion?
All in favor of the motion to deny signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER GAL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many is that? One, two, three,
four five are committing denial. ~
All in favor of -- against the motion to denial say ay~ ----""-,~ ~ i~
Page 89
APR 2 ~ 200!
March 7, 2001
Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion of denial passes 5-2.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Okay. Bill Hill had something on new business that he
wanted to talk about.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Very quick. I -- with Bob Muihere's
resignation, I would like to see the Council go on record thanking
him for his support of the Council and his efforts to Collier
County and wish him the best in his future employment. I move
that we put that in the form of a resolution or whatever.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So moved. Do I hear a second on
that?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: Second.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I believe it's passed unanimously.
How is that?
COMMISSIONER HILL: One of us should write it, I guess,
maybe.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I would like to see Mr. Hill write it.
How about you, Mr. Carlson?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HILL: I thought that that would be the
Chairman's --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We'll get it done.
COMMISSIONER HILL: I guess I fell into that one.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We still have a quorum.
(Commissioner Carlson left the Boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Stan, are you going to be running
this thing from this point on with Barbara gone?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I wasn't intending on doing that, no.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: *** Okay. We have -- do we need to
have the comments back on the wetlands ordinance? Does
anybody have any further comments from staff since our last
review of that?
I think we were pretty thorough on our last review, were we
not?
COMMISSIONER GAL: Did we finish our last review?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: As I recall, we were down to the
last page of the last section, which was more the techni
Page 90
APR 2 z} 2001
March 7~ 2001
of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought we had the technical
part pretty well done; that we were down more to the procedural
part. But, very honestly, I don't remember.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Didn't we resolve the Class I, II, III
totally; did we resolve that table totally?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Which was the --
COMMISSIONER COE: I'm still folded to this spot, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that that's where we left off.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I understand. I don't know at this
point.
COMMISSIONER COE: If there's anything wrong, it is the
Chairman's fault.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It is probably my fault. You know,
the buck stops here.
MR. HATCHER: For the record, Mac Hatcher, Collier County
Natural Resources.
Bill indicated that you all had gotten down through Policy
1.1.6.
(Commissioner Carlson enters the Boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER HILL: What page number is that?
MR. HATCHER: Page six.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't remember. No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HILL: What was that -- which --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page number six.
MR. HATCHER: Page number six about halfway down the
page through Policy 1.1.6 down to Policy 1.1.7.
COMMISSIONER HILL: That's where I have it marked.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think I have it.
Okay. Page six, 1.1.6. Let's have some input to staff on
what we're talking about here.
COMMISSIONER COE: Well, we've got the I to I ratio. I just
have some problems with a developer being able to take, say, an
acre of land that's wetlands that he is going to be able to make,
say, $2 billion on and he's going to go and buy mitigated land for,
say, $1,000 an acre and that's mitigation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I think you're going to find --
COMMISSIONER COE: Help me on that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBUR¥ -- few and far between if you're going
to take an acre of land in gross and make a million dollars on it.
You may make a lot within a particular community that y >u
Page 9t
APR 2 4 2001
March 7, 2001
a half a million dollars on or something of that sort. But that's
the part of the community which includes all the buffers and all
the preserved areas and all the golf courses and everything of
that sort. So I don't think that is a I to 1.
MR. HATCHER: Mitigation ratios are supposed to be based
on function.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Function, right.
COMMISSIONER COE: Okay.
MR. HATCHER: And mitigation should require that what gets
set aside provides the same or similar function to what is
developed.
COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. That answers that question.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'd say we've got I to 1. Any other
changes?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, wetland function is the way it
should be.
COMMISSIONER COE.' Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page six, Paragraph 1.1.6(1).
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Do we really want to do this
now?
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You know, I don't really think so. I
don't think our mind-set is there right now. I know we have been
putting it off, putting it off.
Why can't we set up to take the -- our next meeting and set
aside the very first item we do in the next meeting before we
hear anything to get this thing out of the way?
COMMISSIONER COE: I mean, I will come in at 8:00. I don't
care.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yeah. I will come in early.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm up early.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What time is reveille, by the way?
5:00 by me. I don't know what it is
COMMISSIONER COE:
for you civilians.
COMMISSIONER HILL:
5:00.
COMMISSIONER COE:
Yeah. Taps is at 4:00 though, not
telephone and try to set something up or we set aside a
Taps is as early as we can do it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't I call Barbara on the
Page 92
AF'R 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
of hours at our next meeting and tackle this issue?
COMMISSIONER COE: I don't think it will take us very long.
It should take an hour and a half.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Mac, do you know what is on
the horizon for us on the next meeting, as far as permit
applications?
MR. HATCHER: No. I'm not -- I am not up on that. I can give
you --
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me just give her a call.
MR. HATCHER: *** I can give you, I guess, a brief update on
what Bill's got kind of tentatively lined up in the not too distant
future in terms of the growth management issues. The -- we're
having a Board workshop on April 17th. And he's intending that
we will return to the Board of County Commissioners for formal
direction on May 22nd with an updated draft of the conceptual
plan for the -- for the rural fringe area. And so that's what we're
shooting for on the growth management issues.
He has also given to me some copies of the old annual
report and kind of set up a schedule that he feels like you all
need to follow for the production of the annual report. He'd like
to get a - well,
the annual report, I guess, is supposed to be done each year
obviously.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO.' Exactly.
MR. HATCHER: It should list the achievements for the prior
year, its objectives for the coming year and highlight
environmental issues that need further study. And he's shooting
for a first draft on your next meeting, April the 4th, adopt a report
on May 2nd, and present to the Board of County Commissioners
on May 22nd.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So he's going to present
something -- an
initial draft for us to review and comment on?
MR. HATCHER: Well, last year, I guess, Mr. Hill did --
COMMISSIONER HILL: Last year I produced the first draft
and had him bring in the items that we took care of, items on
record, and then we refined it here at a Council meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yeah. Just e-mail us.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Do you have copies of last
MR. HATCHER: Yes.
Page 93
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we do this. Why don't we
go ahead and any input that you may have on that, pop me an
e-mail on it and I'll try to come up with a draft, as Bill did last
year, and we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Achievements and goals.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think those are the kind of things
we are talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILL: And I would say it is a good
opportunity -- and it's actually future plans and missions or
Council concerns. I think it's a good time to say something
about where we should be going or what we should be doing or
what the concerns are.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where do we -- just a quick
question. Maybe Steve can -- where do we stand in regard to the
special master situation and all that and our function when the
special master -- if
that happens. Is that still something that's being worked on?
COMMISSIONER COE: The judge is supposed to know about
that.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. I forgot about the judge
over there.
MR. WHITE: I'm assuming you're referring to the hearing
examiner.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Hearing examiner, I'm
sorry.
MR. WHITE: Quite honestly, in the discussions that I've had
with Mr. Mulhere and others on staff, I think you all are pretty
secure in maintaining your seats until probably the turn of the
year in terms of actually functioning as a Board considering
rezoning and other types of matters that are part of your lists of
powers and duties. But, thereafter, I believe as to matters that
pertain to zoning or excavations and things along those lines,
that those will be heard by the hearing examiner and a
recommendation then made to the Board in writing on those
particular projects.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good.
MR. WHITE: I'm sure they're going to be looking to you for
policy direction and to give you an opportunity to spend more
time in your efforts and talents in that regard, rather than ii
considering individual cases.
Page 94
^~~
,,. /
March 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good.
Okay. If we would, as I said, if anybody could -- in looking at
last year's annual report, they can fire me an e-mail me over the
next three weeks any input they may have in putting together
what we can do, what we've achieved and what our goals are for
the next coming year, and then I will attempt to put that in draft
form for the April meeting.
*** Growth management subcommittee. Do we have any
report from our growth management subcommittee?
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: We've had two meetings. And
basically we reviewed with Bill Lorenz what the rural fringe
committee has been doing. And Ed is going to be attending the
eastern committee.
Basically there's two committees. One for the closed-in
section called the rural fringe. And then the eastern land
committee is the one farther out. So we hope to have
representation on both committees.
And the last meeting -- and Ed looked at it. Bill wasn't
present. But I was trying to -- I was a little hesitant on our
values of Type I, Type II, Type III. So Bill had given me what they
called the wrap, which a lot of the developers use for the
environmental assessment. I made a chart for our committee
and for Bill Lorenz taking the points and trying to put it back into
Type I, Type II or Type III.
I know what we think is Type I and probably what we have
as Type III, but I wasn't comfortable with what is in the middle.
So I am hoping that the subcommittee will take a look at the
chart and see if that helps at all. Staff was interested, but it has
to be quantitative and clear enough for them to do it on a point
basis. So that's what's been happening.
COMMISSIONER GAL: That's for wetlands?
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: For wetlands.
COMMISSIONER GAl.: So you're taking the wrap score like
zero to one --
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GAL: -- and coming up with a point that is
Type I?
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: A numerical -- well, yes.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, remember that analysis-is.a_._
South Florida Water Management District mandated analy~is~,_~. *~.
!
Page 95 / APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg.
March 7, 2001
It's not developer generated. They use the wrap to do that initial
look.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I thought it was interesting
because it had several different aspects that you look at. Like
one, being the best, like the canopy cover and so forth. And so I
thought perhaps that would be useful if the subcommittee is to
bring it to you and take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: *** All right. We have -- any
comments from individual members of the Council?
COMMISSIONER COE: Is there any consideration at all as to
following these two projects with one of the members of the
Board up to County Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: You know, I would like that
because I would like to see if -- if we have any impact on them
and exactly what the feelings are of the other boards. It would
be interesting.
COMMISSIONER COE: I mean, the reason I say this is that I
have seen too many times where we give a thumbs down on a
project or have numerous questions on projects, they go before
the Planning Advisory Board and they get a finger wave, 7 to 0.
They pass it.
And they run it up to the County Commissioners who don't
have the amount of time that we do and that the Planning
Advisory Board does, so they just figure, "Well, the Planning
Advisory Board passed it 7 to 0, so we'll let it go and the heck
with the tree huggers." That's the impression I get.
Now, there is enough questions on these two projects right
here -- and I realize one was a total turndown and the other one
was kind of a half turndown. There's enough questions on these
projects that this needs to be presented to the County
Commissioners in such a way so they understand that these
questions are critical to this County. If there is any projects that
have come before us at all that have more questions, I'm not
aware of them.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER COE: If these questions are not resolved
prior to going to the Board -- and keep in mind, our minutes for
our meeting don't go before the PAB. They never get to see
them. They don't go before the County Commissioners. ~
don't get to see them.
Page 96
APR 2.,~ 2001
~.~
March 7, 2001
All they see is a staff summary. Nothing against the staff,
but the staff is putting in a paragraph or two about, "Well, it's 7
up, 4 to 3. You know, they had these various concerns."
Well, we've just spent three or four hours blabbing about two
very critical projects to this County for a couple of reasons;
because of the flowway that is hopefully going to solve some of
the water problems.
But on the other hand, are we solving the water problems in
order to give the developers more land to develop on? Is that
why we're doing this waterway?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Mr. Chairman -- excuse me.
MR. WHITE: Procedurally, it would seem that there would be
two options that you may have in that regard. One would be, of
course, that each of you or any of you or all of you could appear
individually at the Board hearing and request to speak as part of
the public. Or if you wanted to do something perhaps a little bit
more formally, you may choose to delegate perhaps one of your
members by a
voice vote to speak on behalf of the Council. I would think
procedurally those are the two choices you may have.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: You mean we don't have the
choice of writing a group -- I mean, if I have the right as a
member of the public to come to the BCC and speak, don't I have
the right as a member of the public to also write a letter to the
BCC?
MR. WHITE: Certainly that would be an option. And I
neglected to mention that. I had assumed from the tenor of the
discussion that it was something that you wanted to have an
actual human presence at.
A letter, of course, drafted and approved by the Council,
signed by the Chair or each or all of you would be appropriate, as
well.
MR. LENBERGER: You also may want to coordinate the
timing with the planner, the project planner, and see when it is
scheduled for the BCC. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You actually go through -- I mean,
in one of your projects you will go through all three steps; you
will be the point guy?
MR. LENBERGER: No. The environmental staff usua
not get involved with the Planning Commission or the BC
Page 97
APR 2 ~ 200t
March 7, 2001
not available until, what, 20, 25 days after the meeting;
correct?
unless we are specifically asked to go.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who actually makes the
presentation to the Board?
MR. LENBERGER: The planner does.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's what I mean.
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The planner does, okay.
MR. LENBERGER: So you should contact the planner to see
when it is actually scheduled.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: In that case that would be Mr. Nino or Mr.
Bellows.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Can I address the second
issue? One is immediate and one is ongoing. And we used to --
with elected officials, we realize that they get so much mail.
And if you have a lot of pages, they don't read it or you're reading
for the first thing.
So our environmental council used to do a summary sheet
just kind of quick and dirty. They would attach the minutes to it,
but here are the highlights. And that -- and most of that would
get read.
And the other thing is it's repetitive. They see that you're
doing something. It is not just in the report. It is easy for them
to look at and they may focus in on a couple of points of interest.
So that might be something you would like to consider.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is it a problem, Mr. White, do you
think in just asking staff to attach the minutes of the meeting to
the recommendation from staff showing the vote when it is
passed onto the Planning Zoning Commission?
MR. WHITE: I believe -- I'm sorry. I believe it is possible to
do so. In fact, if it were ever challenged, certainly that would be
part of the record for the case. The minutes of your hearings.
COMMISSIONER HILL: I have a feeling that they wouldn't
look at it. I think the most effective thing would be for you or an
appointed member of this Council to physically be there when
the item is considered by BCC or the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER COE: The other thing is these minutes are
is that
Page 98
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
Two weeks, okay.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILL: I think the most effective way is for
somebody to go, particularly those which are critical, like the
two we have had today.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think that the presenter
before the Commission should be a member that was in the
majority on the voting thing. I mean, I'd like to do every one, but
I don't think that I would be the best presenter up there if I was
not in the majority vote on a particular item. And I think --
COMMISSIONER COE: Even a summary sheet. If you send
them a stack of stuff like that and say, "This is a summary sheet
of what we voted on, why we voted for or against." Just -- you
know, like you say, that's real simple. And they can take a look
at the stack of stuff that we had to go through and realize this is
in summary and these are the problems that we have.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: As someone who has spoken
before the Board as a private individual on a number of issues
over the last year, I have seen the Board often ask staff or the
developer what the EAC recommended and the answers have
been particularly unclear.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: In some cases to the point of
obfuscation.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I noticed in my exciting life in
watching
the Naples City Council Planning Commission the other day on
television that the procedure that Mr. Crowl (phonetic) uses is
that when he polls for the vote he requests a vote and a reason
for the vote from each of the individual members. Is that something we should be doing?
COMMISSIONER HILL: Which raises another question, Mr.
Chairman. I think we ought to present a unified front, too. We
may each have our individual reasons for voting, but if this
Council votes 5 to 4 or 6 to 2, or whatever, I think we, as
members, need to be unified in presenting that as a Council
decision.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay. I did speak to the Bo~.d..~]~.._ -
we were doing the NRPA definitions. I'm not sure my r~ce~
Page 99 APR 2 ~ 20§1
March 7, 2001
was that well taken. And maybe it was because of what I said.
I think we need to be there if we have a particularly
important item. One of us should be appointed or more than one
to physically speak at the -- before the Board.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think very easily if we have a vote
on a particular item and that item is -- you know, the majority on
that vote, if one of the members of the majority is appointed right
at that time to take the position to the County Commission. I will
talk to Barbara about that.
Okay. Is there anything that we want to talk about?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, I was just going to remind
Mr. Coe that there was a project that we approved and the
Planning Commission approved that the Commission denied.
COMMISSIONER COE: Which one was that?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON:
COMMISSIONER SANTORO:
COMMISSIONER CARLSON:
COMMISSIONER SANTORO.'
COMMISSIONER CARLSON:
what the difference was?
It was Little Palm Island.
I voted against it.
But as a group we approved it.
I know you did.
And the difference -- you know
COMMISSIONER COE.' What's that?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Public input. An emotional
issue with living, breathing, cute little crawling tortoises. And
that was the difference; public input.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I know that there was one project
that we went 7-0 against that I know the Planning Commission
passed. I don't know what the -- that was the fish farm.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE: That was passed.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: That was the excavation and
the blasting for--
COMMISSIONER COE: Well, the fish farm there was some
background on that.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO.' In the NRPA.
COMMISSIONER COE: There was some background on the
fish farm.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But, I mean, we went 7-0 against it.
COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Oh, yeah. And they voted for it.
COMMISSIONER COE: That's why I told you about them
trying to contact me. I knew what was coming and they
get to me. Thank, God.
Page 100
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may. As a point of order, it
seems that if -- and I don't know what the schedule is for either
of these projects' time line to the Planning Commission or the
Board, but I would presume you probably will have time before
your next meeting to consider whether you want to appoint
someone for either or both of those projects to appear before the
Board. But I just want to remind you that if you don't make that
choice today, you may lose the opportunity. I just want to point
out that there is a risk there.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you want to do it right now?
MR. WHITE: I don't believe it will actually be heard by the
Board prior to your next meeting, but it may be that the Planning
Commission has it on its agenda upcoming.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It should be in two weeks, I think.
MR. WHITE: Typically that's the track, but I don't have any
facts to back it up. I just want to point out that you run the risk
of losing the opportunity perhaps if you don't make a choice
today.
COMMISSIONER COE: If you want to call Barb first and then
call us tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I will find a schedule and
then I'll get a hold of one of you all over e-mail and see what you
want to do.
Okay. Any other business?
Yes, sir.
MR. HATCHER: I think I overlooked one other thing. We
also have a Web site up on the growth management plan rural
fringe and rural lands issues. And you can link to it from the
Colliergov. net home page. And it's a community character link.
And it includes a discussion of the rural fringe issues and allows
public comment on the Web page. I wanted to make sure that
you all knew about that.
The other thing is the rural lands committee, the eastern
property area, Wilson-Miller has completed their initial data
analysis and presented their report to the rural lands. That is
also available on the Web page.
MR. LENBERGER: Also you mentioned the agricultural
clearing in the NRPA. That's scheduled for the BCC next
Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY:
AGENDA ITE
Okay. Any other discussio~
Page 101
APR 2 ~ 2001
March 7, 2001
Hearing none--
COMMISSIONER HILL: Move to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Move to adjourn. How does that
sound? Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: You've got a second and a third.
COMMISSIONER HILL: We got Mickey out by 5:30.
COMMISSIONER COE: I'm out of here.
CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you all very much.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:25 p.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES BY: Cherie Nottingham and Kelley Marie
Blecha
Page 102
APR 2 ~ 2001
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR:PUD REZONE
Petition No.: q ~-
Commission District:
Date Petition Received: ,~ ~.~,,~ ~ ~
Planner Assigned: (~o~ ~ t ,4~
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
General Information:
Name of Applicant(s) T.O.S. D~v¢Ic,~,a~cnt, L.L.C. f~ i f'(~ S0
Applicant's Mailing Address 22,3~3 F,_'pcr _~v._.!e~,-.,,-& ~O~ ~
City Naples State FL
Applicant's Telephone # 435-9080
Name of Agent Karen K. Bishop Firm
Agent's Mailing Address
City., Naples
Agent's Telephone # .435-9080
Zip. 34110
Fax #. 435-9082
PMS Inc. of Naples
2335 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 408
State FL Zip
Fax # 435-9082
34103
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE-NAPLES, FL 34104
PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE
1 OF 1~
AGEI~A IT~
APR 2 2001
lC'O_
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional
sheets if necessary)
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip.
Name of Master ASsociation:
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip
Name of Civic Association:
Mailing Address
City State Zip
o
Disclosure of Interest Information:
at
If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety,
tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as
well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 2 OF 16
AC1E. I~A ITEM
APR 2 2001
bo
If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and
the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address, and Office
Percentage of Stock
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
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
eo
If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a
Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers
below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners.
Name and Address
Robert G. Claussen
_Christopher G. Claussen
Donald M. Milarcik
Jack Sterling
Percentage of Ownership
45%
25%
20%
10%
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/92
Date of Contract: 6/99
PAGE 3 oF 1~
APR 2 2001
If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties,
individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Name and Address
list
all
go
Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ): Term of lease yrs./mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option
terminates: , or anticipated closing date Closed 6/99.
ho
Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur
subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public
hearing, it is the responsibility 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 months,
maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions
arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be
required.
Section: 10, 15 & 22 Township: 48 South Range: 26 East
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #:__
Property I.D.#: See Attached Exhibit B
Metes & Bounds Description:
4. Size of property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 1527+/-
5. Address/general location of subject property_: North of Immokalee Road, west of 951
and 3-1/2 miles east of 1-75 interchange.
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 4 OF
APR 2/, 2001
ma--
Adjacent zoning and land use:
Zoning
N A Farmlands
Land use
S PUD
E A
W PUD
Residential
Undeveloped
Residential
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property?
so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property.
attach on separate page). NO
Section:
Lot:
Plat Book
Township: Range:
Block: Subdivision:
Page #:__ Property I.D.#:
Metes & Bounds Description:
If
(If space is inadequate,
o
,Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone fi.om the
to the .PUD zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property:
A zoning district(s)
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential Golf Course Community
Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.5 and Sec. 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County
Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission,
and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall
be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative
statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below.
Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request.
PAGE 5 OF 16
.Start dard Re~,one Considerations (LD C Section 2. 7. 2. 5)
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/9~
AGENDA I~
APR 2 2001
Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
and future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
2. The existing land use pattern.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
1. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property for the proposed change.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
(rezone) necessary.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use
in districts already permitting such use.
16.
The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC IIEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 6 OF 1~
APR 2 t+ 2001
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County growth management
plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
PUD Regone Considerations (LDC Section 2. 7.3.2.5)
The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation
to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after
consultation with the county attorney.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth
management plan.
The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as
meeting pubHc purposes to a degree at least equivalent to Hteral application of such
regulations.
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/9~t
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 re uested in
order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restricti¢ ~s.
APR 2 2001
PAGE 7 OF
10.
11.
Previous land 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? ~O
Additional Submittal requirements: In addition to this completed application, the
following shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless
otherwise waived during the pre-application meeting.
a. A copy of the pre-application meeting notes;
If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide fifteen (15) copies of a 24"
x 36" conceptual site plan [and one reduced 8½" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a
maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, depicting the following [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],
· required yards, open space and preserve areas,
· proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the
site),
proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the
County,
a. An architectural rendering of any proposed structures.
¢. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land
Development Code (LDC), or a request for waiver if appropriate.
Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken
within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 41
be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habita
boundaries. Such identification Shall be consistent with Florida De
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 80l
~0 feet. shall ,..
s anS~Iw-~
APR 2 2001
Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a
calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and a
calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved
(per LDC Section 3.9.5.5.4.).
Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches);
A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre-application meeting;
A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located
within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at
pre-application meeting);
Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and
identified during the pre-application meeting, including but not limited to any required
state or federal permits.
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/9.q
PAGE 9 OF
APR 2 ~ 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS):
A TIS is required unless waived at the pre-application meeting. The TIS required may be either a
major or minor as determined at the pre-application meeting. Please note the following with regard
to TIS submittals:
MINOR TIS: Generally required for rezone requests for property less than 10 acres in size,
although based on the intensity or unique character of a petition, a major TIS may be required for
petition of ten acres or less.
MAJOR TIS: Required for all other rezone requests.
A minor TIS shall include the following:
1. Trip Generation:
(at build-ont)
Annual Average Daily Traffic
Peak Hour (AADT)
Peak Season Daily Traffic
Peak Hour (PSDT)
2. Trip Assignment: Within Radius of Development Influence (RDI)
3. Existing Traffic:
Within RDI
AADT Volumes
PSDT Volumes
Level of Service (LOS)
4. Impact of the proposed use on affected major thoroughfares, including any anticipated changes in level of service
(LOS).
5. Any proposed improvements (to the site or the external right-of-way) such as providing or eliminating an
ingress/egress point, or providing turn or decel lanes or other improvements.
6. Describe any proposal to mitigate the negative impacts on the transportation system.
For Rezones Only: State how this request is consistent with the applicable policies of the Traffic Circulation
Element(TCE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), including policies 1.3, 1.4, 4.4, 5.1,5.2, 7.2 and 7.3.
A Major TIS shall address all of the items listed above (for a Minor TIS, and shall also include an analysis of
the following:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Intersection Analysis
Background Traffic
Future Traffic
Through Traffic
Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements
Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development
APPLICATION FOR PUBL][I~ ItEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 10Ot
APR 2 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) STANDARDS.
The following standards shall be used in preparing a TIS for submittal in conjunction with a
conditional use or rezone petition:
Trip Generation: Provide the total traffic generated by the project for each link within the
project's Radius of Development Influence (RDI) in conformance with the acceptable traffic
engineering principles. The rates published in the latest edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation Report shall be used unless documentation by
the petitioner or the County justifies the use of alternative rates.
Trip Assignment: Provide a map depicting the assignment to the network, of those trips
generated by the proposed project. The assignment shall be made to all links within the RDI.
Both annual average and peak seasonal traffic should be depicted.
Existing Traffic: Provide a map depicting the current traffic conditions on all links within the
RDI. The AADT, PSDT, and LOS shall be depicted for all links within the RDI.
.Level of Service (LOS): The LOS of a roadway shall be expressed in terms of the applicable
Collier County Generalized Daily Service Volumes as set forth in the TCE of the GMP.
Radius of Development Influence (RDI)- The TIS shall cover the least of the following two
areas:
an area as set forth below; or,
the area in which traffic assignments fi.om the proposed project on the major
thoroughfares exceeds one percent of the LOS "C".
...Land Use Distance
Residential 5 Miles or as required by DR/
Other (commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.)
0 - 49, 999 Sq. Ft. 2 Miles
50,000 - 99, 999 Sq. Ft.
100,000 - 199, 999 Sq. Ft.
200,000 - 399, 999 Sq. Ft
400,000 & up
3 Miles
4 Miles
5 Miles
5 Miles
In describing the RDI the TIS shall provide the measurement in road miles from the
proposed project rather than a geometric radius.
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
_Intersection Analysis: An intersection analysis is required for all intersections within the RDI
where the sum of the peak-hour critical lane volume is projected to exceed 1,200 V, ehicles Per
Hour (VPH). -
AC~F. NOA I~
APR 2 2001
PAGE l lO 16 I~ .~'""0
Background Traffic: The effects of previously approved but undeveloped or partially
developed projects which may affect major thoroughfares within the RDI of the proposed
project shall be provided. This information shall be depicted on a map or, alternatively, in a
listing of those projects and their respective characteristics.
go
Future Traffic: An estimate of the effects of traditional increases in traffic resulting fi.om
potential development shall be provided. Potential development is that which may be
developed maximally under the effective Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Collier
County Land Development Code. This estimate shall be for the projected development
areas within the projects RDI. A map or list of such lands with potential traffic impact
calculations shall be provided.
Through Traffic: At a minimum, increases in through traffic shall be addressed through
the year 2015. The methodology used to derive the estimates shall be provided. It may be
desirable to include any additional documentation and backup data to support the
estimation as well.
10.
Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements. All proposed or planned roadway
improvements located within the RDI should be identified. A description of the funding
commitments shall also be included.
11.
Pro|ect Phasing: When a project phasing schedule is dependent upon proposed roadway
improvements, a phasing schedule may be included as part of the TIS. If the traffic impacts
of a project are mitigated through a phasing schedule, such a phasing schedule may be
made a condition of any approval.
TIS FORM RVB/RJM 10/17/97
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 12OF
APR 2 t 2001
n /s l
,
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: T.O.S. Development LLC
o
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY Naples
2405 Piper Boulevard
STATE FL ZIP 34110
3. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE):
e
Section:
Lot:
Plat Book
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
10,15,22 Township:
Block:
Page #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
48 South Range: 26 East
Subdivision:
Property I.D.#:
o
TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system):
(~) COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT
(GP~D capacity)
SEP~C SYSTEM
TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED:
.COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
OPRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL)
7. TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: 1809 Persons/Day
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC tlEARING FOR PUD REZONE- 10/98
PAGE
13 OF 16
10.
11.
12.
PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS:
A. WATER-PEAK 597,850 _epd AVERAGE DAILY239,140 gpd
B. SEWER-PEAK 677,331 gpd AVERAGE DAILY..193,523 ~d
IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE
REQUIRED: .
NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic
drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding
the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then
percolation data and soil involved shall 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 utility easements for serving the
water and sewer systems.
STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS:
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.
Utility Provision Statement ROM 10/17/97
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/9~2
PAGE 14OF
APR 2 2001
PUD REZONE APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION
PACKET!
REQUIREMENTS # OF NOT
coPieS m~QVlm~D ~QVm~D
h Completed Application 15
2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(s) and all 1
Partners if a Corporation
3. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 1 v/
4. Pre-application notes/minutes 15 v/
5. Conceptual Site Plans 15 v/
6. Environmental Impact Statement- (EIS) 4 y/
7. Aerial Photograph - (with habitat areas identified) 4
8. Completed Utility Provisions Statement (with required 4
attachments and sketches)
9. Traffic Impact Statement- (TIS) 4
i0. Historical & Archaeological Survey or Waiver 4
Application
11. Copies of State and/or Federal Permits 4
12. Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s) 4 v/
13. Application Fee, Check shah be made payable to -
Collier County Board of Commissioners
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
the delay ofprocess.ing this petition.
3/g"~'en~/ApSli~.~ Signature
AFFIDAVIT
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
Date
PAGE 15 O
AC.-~.NOA iTEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
06/18/1999 14:18 5947964 CELERITY PAGE 03
AFFIDAVIT
J.D. Nicewonder beingfirst duly sworn, depose and say that Well
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. We/l 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,
_ds property owner We~I further authorize T.O.S. Development LLP f P~LS Inc. of Naples to act
as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner ~ur~ °f Property Owner 6~ff~ /2// ~ ~-~b' ~ /~'~/~
Typed or Printed Name of Owner AD. Nicewonder, Individually and as Trustee of
the
North Naples Land Trust
'~e foregoing instrumen[ was acknowledged before me this /d(~,,fl day of ~,r~r~ ,
1999, by__. ~.2~. /Ff/ ~.r~o*~/~,~ who is personally-known to me or has pro'duced
as identification.
State of Virginia ~ , ~ ~
City of Bristol ( (Signature of Notary Public - Sta~
Virginia) x~~.~
(Print, Type, or Stamp CommissiOned
Name of Nota~ Publi0
~P~I~ATION FOR PUnL~C ~~G FOR P~ ~ONE - 10D8
PAGE 16 OF 16
AC.~=D{)A ITEM --
APR 2 2001
,.~ FF1DA FIT
We/I Sherry Nicewonder beingfirst duly sworn, depose and say that Well ~
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. 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.
,4sproperQ/owner ff;e/Ij~rther authorize TOS Development LLP and PMS Inc. of Naples to act
as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoing instrument was/~, cknowle~g~ed before me this /~ day of ~ .
] 999, by c~-~? ~/>.~.o]~: .... who ispersonally ~own to me or h~ produced
/ as fden~fication.
State of Virginia
City of Bristol
( (Signature of Notary Public
Virginia)
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
APPLICATiON,FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONE - 10198
PAGE 16 OF 16
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
AFFIDAVIT
r~e/! Mark D. Nicewonder .beingfirst duly sworn, depose and say that Well
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, gFe/l 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
As proper~ owner We/Ij~rther authorize TOS Development LLP and PMS Inc. of Naples to act
as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner
Signature of Proper~Y 'Owner ,,~/i~r>~ D. ,~d~,'~~'~
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Mark D. Nicewonder, Individually
,e foregoing instrument was afknowledged before me this ,/~day of ~7~d~__.~
999, by ....... ~. ~/'~' ..~7~> :.. _..~../'d~/~/,-~-/o~r~ who is personally known to me or has produced
as identification.
State of Virginia
City of Bristol
(~ignature of Notary Publi~--- State~
Virginia) ~x~
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissior[ed
Name of Notary Public)
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC It~G.FOR ]P.U.D REZONE - 10/98
PAGE ! 6 OF 16
APR 2 2001
We/l Carolyn Nicewonder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I~e/l
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, gr'e/l understand that the informalion 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.
,.ts property owner l~e/Ifurther authorize ~os Development LLP and PYaS Inc. of Naples to act
as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
~Sign~iur~prOPe/rtY-Owner
Carol~ NiCew/onder, Individually
The foregoing,instrument w.~,. acknowledged before me this
1999. by _K~.~/~/,,/( ~5~rd~c/~(e~r~ who is personally _known ,o ~!e or has produced
as identification.
State of Virginia
City of Bristol
csig ,ure of Notary P.bli -
Virginia)
(Prmt, Type, or 5tamp Commissio~'d'd
Name of Notary Public)
b, PPLICATION FOR PLrBLIC I-IEAliING FOR PUD REZONE - 10/98
PAGE 16 OF 16
API 2 q 2001
06/i8/I999 14:i8 5947964 CELERITY OG
PAGE
/
AFFIDAVIT
~Fe/! ~ [ . ~}~ i $ rf ~(~,.B ' being first duly ~orn, depose
a~are the ow~rs of the proper~ &~vribed ~rein~ ~ which is the subject matter of th~ propoxed
hearing; that ali the a~ers to the que~gon~ in thi~ applicaaon, including t~ disclosure of interest
info manon, all s~tche~, data, and other suppteme~t~ matter attached to and madt apart of this application,
are honest a~ ~ue to the best of our ~wledge a~ beliefl We~ ~erst~ that the infamation requexted on
this appliaation must be complete o~ accurate and that the content of this fo~, whether computer generated
or Coun~ pri~ed rhall not be altered. Public hea~ings will not be a~ert~ed until thH apfllication is deemed
complete, a~ all required infarction h~ been
As praper~ owner ~e/l further au~od~T,O,~ ~E. ~n~'~L,[.~,'~, ~5 '~E.gC_ ~&~ act
thts Pe~tton.
as o~/my re~s~ntatlve tn any ~tterz regarding ' ' ' ' '
Sl~mre of Proper~ ~ner ~ignamre of Proper~ ~r
~ed or ~nted Name ortner P~l ~man, lndivi~ally and ~ r~tee, of
~, the North Naples
~e fnregat~ mstru~en~ w~ ac~owledged beforq me ~s / ~ ~y of
1999~y ~ ~ /~~ ~ ~ ~ho i~ per~onally ~own t~, or h~ produced
~1 ~ ~ J as iden~fication.
State of ~irginia
City of ~ ~~.Lccm ~
Name of Nota~ Public)
~PLICATION ~OR P~LIC ~~G ~OR PUD ~~ - 10an
t Virginia)
PAGI~ 16 OF 16
AOENDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
Legal Descriptions
Exhibit B
Section 10
All that part of section 1 O, township 48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida
less and except the follwoing five (5) parcels:
1 ) the south ½ of The northeast ¼ of the northwest ¼,
2) The south ½ of the southeast ¼ of the southeast ¼,
3) The northeast ¼ of the southeast ¼ of the southeast ¼,
4) The south 30 feet and east 74 feet of the north ½ of the east ½ of the south ½ of the
northeast ¼ of the northeast ¼,
5) The north 30 feet and east 74 feet of the south ½ of east ½ of south ½ of northeast
¼ of the northeast 1,4.
Section ! 5
All that part of section ! 5, township 48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida
Less and except
The north ½ of the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼, and
The south 1/2 of the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼
Section 22
Ali that part of section 22, Township 48 south, range 26 F__/~T, Collier County, Florida
The northeast ¼ of the northwest ¼, and the east ½ of the northwest ¼ of the
northwest ¼,
The west ½ of the southeast ¼ of the northwest ¼,
The east ½ of the southeast ¼ of the northwest ¼,
The northwest ¼ of the northeast ¼; and the west ½ of The northeast ¼ of
the northeast ¼,
The east ½ of the northeast ~,4 of the northeast ~,
The west ½ of The southwest ¼ of the northeast ¼,
The east ½ of the southwest ¼ of the northeast ¼,
The east ½ of the northeast ¼ of the southwest ¼, -
The east ½ of the west ½ of The southeast ¼ of the southwest ¼,
APR 2 6 2001
The west ½ of the east y2 of the southeast 14 of the southwest ¼,
The east ½ of the east 1/2 of the southeast ¼ of the southwest ¼,
The north ½ of the west ½ of The northwest ¼ of the southeast ¼,
The southwest ¼ of the northwest ¼ of the southeast ¼,
The west ½ of the southwest ¼ of the southeast 14,
The west ~ of the east ½ of the southwest ¼ of the southeast ¼,
APR 2
Projec Nl n ge en{ Services
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The staff of PMS, Inc., has my permission To act as my agent for all permitting issues with Collier County
Development Services concerning The submittal and completion of all County Permitting applicati~esses./
Print Name of owner O~vner Signature
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
The foregoing Agent agreement~lener was acknowledged before me this l'7'~day of ~ ,
1999, by ~_ I~%0~.\t~ .~.o /v~0.['~i~--- , who is ~r who has produced
Public Seal
MYCOMMt~SION # CC79G8] EXPIRES
December 4, 2002
BONDED THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC
as identification and who did (did not) take an oath.
Print Name of Agent
Agent Signature
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
the foregoing a(:ient Agreement lener was acknowledged before me this ~ I~a~/-o[ ~ ,
1999, by ~'~ ~ ~--- ~s ~ ~ , w~n.own_~me, or who has produced
as identification and who--dl-d-(-'di-d-~t) take an oath.
Public seal
¢in~ ~. Pen.ey
MY COMMISSION # CC791~1 EXPIRES
December 4, 2002
~ED m~ ~OY FAIN INSUR~ I~
Signatlre ol
/
Print Name o~ Notary Public
)tary
2335 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 408 - Naples, Florida 34103 /(941 )435-9080 Phone- (941)435-9082 Fax
CONSENT OF LANDOWNER
Please bc advised (hat J. D. Nicewonder, Trustee, et al, thc owner o£ccrtain real property
Inca[ed in Sections I 0, 15, ~d 22, Township 48S, Rang~ 26E, Collier County, Flodd~ ~d mom
pa~icula~ described Jn Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attach~ hereto ~d made p~t he.f, by ~e
signature below, does hereby authori~ and consent to TOS Development LLC, ~K~ Mir~!
Development, LLC submission of an ~plication for a Uniform Community Development
District Ot.~uant to Section 190, Florida Statute, or any rotated documentation to said
application.
DATED:_t~/Z'~ t~O
J. D. Nicewonder, Trustee
BY:
STATE OF FLOR/DA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
,~ l'l~e foregoing instrument was ackmowledged be£ore me this ~ day of
/'fit' ,~ , 2000, by J. D. Nicewonder, Trustee, °n behalf of the Landowners. He is
personally kno~r~ to me.
John J. Sterling
Commission #CC730692
Expiration Date Apr. 5, 2002
APR 2/.t 2001
UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT
TO COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that they are the fee simple title holders and owners of record
of property commonly known as [~ i f (~ ~ ~ I and legally described in exhibit A
attached hereto.
The property described herein is the subject of an application for zoning or development. We hereby agree
to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities, and the
appropriate utility easements within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in
accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. We also agree 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.
Donald ilarcik /
Owner (signature)
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
Sworn to (or affirmed)and subscribed before me this A i ~ day of ~ ,1~ ~ ¢, by
BO~al'[~) k'- ~lr~ [a~C; ~ ,w is~----~eml~'~-onally kn;wn~'h~e or who has produced
as identification.
(SEAL)
,~6ENDA
APR 2 2001
ORDINANCE NO 0!-
AN ORDINANtTE AMENDING ORDINA.~C'E N'I~llgal:'J~.
COLLIER COL~' L~ND DEVELOPMEN'T C~ ~f.K~t
~tE COMPREHENSIX~ ZONTNG ~G{.TLA I~)~5
AMENDING ~IE O~(q.kL ZONING AJ~ MA~
g69T016 AND 862122; BY CHAN(iING THE ZONING
OF TIlE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPER'~' FROM -A- RL-~4L
AGRICULTL%AL WI~{ "S]-' OVERLAYS TO "PUD" PLAN%'ED LMIT
DEVELOPMEN7 KNO~k~ AS MI~ASOL PUD FOR A MIXED
RESIDENT~L DEVELOPMENT AND TWO 18 HOLE GOLF COL!RSES,
CONSISTING OF NOT MO~ ~AN 799 DWELLING ~ITS ON
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF IMMO~LEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND
WEST OF A NORTHE~Y EXTENSION OF C.R. 951 ~ SECTIONS 10, 15
A~ 22, TO,SHIP 48 SOUTH, ~NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER CO~TY,
FLO~DA, CONSIST~G OF 1,558i ACRES; AND BY PROVID~G AN
EFFE~IVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Karen K. Bishop, of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing T.O.S. Development, L.L.C.,
petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real
property;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDA1NED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township
48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agmcultural with "ST" overlays to
"PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Mirasol PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Maps numbered 869T016 and 862122, 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 ~vith 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:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BY:
James D. Caner, Ph.D., Chairman
.Approved as to Form
and Legal Sufficiency
.MarJone M. Studem
Assistant Count],.' Attorney
PUD-9')- 00RD Na, NCFdRN/cw
-l.-
APR 2 2001
MIRASOL
A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN
GOVERNING MIRASOL A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
PREPARED FOR:
Mirasol Development, L.L.C.
6025 Carlton Lakes Boulevard
Naples, FL 34110
PREPARED BY:
PMS, Inc. of Naples
2335 Tamiami Trail North
Suite 408
Naples, FL. 34103
DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC
DATE APPROVED BY BCC
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL
DOCUMENT DATE
4/13/01
APR 2 ~ 2001
n..
INDEX
PAGE
SECTION I
SECTION II
SECTION III
SECTION IV
SECTION V
SECTION VI
List of Exhibits and Tables
Statement of Compliance
Property Ownership, Legal
General Description and Short Title
Project Development
Residential Development Areas
Golf Course/Open Space
Preserve District
General Devel'opment Commitments
ii
111
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
APR 2 6 2001
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "B"
TABLE I
TABLE II
Planned Unit Development Master Plan
Legal Descriptions
Land Use Summary
Development Standards
ii
AGENDA ITEM
~ l~.~!,
APR 2 ~ 2001
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The development consists of 1558+/- acres of property in Collier County as a Planned Unit Development to be
known as The Mirasol PUD which will be in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of Collier
County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Mirasol PUD is a single and multi-
family residential community with associated recreational uses and will be consistent with the applicable
elements of the Collier Growth Management Plan for the following reasons:
The total acreage of the Mirasol PUD is 1558 +/- acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be
built on the total acreage is 799. The nUmber of dwelling units per gross acre is approximately 0.51
units. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary according to the type of
housing placed on each parcel of land. The projected density of 0.51 dwelling units per acre is in
compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan which allows 4.0 units
per acre as a base density on the project lands located within the Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict, Section 22, Township 48S, Range 26E consisting of 340.7 acres would
yield 1362.8 units. Section 15, Township 48S, Range 26E & Section 10, Township 48S, Range 26E are
outside the urban boundary, designated as Agriculture/Rural, Agriculture/Rural - Mixed Use District on
the Future Land Use Map with density assigned as 1 unit per 5 acres, with 1217 acres the density would
yield 243.5 units. The master plan has been arranged to utilize cjustering of development tracts to
provide for significant land conservation as well as the construction of a regional flowway. (See also
Section 3.3 of this Ordinance)
The subject property is located outside and within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential
Subdistrict, Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map.
o
The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services
permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use
Element.
o
'8.
The Project development is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land
uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County LDC as set
forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element.
The Project development will result in an efficient and economical allocation of community facilities
and services as required in Policy 3.1.G of the Future Land Use Element.
The public/private partnership for the proposed flowway creation will be consisted with Policy 1.4.2 of
the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element by correcting existing deficiencies by
utilizing innovative funding sources. The Project development is planned to protect the functioning of
natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas through creation of a Regional
Flowway as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element.
All final local development orders for this Project are subject to Division 3.15, Ade
Facilities, of the Collier County LDC.
111
APR 2 200t
1.1
1.2
1.3
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & GENERAL DESCRIPTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the
existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Mirasol
PUD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
See Exhibit B
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is owned by Mirasol Development, L.L.C.
1.4
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA
Ao
The Project site is located to the north side of Immokalee Road; bordered on the east by Broken
Back Road, future 951; the Collier/Lee County line is the north property line; a portion of the
western property borders along agricultural zoning / (proposed Terafina PUD) and the Parklands
DRI; on the south side of Immokalee Road is Pebblebrooke Lakes and Laurel Lakes.
Bo
The zoning classification of the Project prior to approval of this PUD document was
"Agricultural".
1.5
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. The Project lies within South Florida Water Management District No. 7.
Bo
Water management facilities for the Project will be designed and constructed to serve 1558+/-
acres of residentially zoned lands discharging via the Immokalee Road Canal.
Co
Elevations within the site vicinity are flat. The elevation of the subject site is approximately
thirteen and 1/2 feet (13.5') above mean sea level. The entirety of the site lies within Flood Zone
"X" according to Firm Map//120067 0215 D, map revised June 3, 1986.
Do
Surficial sediments on, and in the vicinity of the Project are primarily fine quartz sands, and
organic loams over shallow limestone bedrock. Specific soil types found on the Project include:
Malabar fine sand, Basinger fine sand and Boca fine sand, Holopaw fine sand, Oldsmar fine
sand, Pineda find sand, limestone substratum, Boca, Riviera, Limestone substratum, and
Copeland find sand, depressional.
AGENDA ITEM
1.1
APR 2 ~ 2001
1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Mirasol PUD is a residential single family and multi-family golf course community with a
maximum of 799 dwelling units. Recreational facilities may be provided in conjunction with the
dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with
one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, appropriate screening/buffeting, and
native vegetation, whenever feasible.
Unlike most other residential communities the Mirasol Project has entered in a public / private
partnership committed to being part of the solution for flooding issues plaguing parts of South Lee and
Northeast Collier Counties, a drainage basin of 300 square miles. The regional benefit to this flood
control will include improvements to vegetation and wildlife habitat both on-site and upstream.
1.7 SHORT TITLE
This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "MIRASOL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE".
1.2
/7/
SECTION II
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1
2.2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to
applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the Project, as well as
other project relationships.
GENERAL
Ao
Development of the Mirasol PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of the Planned Unit
Development document and applicable sections of the Collier County LDC and Growth
Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as but not
limited to Final Subdivision Plat, Final Site Development Plan, Excavation Permit, and
Preliminary Work Authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail
'to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County
.LDC shall apply.
Bo
Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forO
in the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application.
Co
All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the
development of the Mirasol PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner
in which the PUD site may be developed.
De
Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, the provisions of the LDC, where applicable,
remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this
PUD.
Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to concurrency review
under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the LDC at the earliest or
next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit issuance
applicable to this Development.
2.1
APR 2 2001
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES
The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is
iljustrated by Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan. The nature and extent of land uses within the
Project are indicated on Table I. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the
assignment of dwelling units thereto shall be determined at the time of detailed site development
planning or platting.
The final size of the recreation and open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for
water management, roadway pattern, and dwelling unit size and configuration.
MIRASOL
LAND USE SUMMARY
TABLE I
MAXIMUM LAND USE INTENSITY SUMMARY
USE MAX. D.U.'s ACRES
Total Project 799 1558 +/-
Min. Open Space @ 60% N/A 935 +/-
(Lakes, Preserves, Landscape Buffers, Golf Courses, Open Areas & Recreational Areas)
2.4
RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Ao
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 the appropriate Collier County
governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, the Collier County
Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida.
Exhibit "A", the 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 of the Collier County LDC,
and the platting laws of the State of Florida.
2.2
APR 2 2001
2.5
2.6
2.7
Co
The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County LDC, when applicable, shall apply to the
development of all platted tracts or parcels of land as provided in said Division prior to the
issuance of a building permit or other development order.
The developer 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
of a preliminary subdivision plat in conformance with requirements of Division 3.2 of the Collier
County LDC prior to the submittal of construction plans and a final plat for any portion of the
tract or parcel.
Utility, road, public and private easements shall be established as required during the SDP and/or
plat approval process.
Fo
Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding
dedications and the method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities.
MODEL HOMES l SALES OFFICES
Model homes, sales centers and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate
such as, but not limited to, pavilions, viewing platforms, gazebos, parking areas, tents, and signs, shall
be permitted principal uses throughout the Mirasol PUD subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4
of the Collier County LDC.
AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN
Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County LDC, Section 2.7.3.5.
ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE
Common area maintenance will be provided by the master property owners' association. The
association is a legitimate alternative for the timely and sustained provision of quality common area
infrastructure and maintenance under the terms and conditions of County development approval. For
those areas not maintained by the master association, the Developer will create a property owners'
association(s), or condominium association(s), whose functions shall include provision for the perpetual
maintenance of common facilities and open spaces. The master or the property owners' association, as
applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water
and stormwater management systems, and reserves serving the Mirasol PUD, together with any
applicable permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and South Florida Water Management District.
2.3
APR 2 2001,
n. /TY/
2.8 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
The Collier County planned unit development districts are intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation
and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of
land under unified ownership or control, as set forth in the Collier County LDC, Section 2.2.20.1.
The applicant has not set "stages" for the development of the property. Since the property is to be
developed over an estimated ten-(10) year time period, any projection of project development can be no
more that an estimate based on current marketing knowledge. The estimate may change depending upon
future economic factors.
2.9
GENERAL PERMITTED USES
Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Mirasol PUD except in the
Preserve District. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the Developer and
residents of the Mirasol PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered
community facilities.
A. General Permitted Uses:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
o
Essential services as set forth under the Collier County LDC, Section 2.6.9.1.
Water management facilities and related structures.
Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments.
Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures.
Community and neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, community centers.
Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer, builders, and
their authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking
areas and related uses in accordance with the Collier County LDC in effect at the time
permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein.
Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and
walls shall be in accordance with the Collier County LDC in effect at the time permits are
requested unless otherwise specified herein.
Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the
Planning Services Director determines to be compatible.
2.4
APR 2 2001
2.10
2.11
B. Development Standards:
Unless otherwise set forth in this document, the following development standards shall apply.
structures:
Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road - Fifteen feet (15').
Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures shall have no required setback,
however such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking
onto the Immokalee Road right-of-way.
2. Setback from exterior property lines - one half (1/2) the height of the structure.
o
Minimum distance between structures which are part of an architecturally unified
grouping - Five feet (5').
4. Minimum distance between unrelated structures - Ten feet (10').
5. Minimum floor area - None required.
6. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required.
Sidewalks, bikepaths, and cartpaths may occur within County required buffers; however
the width of the required buffer shall be increased proportionately to the width of the
paved surface of the sidewalk, bikepath, or cartpath.
o
Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are
not specified herein, are to be in accordance with the Collier County LDC in effect at the
time of site development plan approval.
OPEN SPACES REQUIREMENTS
The PUD Master Plan identifies approximately 935+/- acres included in the Recreation,
Landscape/Open Space, Golf Course, Lakes and Preserve District designations. These areas fully
satisfy the open space requirements of Section 2.6.32 of the Collier County LDC.
NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
Twenty Five Percent (25%) of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site shall be
preserved.
2.5
APR 2 2001
3.1
PURPOSE
SECTION III
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS
3.2
3.3
The purpose of this Section is to establish land use regulations and development standards for the
Residential development tracts designated on Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan as "RG
Residential/Golf". The Golf Course development standards will be regulated as per Section IV, Golf
Course / Open Space.
MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted within the PUD is 799. The property contains a gross
acreage of 1558+/- acres and density of 0.51 dwelling units per gross acre.
DISTRIBUTION OF DWELLING UNITS
Dwelling units permitted in the Agriculture/Rural, Agriculture/Rural - Mixed Use District area may not
exceed their underlying density as set forth in the Statement of Compliance until such time as the Future
Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan is amended in such a way that
dwelling units may be shifted from Urban Residential to Agriculture/Rural, Agriculture/Rural - Mixed
Use District area.
3.4
3.5
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as "R" on the PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of
residential dwelling unit types, a full range of recreational facilities, essential services, and customary
accessory uses.
The approximate acreage of the "R" district is indicated on the PUD Master Plan. This acreage is based
on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreages of all development tracts will be provided at
the time of site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat approvals in accordance with Division
3.3 and Division 3.2, respectively, of the Collier County LDC. Residential tracts are designed to
accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management
facilities, and other similar uses found in residential areas.
USES PERMITTED
A. Principal Uses
Single-family detached dwelling units.
Single-family and zero lot line dwellings.
Single-family attached and townhouse dwellings.
3.1
APR 2 2001
4. Two-family and duplex dwellings.
5. Multiple-family dwellings.
Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which
the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible in the "RG" District.
B. Accessory_ Uses
1. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted.
2. Guest houses, pursuant to Section 2.6.14 of the Collier County LDC.
3. Common area recreational and utilitarian facilities.
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 "R" District.
3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Table II sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District.
Site development standards for Categories 1-5 set forth in Table II apply to platted parcel
boundaries.
Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not
specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County LDC in effect at the time of site
development plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area
standards apply to principal structures.
Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table II shall be established during
the site development plan approval phase as set forth in Division 3.3 of the LDC in accordance
with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use.
Bo
Off-street parking required for the multi-family uses shall be accessed by parking aisles or
driveways which are separate from any roads which serve more than one development. A green
space area of not less than ten feet (10') in width as measured from pavement edge to pavement
edge shall separate any parking aisle or driveway from any abutting road.
Single-family patio and zero lot line dwellings are identified separately from single-family
detached dwellings with conventional side yard requirements to distinguish these types of
residences for the purpose of applying the development standards under Table II.
Go
Housing structure types including lot orientation for single-family detachet
lot line versus non-zero lot line orientations may not be mixed within the s
tract.
3.2
hou~fflgOl ze
tme I~velopment
APR 2 200f
TABLE H
MIRASOL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
"RG" RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Single Zero Lot Two Family Single Family Multi-
PERMITTED USES Family Line and Duplex Attached and Family
AND STANDARDS Detached Townhouse Dwellings
Category i 2 3 4 5
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500*4 3,500 SF 9,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width *5 50' 40' 35' 35' 90'
Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' 100' 100' 100'
Front Yard 20' .3 20' '3 20' .3 20' '3 20'.3
Side Yard 7.5 0 or 10' 7.5' 7.5' 15'
Rear Yard 15' 15' 15' 15' 15'
Rear Yard *1 5' 5' 5' 5' 5'
Rear Yard Accessory 10' 10' ! 0' 10' 10'
Maximum Building Height *2 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet
Distance Between Principal & 10' 10' 10' 10' 20' .6
Accessory Structures
Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF
All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted.
* 1 - Rear yards for principal and accessory s~uctures on lots and tracts which abut lake, and open space. Setback from lake for all principal and accessory uses may
be 0' providing architectural bank Iroatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from Engineering Review Section.
Front yards shall be measured as follows:
A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line.
B. ff the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed).
C. ff the parcel has frontage on two sides, setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard.
*2 - Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure.
*3 - Single-family and multi-family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private
driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 15' for the garage.
*4 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 SF for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 S.F.
*5 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained.
*6 - Building distance may be reduced at garages.
3.3
APR ,2 2001
SECTION IV
GOLF COURSE
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the uses permitted and development standards for the Golf
Course Tracts, designated as "G" and "RG". The primary function and purpose of these Tracts will be to
provide aesthetically pleasing open areas, golf course and recreational facilities. Except in areas
authorized for development, all good quality native trees and shrubs shall be protected and preserved
wherever practicable.
4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole
or in part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures
1. Golf courses and golf club facilities, including temporary golf clubhouses.
2. Tennis clubs, health spas, equestrian clubs, and other recreational clubs.
3. Project information and sales centers.
Community and golf course maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, essential services,
irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, water and wastewater treatment
plants, utility pumping facilties and pump buildings, utility and maintenance staff offices.
5. Public administrative facilities.
6. Telecommunications facilities.
7. Communications tower.
ge
Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails,
bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas,
fitness trails and shelters.
Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which
the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible.
4.1
APR 2 2001
Bo
Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in
this District.
4.3
o
Pro-shops, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters, snack bars and
golf course maintenance yards.
o
Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not
limited to, golf, tennis, and recreational related sales.
Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to serve club members and club
guests.
Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and all other types of accessory
facilities intended for outdoor recreation.
o
Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which
the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
me
Principal structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20') from golf course
boundaries and private roads, and twenty-five feet (25') from all PUD boundaries and residential
tracts. Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut a lake,
non-jurisdictional open space or native vegetation preservation areas may be zero feet (0') except
that an architectural bank treatment shall be incorporated into the design.
Bo
Accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of ten feet (10') from golf course boundaries
and private roads, and twenty feet (20') from all PUD boundaries and residential tracts.
Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential
properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference.
D. Maximum height of structures
1. Principal Structures - 2 stories or thirty feet (30').
2. Accessory Structures - 1 story or fifteen feet (15').
E. Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10').
Fo
Minimum floor area - None required.
Minimum lot or parcel area - None required.
4.2
APR 2 2001
Parking for the community center/clubhouse shall be three spaces per every one thousand (1,000)
square feet of gross floor area, which shall be considered inclusive of the required golf course
parking.
Standards for parking, landscape, signs and other land uses where such standards are not
specified herein, are to be in accordance with the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of site
development plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area
standards apply to principal structures.
4.3
APR 2/t 2001
5.1
5.2
5.3
SECTION V
PRESERVE DISTRICT
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the
Mirasol PUD community designated on the Master Plan as the Preserve District.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Areas designated as Preserve on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of
conservation and limited water management uses and functions. The primary purpose of the Preserve
District is to retain viable naturally functioning wetland and upland systems, to allow for restoration and
enhancement of impacted or degraded wetland systems, and to provide an open space amenity for the
enjoyment of the Mirasol PUD residents.
USES PERMITTED
No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,
for other than the following, subject to Regional, State and Federal permits when required;
A. Principal Uses
1. Parks, passive recreational areas, boardwalks.
2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails.
3. Wildlife sanctuary.
4. Pathways and/or bridges, subject to appropriate approvals by permitting agencies.
5. Recreational shelters and restrooms, in Preserve upland areas.
6. Drainage and water management facilities subject to all needed permits.
7. 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 Preserve District.
5.1
APR 2 4 2001
5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
mo
Bo
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Setback requirements for all structures shall be in accordance with Section 3.2.8.4.7.3, of the
Collier County LDC.
Lighting facilities shall be arranged to prevent disturbances to the preserves.
Maximum height of structures - Twenty-five feet (25').
Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10').
Minimum distance between accessory structures - Five feet (5').
Minimum floor area - None required.
Minimum lot or parcel area - None required.
5.5
PRESERVE DISTRICT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
A non-exclusive conservation easement or tract is required by the Collier County LDC Section
3.2.8.4.7.3 for lands included in the Preserve District. In addition to Collier County, a non-exclusive
conservation easement may also be required by other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over Prese~
District lands. In addition to complying with the provisions of the Collier County LDC, said easement
shall be provided in accordance with the terms set forth in any applicable permit granted by other
agencies. The Developer, its successor(s) or assigns, including the master property owners' association
shall be responsible for control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve District.
The conservation easement utilized on this Project will provide for allowance of future permitting and
mitigation of any impacted wetlands due to the final alignment of the future C.R. 951 corridor.
5.2
APR 2 2001
6.1
6.2
6.3
SECTION VI
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the
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 regulation applicable to this PUD. Except
where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the LDC, Division 3.2
shall apply to this Project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The Developer, his
successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document.
The Developer, his successor or assignee, shall agree to follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the
PUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the
property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title, is bound by the commitments within this
document.
PUD MASTER PLAN
Ao
Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, iljustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in
nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries, shall not be
construed to be specific and may be adjusted during the platting or site development plan
approval process. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the LDC, PUD amendments
may be made from time to time.
All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the
continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the Project.
The following shall be considered minor changes and refinements, subject to the limitations of
Section 5.3^ of this PUD.
Due to the complexity of creating and permitting a regional flowway through the Project,
reconfiguration of preserve areas, jurisdictional wetland limits, and mitigation features as
a result of regulatory agency review will be considered minor if there is no unacceptable
net loss of viable functioning wetlandsor native vegetation preserves as a result of the
amendment.
Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such
changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District
and Collier County, and where there is no further encroachment int~, preserve areas.
6.1
APR 2 2001
6.4
6.5
3. Reconfiguration of design features.
4. Internal realignment of rights-of-way other than a relocation of access points to the PI.3.
5. Reconfiguration of residential parcels when there is no encroachment into preserve areas.
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION
mo
Initiation of construction on the Mirasol PUD Project is contemplated in the calendar year 2001
with completion of the project infrastructure anticipated to occur in stages.
Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6
of the Collier County LDC.
C. The Project is subject to the sunsetting provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the LDC.
POLLING PLACES
Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 of the LDC, provision shall be made for the future use of space within a
common building for the purpose of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place.
An agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Colliex:
County, which shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest to the Developer that acquire
ownership of such common areas including, but not limited to, condominium associations, homeown~
associations, or community recreation / public buildings / public rooms or similar common facilities to
be used for a polling place if determined to be necessary by the Supervisor of Elections.
6.6 SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD DESIGN SUBSTITUTIONS
Ao
Sidewalks/bike paths shall conform with subsection 3.2.8.3.17 of the LDC.
Private streets shall conform with the right-of-way width requirements of Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5
of the LDC except as follows:
Cul-de-sacs and local streets less than one thousand feet (1,000') in length are required to
have a minimum forty foot (40') right-of-way width and two ten foot (10') wide travel
lanes as required by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5.
All other cul-de-sacs are required to have a minimum forty foot (40') right-of-way width
and two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes as required by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5 of the
LDC.
6.2
APR 2 2001
10.
11.
All other local streets are required to have a minimum forty foot (40') fight-of-way and
two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes as required by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5 of the LDC.
Cul-de-sacs may exceed the one thousand foot (1,000') length maximum of Subsection
3.2.8.4.16.6 of the LDC.
Tangents between reverse curves shall not be required as per Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.10 of
the LDC.
Street grades may exceed the four percent (4%) maximum of Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.14 of
the LDC provided that applicable Florida Department of Transportation, Manual of
Uniform Minimum Standards (FDOT MUMS) and AASHTO criteria are met.
LDC, Subsection 3.2.8.3.19: The standard that street name markers shall be approved by
the County Engineer and conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A.M.U.T.C.D. is waived.
Street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of main road system will be
waived. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with
U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A.M.U.T.C.D. standards.
LDC, Subsection 3.2.8.4.10: The standard that PRMs be installed in a typical water valve
cover shall be waived subject to monumentation being installed in accordance With
Chapter 177, Florida Statutes.
LDC, Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.8: The minimum back of curb radii for intemal roads shall
be 30 feet. with the exception that both entrance road intersections shall have curb radii of
40 feet.
LDC, Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.9: The minimum 100 foot. tangent standard at intersections
may be reduced subject to a certified traffic study based upon design speed, site distance
and adequate recovery zone. This requirement shall not be waived at both project access
points.
LDC, Subsection 3.2.8.4.21: The standard for blank utility casings shall be waived.
6.7
TRANSPORTATION
The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions:
The applicant shall install arterial level street lighting at the project entrance prior to the granting
of any certifications of occupancy for the Project.
Bo
The applicant shall be responsible for a fair share contribution toward a traffic signal system at
the project entrance, should such signal system be found to be warrantec A ....... ,_ _:___,
system shall be subject to approval by Collier County.
6.3
APR 2 2001
P..
Ce
De
H
Jo
Ko
Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County
Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 93-64.
The project access shall be located and designed in accordance with the Collier County Access
Management Policy applicable to this Project.
Access to Immokalee Road shall be in conformance to the Collier County Access Management
Policy, as it may be amended from time to time.
Access to Broken Back Road, (the future extension of C.R. 951) shallbe provided at such time
the C.R. 951 may be extended or required to mitigate development impacts to Immokalee Road.
Specific access location shall be consistent withthe access management plan in place atthe time
of development.
The Future C.R. 951 Corridor right of way has not been determined. Since there are two possible
routes through the Project right-of-way reservation to accommodate both possible alignments is
required. For routing C.R. 951 from Immokalee Road due north to Bonita Beach Road, the
project right-of-way reservation will be 100 feet along the eastern section line of Sections 22, 15,
and 10. For routing C.R. 951 from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road utilizing the existing
Parklands right-of-way reservation, the Project will provide 100 feet along the eastern section
line of Sections 22 and 15, 200 feet as it proceeds West and crosses the northern half of Section
15 and the southern half of Section 10, and 100 feet at the western section line of Section 10 to
align with the existing right-of-way reservation from the Parkland DRI. The right-of-way
reservation will be made available upon request from the County and the final alignment. Ro~
Impact Fee credits will be allowed for this right-of-way to the maximum extent provided in the
Road impact fee Ordinance and in accordance with the approved conversion formula.
The conservation easement utilized on this Project will contain a provision for the allowance of
future permitting and mitigation of any impacted wetlands due to the final alignment and
construction of the future C.R. 951 corridor.
Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all project entrances, unless already in place or
planned by the County prior to the first building C.O.
The Project will provide a pedestrian pathway to be located along the Immokalee Road
right-of-way on the north side of the canal with the intent to provide public pedestrian access for
the length of the project frontage and to encourage connection through the properties both east
and west of the project boundary.
The Project will provide interconnection to the Future Activity Center Commercial located
within the south east portion of Section 22.
A connection to the west to Broken Back Road (future C.R. 951 extension) is required.
6.4
APR 2 2001
6.8
The Golf Course project on the North will have one connection to C.R. 951. The Project adjacent
to the west of Section 10 is Parklands DRI. Currently, right-of-way has been set aside within
Parklands, we would anticipate a connection if C.R. 951 final alignment routes along the
Parklands boundary unless the current right-of-way alignment is revised by the County.
The County reserves the right to modify, including closure, any median opening Immokalee
Road, if in the sole opinion of the county, any operational or safety consideration makes such
modification necessary or desirable.
Mo
Prior to the first PSP or SDP approval, the applicant shall provide a detailed transportaion
analysis of Immokalee Road from Old Cypress Boulevard(Future Logan Boulevard Extension) to
C.R. 951. Should the anaylsis identify deficiencies or operational/safety problems, the applicant
shall either be limited to the amount of development that may occur or provide the necessary
mitigation at the applicant's cost.
UTILITIES
Due to the construction of the regional flowway through the Mirasol Project, it is anticipated that a
Community Development District may be necessary to help finance this public facility as well as other
essential project services.
The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the i'ollowing conditions:
Ao
This Project lies within three sections, the part of the Project in Section 22 lies within the current
Urban Services Area. Existing utilities necessary to serve the Project are located along the
southern border of Section 22, within the Immokalee Road right-of-way. To provide service to
Section 22, utilities will be extended internally.
Section 15 is located outside the current Urban Services Area. The proposed development in
Section 15 consists of Golf Course, residential and accessory uses such as the clubhouse and
maintenance facility. A septic system and well will be utilized for each structure until such time
as the applicable Elements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan is amended in such a
way that allows for either extention of County utilities or on-site package treatment plants.
Section 10 is also located outside the current Urban Services Area. The proposed development in
Section 10 consists of only a Golf Course and accessory uses such as the clubhouse and
maintenance facility. A septic system and well will be utilized for each structure. Due to the
natural barrier created by the creation of the flowway, extension of water and sewer is not
feasible.
Bo
Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission lines to serve the Project are to be
designed, constructed, conveyed, anWor owned and maintained in accordance with Collier
County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations.
6.5 APR 2 2001
Co
Do
mo
All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be
constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance w;
the County's established rates. Should the County not be in a position to provide sewer service.
the project, the sewer customers shall be customers of the utility established to serve the Project
until the County's offsite sewer facilities are available to serve the project or septic tanks meeting
the requirements of Florida Statutes may be used on an interim basis.
The on-site water distribution system serving the project must be connected to the District's
water main and must be consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's
Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, the
following features shall be incorporated into the distribution system:
1. Dead-end mains shall include dead-end flushing hydrants.
o
Stubs for future system interconnection with adjacent properties shall be provided to the
property lines of the project at locations to be mutually agreed to by the County and the
Developer during the design phase of the project.
The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall be prepared to contain
the design and construction of an onsite force main, which may ultimately connect the project to
the future central sewerage facilities of Collier County. The force main must be interconnected
to the pump station with appropriately located valves to permit for simple redirection of the
project's sewerage, should connection to the County's central sewer facilities ever becomes
available.
6.9
ENVIRONMENTAL
The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions:
Ao
Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental
Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Staff. As this
project's dramatic increase (66%+/-) in wetlands over the last 16 years are the direct result of the
Cumulative and Secondary Impacts from development and agricultural activities in South Lee
and East Collier Counties, consideration for the creation of a Regional Flow way in previous
uplands, as well as provide for aquifer recharge area, will count heavily towards mitigation of the
current wetland acreage impacts. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be the sole mitigation
method for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands.
Bo
All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all
construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to
Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes.
6.6
APR 2 2001
Buffers around preserved jurisdictional wetlands shall be in accordance with the State of Florida
Environmental Resource Permit Rules. Preserved jurisdictional wetlands and surrounding
buffers shall be incorporated in conservation areas which shall be platted or recorded as an
easement.
An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, with
emphasis on the conservation/preservations areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Staff
for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval.
As a part of the environmental resource permitting process of the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
permitting, recommendations from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
(FGFWFC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding impacts to
protected wildlife species will be incorporated into the permits issued for this Project. The
Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines set forth within those permits. Habitat management
plans shall be provided for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel,
wood atork, red-cockaded woodpecker, and all other protected species which inhabit or utilize
this property.
6.10
ENGINEERING
Ao
This Project shall be required to meet all County ordinances in effect at the time final
construction documents are submittal for development approval:
Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate
provisions of the Collier County LDC, Division 3.2.
C. Prior to final site development plan approval a right-of-way permit will be required.
6.11
WATER MANAGEMENT
The Mirasol Project, as a part of a public-private partnership, will provide design, permitting and
construction of a regional flowway in conjunction with the existing Olde Cypress PUD and the
proposed Terafina PUD. The creation of a Community Development District may be necessary
to help finance this public facility as well as other essential project services.
A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Surface Water Permit shall
be submitted prior to final site development plan approval.
An excavation permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5
of the Collier County LDC and SFWMD Rules.
APR 2 2001
6.12 PLANNING
Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the LDC, if during the course of site cleating, excavation or
other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within
the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the
Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted.
6.13
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the
principal structure except that temporary sales buildings, trailers, marketing facilities, contractors' and
builders' storage and office facilities and the like, may be erected and utilized during the period of
project development and marketing consistent with applicable requirements of the LDC. Such
temporary buildings shall be removed upon completion of the marketing or construction activity which
they are accessory to.
6.14
SIGNS
All signs shall comply with Division 2.5 of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building
permit application.
6,15
LANDSCAPING
A. A perimeter berm if required shall be in conformance with Section 2.4.4.8 of the LDC.
Trees and shrubs shall be planted along the base of the berm so as to visually soften the
appearance of the side of the berm.
Trees shall be a minimum of 75% native species.
Shrubs shall be a minimum of 35% native species.
All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with the Division 2.4 of the Collier
CountY LDC in effect at the time of building permit application.
6.8
APR 2 2001
6.16 PROVISION FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL
The excavation of earthen material and its stockpiling in preparation of water management facilities or
other water bodies is hereby permitted. If it is demonstrated that fill activities on those buildable
portions of the Project site are such that there is a surplus of earthen material, then its off-site disposal is
also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions:
Bo
Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a "development excavation"
pursuant to Division 3.5 of the Collier County LDC whereby off-site removal shall be
limited to ten percent (to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards) of the total volume
excavated unless a commercial excavation permit is received.
All other provisions of said Division 3.5 of the Collier County LDC are applicable.
6.17
PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO OUT PARCEL IN SECTION 10
Within Section 10 lies an out parcel owned by Alfonson Terlizzi, said parcel is currently landlocked with
no legal access to the property. When the C.R. 951 Corridor Study is completed, and the alignment
finalized, the Developer of the Mirasol PUD will provide at fair market value at the time of the grant,
access from C.R.951 to his parcel. However, due to the environmental constraints of Section 10, Mr.
Terlizzi will be required to revise the South Florida Water Management Environmental Resource Permit
for Mirasol and provide mitigation for any impacts created by the construction of his access.
6.9
APR 2 2001
n. /q.3
2 ~ 2001
Legal Descriptions
Exhibit B
Section 10
All that part of section 1 O, township 48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida
less and except the follwoing five (5) parcels:
The south ½ of the northeast ¼ of the northwest ¼,
The south ½ of the southeast ¼ of the southeast ¼,
The northeast ~`4 of the southeast ¼ of the southeast ¼,
The south 30 feet and east 74 feet of the north ½ of The east ½ of the south ½ of the
northeast ~,4 of the northeast ¼,
The north 30 feet and east 74 feet of the south ½ of east ½ of south ½ of northeast
¼ of the northeast ¼.
Section 15
All that part of section 15, township 48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida
Less and except
The north ½ of the southwest ¼ of The southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼, and
The south ½ of the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼
Section 22
All that part of section 22, township 48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida
The northeast ¼ of the northwest ¼, and the east ½ of the northwest ¼ of the
northwest ~,4,
The west ¥2 of the southeast ¼ of the northwest ¼,
The east ½ of the northwest ¼ of the southeast ¼,
The east ½ of the southeast ¼ of the northwest ¼,
The northwest 1,4 of the northeast ¼; and the west ½ of the northeast ¼ of
the northeast ¼,
The east ½ of the northeast ¼ of the northeast 1`4,
The west ½ of the southwest ¼ of the northeast ¼,
The east ½ of the southwest ¼ of the northeast !`4,
The east ½ of the northeast ¼ of the southwest ¼,
APR 2 ~ 2001
The east ~2 of the west ½ of the southeast i`4 of the southwest ~,4,
the west V~ of the east t/,~ of The southeast I,4 of the southwest 1/4,
The east ½ of the east ½ of the southeast ~,4 of the southwest ~,4,
The north ½ of the west ½ of the northwest !,4 of the southeast
The southwest 1,4 of the northwest I,4 of the southeast ~,4,
The wesT V2 of the southwest ~,4 of the southeast
The west ~ of the east 1/2 of The southwest ~,4 of the southeast 1,4,
APR 2 4 200!
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TO AMEND THE WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS CONTROL ORDINANCE
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the notice of violation and abatement procedures, and enhance public
awareness of the requirements imposed by these regulations with an annual public notice. To
provide for shorter time fi.ames within which the County may abate violations and establish a
mandatory County lot mowing procedure for repeat violations.
CONSIDERATION: The County's Weed, Litter and Exotics Control ordinance has been
amended several times, all with an attempt to provide timely compliance of violations while
ensuring proper notice to the public.
The proposed amendment provides a concise notice to be placed in a newspaper of general
publication annually, stating the requirement to maintain property free of weeds in excess of
eighteen inches. (Exhibit A) Additionally, the amendment provides for posting notices on
properties repeatedly found in violation in order to obtain more timely compliance.
The ordinance being proposed also establishes a program to address repeat violators of excessive
weeds. The County may place properties on a mandatory mowing program where the lots would
be regularly mowed and the property owner is assessed an annual fee for the services. The
mandatory lot-mowing program would result in un-maintained lots being placed on a regular
schedule for mowing and eliminating the requirement for repeated notices to a property owner.
DSAC Recommendation: This item was reviewed by the DSAC and recommended for approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed mandatory mowing program may increase the Department's
expenditures depending on the number of properties placed in the program. An analysis of the
potential number of properties that might be included in the program was conducted in early
January 2001. At that time, there were approximately 60 properties that were provided more
than 3 notices of violation.
Utilizing the earlier analysis and inquiry to local contractors, we estimate that the mandatory
mowing program may increase the fiscal impact by 18,000.00 to 20,000.00 dollars.
At the time this program is implemented, staff recommends obtaining a contract with a local
contractor to complete the intended programmed mowing.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no Growth Management Impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Ordinance amendment.
SUBMITTED BY: ' ~ ..... .-- Date:
AGENDA LTEI~
APR 2 2001
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
Jol~M. Dunnuck, m, Interim Division Administrator
Colkununity Development & Env. Services Division
APR 2 4 2001
EXHIBIT A
A PUBLIC NOTICE FROM
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
NOTICE ABOUT WEEDS OR GRASSES OVER 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT-Ordinance 99-51.
as amended~ Section Eleven~ codified as Section 54-186 of the Collier County Code of Laws aod
Ordinances~ requires that all owners of developed and undeveloped lots shall control all
excessive ~,rowth of erasses or weeds over 18 inches by mowing. All lots with such vegetation
over 18 inches in height will be identified by a Code Enforcement investigator and a Notice of
Violation and Order to Correct may~ at the County's option~ be mailed to the property
owner(s) or posted on the lot. If posted~ a copy of this notice will also be posted at the Collier
County Courthouse at 3301 Tamiami Trail E., Naples~ FL 34112.
A posted notice may~ at the option of the County~ be used in lieu of mailing individual letters to
orooertv owners. After ten (10) days from the date of posting or mailin~.~ ff no action is taken
the County will abate the violation by contracting for the lot to be mowed by a mowin?
contractor. A bill will then be sent to the lot's owner of record for the mowing fees plus an
administrative fee of $100.00. Additional charges can be assessed for oversized lots or
extremely overgrown lots. Repeat violators may be subiect to additional fees or charges, or
after three violations may be included in a mandatory lot mowing program instituted by the
County.
The owner must remit payment for the amounts billed within twenty (20) days from the
mailine of the County's invoice. If the invoiced bill is not paid within this twenty-day period~ ~
Resolution assessing a lien will be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners. If
recorded~ this resolution may constitute a lien on ALL OF the violator's real and personal
orooerty in Collier County. This lien may be paid without further costs within twenty (20)
days from the date of approval of the resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County. If the lien remains unpaid after one (1) year from the date of the recording the
lien~ Collier County may bring suit to foreclose the lien as set forth in Chapter 173~ Florida
Statutes.
All property owners are requested to make arrangements for the proper maintenance of their
land as the practice of sending mailed Notices of Violation to owners~ in particular absentee
owners~ will be at the option of the County. The cooperation of ali affected property owners
will assist in reducing the large number of complaints about such nuisances received each year
by the Code Enforcement Department. Compliance with this requirement will also help to
control vermin and improve the appearance of the affected areas of the unincorporated
County.
.o.
APR 2 & 2001
ORDINANCE 2001-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ARTICLE VL~ WHICH
REGULATES AND CONTROLS LITTER, WEEDS,
AND EXOTICS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, AS PROMULGATED
BY ORDINANCE 99-51, AS AMENDED, AMENDING
SECTION 54-188, NOTICE OF VIOLATION, TO
REQUIRE ANNUAL PUBLICATION OF A PUBLIC
NOTICE PERTAINING TO CONTROL OF WEEDS;
AMENDING SECTION 54-189, PERTAINING TO
NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS AND ABATEMENT
PROCEDURES; AMENDING SECTION 54-190,
ASSESSMENT FOR ABATING NUISANCES, TO
CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND MAILING
REQUIRMENTS; AMENDING SECTION 54-191,
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, PERTAINING TO
MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT TO ALLOW ALL
MEANS ALLOWED BY THIS CODE; AMENDING
SECTION 54.192, IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE
ACTION, TO REFLECT CHANGES MADE BY THIS
ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTION 54-193,
PROCEDURES FOR MAILING NOTICES,
PERTAINING TO THE EFFECT OF MAILED
NOTICES TO MAKE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER
SECTIONS; ADDING SECTION 54-195,
MANDATORY LOT MOWING PROGRAM,
ADDING NEW PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN
THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 125, Florida Statues, establishes the right and power of counties to
provide for the health, welfare and safety of existing and future residents of the County by
enacting and enforcing regulations necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS,-the Board of County Commissioners (Board) has determined that
controlling the excessive growth of weeds is in the public's best interest; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that: the notice of violation and abatement
procedures need to be further clarified, an annual public notice will enhance public awareness of
the requirements imposed by these regulations, shorter time frames within which the County may
abate violations is warranted, and a mandatory County lot mowing procedure for repeat
violations should be established.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Wo(ds ......... o-. are deleted, words pnderlined are added.
AGENDA
APR 2 4 2001
Pi). ~ , --
SECTION ONE: Article VI, Section 54-188, Notice of Violation, of the Code Of Laws And
Ordinances Of Collier County, Florida, is amended as follows:
Sec. 54-188. Notice of Violation.
~ Annual P~bli~h~d Notice: Annually, the County Manager, or his designe~s)~
...................... ~ ...... , .................................. =nd. or cause to
be published, a public Notice. in substantially the following form. which details the abatement
procedures ccn:~--:-.~e.d :here':n for violations described in sections 54-180, 54-183, 54-185, and
54-186 herein.' That Or~i=:::.cc ;hall This N~tice will be published in a newspaper of general
circulation for 1~ minimum 9f fgur c~g~: c. cn=cc-,::~v¢ Sundays beginning with the first Sunday in
January of each year. and on every_ other Sunday thereafter;
A PUBLIC NOTICE FROM
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
NOTICE ABOUT WEEDS OR GRASSES OVER 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT-Ordinance
99-51~ as amended~ Section Eleven~ codified as Section 54-186 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances~ requires that all owners of developed and undeveloped
lots shall control all excessive growth of grasses or weeds over 18 inches by mowing. All
lots with such vegetation over 18 inches in height will be identified bY n Code
Enforcement investigator and n Notice of Violation and Order to Correct mn% at the
County's option~ be mailed to the property owner(s) or posted on the lot. If posted~ n
copy of this notice will also be posted at the Collier County Courthouse at 3301
Tamiami Trail E.~ Naples~ FL :34112.
~ posted notice may~ at the option of the County~ be used in lieu 9f mailing individual
letters to property owners. After ten (10) days from the date of posting or maillng, if no
action is taken the County will abate the violation by contracting for the lot to be
mowed by a mowing contractor. A bill will then be sent to the lot's owner of record for
the mowing fees plus an administrative fee of $100.00. Additional charges can be
assessed for oversized lots or extremely overgrown lots. Repeat violators may be
subiect to additional fees or charges~ or after three violations may be included in a
mandatory !or mowing program instituted by the County.
The owner must remit payment for the amounts billed within twenty (20) days from the
mailing of the Count, 's invoice. If the invoiced bill is not paid within this twenty-day
period~ a Resolution assessing a lien will be imposed by the Board 9f Count./
Commissioners. If recorded~ this resolution may constitute a lien on ALL OF the
violator's real and personal property in Collier County. This lien may be paid without
further costs within twenty (20) days from the date of approval of the resolution by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,. If the lien remains unpaid after one
(1) year from the date of the recording the lien~ Collier County may bring suit to
~'oreclose the lien as set forth in Chapter 173~ Florida Statutes.
All property owners are requested to make arrangements for the proper maintenance
of their land as the practice of sending mailed Notices of Violation to owners~ in
particular absentee owners~ will be at the option of the County. The cooperation of all
affected property owners will assist in reducing the large number of complaints about
such nuisances received each year by the Code Enforcement Department, Compliance
with this requirement will also help to control vermin and improve the appearance
the affected areas of the unincorporated County.
Words :-'-~c~ '..~-=u~?. are deleted, words underlined are added.
-2-
NO. _ -~ v/.
APR 2 4:2001
Any ouestions reRardinR these orocedures can be addressed ii) the (~pde
Enforcement Department. Phone # (941) 403-2440~ located ~ 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive~ Naples~ FL 34104.
O)
Annual publication of this Notice is intended to provide continuin~
constructive notice to all affected property_ owners in Collier County of the
procedures for abatement of the specified violations, and Of the
consequences of failing to timely abate cited violations.
(2)
Failure of the County to timely, or fully, publish the Annual Notice will
not be a ~zround for challenging any enforcement action brought under this
article,
1~ Whenever the County Manager or his designee determines that a public nuisance as
described in section 54-180, $4-183, 54-185, or $4-186 herein exists, he :~:~I will cause a
one or more of the following forms of notice of violation to be provided to the record
owner or owners of ~e.:::~ on said property
informing the ownerf.~ of said property of the existence of thc nuisance and the
corresponding violation(s). The form and manner of the notice provided will be
determined by thc director of code enforcement and will .depend on the* number Of
violations cited to a particular property owner(sL the number and frequency of'any prior
violations at property(s) owned by thc violator(sL the timeliness of any prior
abatement(s) of similar violationfs), the existence of other code violations, and of any
previously satisfied, foreclosed, or outstanding code enforcement liens, As a general
rule. certified mail. return receipt requested, should be provided to all first time violators
as set forth in the corresponding procedures below. Posted n0tic¢~ are generally
considered &npropriate for repeat violations at the same location or for the same
violator(sL especially when there is a pattern of certified mail sent to property owners
who are not Collier County residents being returned unclaimed or being refused,
~L~ A ]~otice of violation to may be served ~e.:::d on a violator, i.¢,. thc
record owner or owners ¢f~h¢ cited said-property, either by:
a. Certified mail. return receipt requested, notifying the record
ownerfs) of the cited violations via a Notice in substantially ~h~
following form;
Words ......... e-. are deleted, words underlined arc added.
APR 2 ,~ 2001
Collier County Code Enforcement Department
Notice of Violation and Order to Corr¢~
To:
Date:
Ordinance
Violation/Case No.
Property:
Folio _~:
Dear Property Owner:
According to the official records of this County, you are the owner &the above-
described property. As such, you are hereby notified that the Code Enforcement
Director, on [date] determined that a public nuisance exists on your property
pursuant to County Ordinance No. 99-5__~1, as amended, caused by: [describe
violation].~
You are further notified that you ;ka!l must immediately abate this nuisance
within ~c;'zn x,~ ten (10) days °fthe date of mailing of this notice by causing the above-
described proper~ to be __[describe how to abate]__. If the violation is not abated
within the time required FaiF, ng :hi~ ;c:!cn cn your ~a;'t, the Board of County
Commissioners will cause the nuisance to be abated.
YOUR FAILURE TO ABATE THE NUISANCE MAY RESULT EN THE
RECORDING OF A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATION
EXISTS AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY YOU
OWN IN COLLIER COUNTY YOUR PROPERTY. The lien shall may include the
dirc~ County's costs tO abate the violation plus an administrative fee of up to $200.00
an~ will which may be levied as an assessment against all &the property you 'own.
IN THE EVENT YOU RECEIVE THREE NOTICES OF VIOLATION OF
THIS ORDINANCE DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP OF THE REFERENCED
PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH YOU TIMELY ABATE EACH VIOLATION, YOU
MAY BE CHARGED AN ADDITIONAL ~.~I'Y. DOLLAR£ AS .s.N
ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE OF FIl~rY DOLLARS PER
VIOLATION AND BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54-195~
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION OF YOUR PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY'S
]MANDATORY LOT MOWING PROGRAM.
You may contest this Notice of Violation and determination of the existence of a public
nuisance by applying in writing, for a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
within fifleea-0~ ten (10) days from the date 0f mailing of this notice of violation.
h bY posting a Notice in subst~ntially the following form in a clear
visible location on the cited property, and at the Collier Coun
Words ;'~'.-'-zk ',.~-zug.h are deleted, words underlined are added.
-4-
Courthouse.
form:
The posted Notices must be in substantially the following,
P 0 S T E D
Collier County Code Enforcement Departmer~t
Notice of Violation of Section of Ordinance 99-51. as amended, and Order to Correct
To: (Record Owner(s)) Date Posted:
Violation/Case NO.
Property (address'}:
Folio #;
As the official record owner(s) of the above-described property, you are hereby
notified that a public nuisance exists on this property as of (insert date'~ in the form of;
(describe violation) on the subiect property.
You are further notified that you must immediately abate this nuisance within ten
(10) days of the date of po~ting 0fthis Notice by causing the above-described property to
be: (mowed/exotics removed, or otherwise describe how to abate). If the violation is not
abated within the time required, the County may act to cause the nuisance to be abated.
FAILURE TO ABATE THIS NUISANCE MAY RESULT IN THE RE¢0RDINQ OF A
LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND UPON
ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY YOU OWN IN COLLIER
COUNTY. Such liens may include the County's costs to abate the violation plus an
administrative fee of up tO $200.00, all of which may be levied as an assessment against
your property(s).
You may contest this Notice of violation and determination of the existence of a
public nuisance by applying in writing, for a hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners within ten (10) days from the date 0fp0sting thi, notice 0fvi01afi0n.
~ If the same violator(s) receive three or more Notices of violation of this
Ordinance during their ownership of any property_ in Collier County. even though the violations
may have been timely abated, an additional administrative fee of fifty dollars per flew violation
may be charged. In addition, ali cited property(s) may. at the discretion of the County Manager.
or his designee, become subject to the County's mandato _fy lot mowing program pr0vi$i0ns in
Section 54-195,
3f.~3.. If the property owner or his agent has not abated the identified nuisance a
described in said notice within :even (7) da)': ten (10) from the date of the notice of violation
Words ~.::!: '~.::'.:g.h are deleted, words underlined are added.
APR 2 & 2001
the County shell will abate the condition and :~all will, through its employees, servants, agents
or contractors, be authorized to enter upon the property and take such steps as are reasonably
required to abate the nuisance. However, the County Manager, in his discretion, may ex~end the
time allowed for taking corrective action up to 180 days for natural disasters as determined by
the State or Federal government.
SECTION TWO: Article VI, Section 54-189, Assessment for abating nuisance, of
the Code of Laws And Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, is amended as follows:
Sec. S4-189. Assessment for abating nuisance.
(a) IfA4~ the County or its agent has abated ~. violation cited under
this ordinance, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel :hall will be calculated and
reported to the Collier County Code Enforcement Director or his/her designee. An invoice and
statement 0faccount. legal nc.t~ac cfc:::::ment :hell substantially similar to that set forth below,
will be mailed by certified mail, return receipt mail requested to the property owner(si requesting
payment for the costf. SJ of abatement, and, T~: i~,;'cicc :h---~! '::i~ i::,cl'.:dc an initial
administrative fee of One Hundred ($100,00) dollars per parcel of property. Every_ invoice and
statement of account required under this section will also provide the violator notice of a ten ('I0)
day period to contest the amount of the invoiced charges, fees. and expenses,
Co) In :hz c'.'c.'~: :~c. Whenever a property owner abc:z: thc ;'~clc::.cn, b'.:: has
been mailed more than received a total of three notices of violation for separate similar violations
ofthis ordinance during the property owner'_s ownership of the referenced property, even though
the property owner may have abated each violation, the County shall may mail an invoice and
statement of account substantially similar to that set forth below legal r, ct~cc cf a;:a:amcn: ~
certified mail. return receipt requested to the property owner. The amount invoiced therein will
include an initial administrative fee of One hundred dollars ($I00.00) for each time an invoice
was provided for a violation of this ordinance. After the third notice of violation has been sent to
the same property owner, an additional r~,,~ additional administrative fee of Fifty dollars
($50.00) for the processing ofthe additional notice(s) may be assessed). Each notice of violation
thereafter (i.e.. the fourth notice or more) to the same property owner :~all will be processed in
the same manner, i.e.. invoicing an additional fee of Fifty ($50.00) dollars for each new notice of
violation.
Words .......... ~,,, a~e deleted, words un~terlined are added.
-6-
AGENDA.I~I~ ...~ ~'-
No. ~.~-CL.,/
APR 2 4 2001
The invoice and statement of account must be substantially in the following form:
INVOICE
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
Invoice No.;
Date;
Case No.:
Fglio:
Legal Description:
According to County records, you have previously been provided notice of
public nuisance on property of which you are the record owner. Having failed to abate the
nuisance as of <insert date>, this office has now done SO and hereby assesses costs
follow:
ITEM # DESCRIPTION AMOIJNT
ADMIN. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE(S) $ .00
MOW MOWING FEE $ .00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE
$ .00
If this invoice is not paid within twenty (20) days from the date of this statement, the
Board of County Commissioners will be notified and an action of assessment against the
property via resolution will commence. The administrative fee will be increased, and
interest at 12.00% charged until satisfied. Payment should be made by (3beck or money
order (U.S./unds3. made payable and mailed to:
Board of County Commissioners
(~ode Enforcement
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples. FL 34104
You may request a hearing before the Board &County Commissioners to show cause, if
~ny. why the expenses and charges incurred by the above-el,ed violation(s) are excessive
or unwarranted or why such expenses should not otherwise constitute a law~l lien
against the property on which the violation existed and upon any other real or personal
property_ you own. Said request for hearing must be made tO the County M~nageI-
Words :'.."ack '..~-cug~ are deleted, words ~mclerline~$ ave added.
'7-
APR 2 4:ZOO1
Government Center. 3301 Tamiami Trail East. Navies. Florida 34112 in writing within
ten (10) days from the ~tate of thi~ notice. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY TBE
AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE OR TIMELY REQUEST A HEARINC
CAN RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER
COUNTY.
~ ~ If' the invoice sent by the Code Enforcement Director or her designee is not paid
at the expiration of the twenty (20) days of the date of the statement of ac~0unt !zgal az:icg of
~:er:mcnt, the Board of County Commissioners :Sa!! may impose a lien against the property.
The Board of County Commissioners, by resolution, :~all may assess :uz~ all applicable costs
and fees against such parcel and all other vroperties owned by the violator in Collier County.
Said resolution shall: A) describe the land containing the violation and show the cost of
abatement, which shall include the initial administrative expense of One Hundred dollars
($100.00) plus an additional administrative expense of One Hundred d011~r~ £$100.00) per
parcel, or B) describe the land containing the repeat violation and show the initial administrative
fee of Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the fourth notice of violation and an additional Fifty dollars
($50.00) for each notice thereafter and the additional administrative fee of $5~.O~One Hundred
dollars ($100.00) for the processing of the invoice and statement of account and an additional
administrative fee of One-hundred ($100.00~ dollars per parcel. Such resolution when recorded
may :kall constitute a lien on all vers0nal and real property located in ¢ollier County which :kall
run~ with the 0wner', real property until paid. The resolution :~a!l will also specify that interest
:~a!l will accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date the resolution is recorded at the
rate of twelve (12) percent per annum.
ef.~4-) Y,-he-A copy of the resolution approved lien [m~z:e~ by the Board of County
Commissioners wil(be accompanied by a legal notice of assessment :~a!! 0flicn ~e substantially
in the following form:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
To: (Insert Pronertv Owner's Name and Address)
DATE:
Words :'~.;zk fi~e~:g.h axe deleted, words underlined are added.
AGENDA~ 1~1~4-/I '~
APR 2 4= 2:001
KEF. INV.# VIOLATIQN FOLIO
VIOLATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
You, as the owner of the property above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code
Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation
of county regxflationa on ,20_, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance
existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99-51, as amended and
served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is:
[describe nuisance]
You hgve failed to t;imgly abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ .00 and an administrative cost of
.r .... ,...-~.~a a~,,~.~ ~,~ ~,~x $ .00 for a total of [or, You abated
the nuisance but caused the County to incur an in!rial administrative cost ,~f'c:n..
.... , ~,...,. .... .~,..-..,.~., .,~,1... ($2eo oo) $ oo]
Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, :~all will become a lien on your property when recorded w:.t~:'.
t-,n~,.~~., ~a)":- of after aooroval_ _ by the Boardt~e ~..~ '~ .... ~.t'~-:~..... lega~ .,~.,~-~':~ c.f a::.c:~r..c, nt.
...-:.: ..... :.k: .... t~,~x a ....c .... k~ a .... ~'~:' '~':'~ FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY
THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE ~ MAY RESULT IN A LIEN
AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
Upon approval 9fthe resolution by the board, the clerk ofcoun~ will immediately mail a copy. ,f
~ach approved resolution and notice ofasses,ment of lien. via re~mlar U,S. mail. If full payme
Words :'----'ok '..~.:~'ag,~ are deleted, words underlined ar~ added.
°9-
APR 8 4 2OOl
f~?r the as~e,';sed amount is not made by the property owner within 20 days from the date of
adoptign of the resolution by the board, then the clerk of courts will automatically and without
further dir¢~:tign record both the resolution and notice of assessment of lien in the public records
glO:oilier County. Recording said resolution will act to impose a lien on the violator's property.
(e~0 After the expiration of one year from the date of recording of the lien, as provided
herein, a suit may be filed bY the cgunty to foreclose said lien. Such foreclosure proceedings
:~al! will be instituted, conducted and enforced in conformity with the procedures for the
foreclosure of municipal special assessment liens, as set forth in Chapter 173, Florida Statutes, as
amended, which provisions are hereby incorporated herein in their entirety to the same extent as
if such provisions were set forth herein verbatim.
(O(.g~ The liens for delinquent assessments imposed hereunder ;~;~ will remain liens,
coequal with the lien of all state, county, district and municipal taxes, superior in dignity to all
other filed liens and claims, until paid as provided herein.
(g-)(~ After recording the resolution imposing of the lien, the county
............... .,-manager or his designee may accept partial or full payment and recommend
recording ~ release ~)r satisfaction of the lien to the board, especially if he/she determines an error
has been made based upon his/her judgment.
SECTION THREE. Article VI, Section 54-190, Procedures for Mailing Notices, of the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, is amended as follows:
Sec. 54-190. Right to hearings on declaration of public nuisance and assessment.
(a) Any property owner recc:.'.'Sng tko whose propen'y is posted or who is mailed a
notice of violation aYnd order to correct pursuant to section 54-188 may contest this determination
by filing an application for a hearing before the board of county commissioners within J-g. ten
(10) days from the date affixed on the notice of violation.
(b) Any propervy owner receiving the invoice and ~ta~ement of account nct:.ce cf
~:.'~:..'~c.'~t pursuant to section 54-18-79}, para~raoh 1. :ha!! will have ten (10'1 days to request a
hearing before the board to show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the county
under this section are excessive or unwarranted or why such expenses should not otherwise constitute
a lawful ~ assessment against said propervy.
Words ~-'-ck ~-e::~: are deleted, words ~nderline0 are added.
APR 2 2001
/.3.
(c) If, after said hearing, the board determine~ that the assessment is fair, reasonable, and
warranted, a le£al notice of assessment of lien and the a~:cggmcnt resolution of assessrnen~ --&all will
be filed by the clerk of the board and recorded forthwith. If the board determines that the charges are
excessive or unwarranted, it :hall may direct the county adm~.~z,*r, atcr manager to re-compute the
charges and the board ~ha!l Irn~y hold a further hearing, after _~roviding certified mailed notice to the
owner, upon the recomputed charges.
SECTION FOUR: Article VI, Section 54-191, Enforcement Procedures, of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, is amended as follows:
Sec. 54-191. Enforcement procedures.
Investigators of Collier County code enforcement are hereby empowered, in addition ~0
the means ofenf0rcement ~¢1~ f0Hh in section 1-6 0fthi$ code to issue written corrective notices
and/or notices to appear (citations) in migdemcanar county court to any person violating the
provisions of this article. All such notices issued shall be maintained by the issuing authority for
public inspections during the normal office hours.
SECTION FIVE: Article VI, Section 54-192, Immediate corrective action, of the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, is amended as follows:
Sec. 54-192. Immediate corrective action.
In the event the County adminigtraw, r Manager or his designee determines or has reason
to believe that, a violation of this article, including but not limited to accumulation of weed or
litter, presents a serious threat to the public health, safety or welfare of the public or that the
violation is of such a nature as to require immediate correction, the violator may be required by
notice to effectuate immediate corrective measures upon receipt of the notice. The notice,
substantially in the form set forth in section 54-I 88, shall advise the owner that the.county will
remedy the hazardous condition as soon as possible and require payment from the violator for
the costs of correction plus an administrative fee. To be effective, the notice :F. all must be
served upon the occupant if the property is occupied, or if unimproved or not occupied bY the
property_ owner, physically posted on the property and sent by certified mail to the owner as
his/her name appears on the records of the property appraiser, consistent with the procedures set
forth in section 54-188.
Words :'~.:ck ~-cgg!~ are deleted, words underlined are added.
-11-
AGENDA I;Z'EId'_ \
APR 2 4 2001
,,o.
SECTION SIX: Article VI, Section 54-193, Procedures for mailing notices, of the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida is amended as follows:
Sec. 54-193. Procedures for~ and effect oft Mailediag Notices
Notices mailed to the violator's address indicated on the records of the Collier County
Property Appraiser of such lot or parcel of land for ad valorem taxation purposes whether mailed
bv re_~lar U.S postal service mail. or by registered or certified mail. return receipt renuest~d
:~a!! will be deemed personal service upon the person, for the purpose of this article. A property
owner is deemed tO have received a mailed notice on the tenth day after the notice is placed in
the United States mail. Evidenc~ that the proper notice has been mailed i~; suflqcient tO
demonstrate that the notice requirements of this article have been met, without regard to whether
the property owner actually received such notice. Refusal to accept service of such notices by a
property owner or its agent ~-~all will not defeat this personal service, nor bar the County from
proceeding with enforcement, creating lawful li~ns, and performing the necessa~ abatement
under this article. It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain a current address with the
Collier County Property Appraiser's office at all times.
SECTION SEVEN: Addition of Section 54-915, Procedures for Mandatory Lot Mowing
Program
Sec. 54-195. Procedures for Mandatory Lot MowinR Program.
(a) Inclusion in mandatory lot mow/ng pro?am. If a public nuisance is determinet~
to exist three or more times at, er the effective date of this Secti0n on a partic0lar 10t or
parcel of unimproved property while under the same ownership, then at the discretion of
the county manager, or his designee, such property may be placed in the County's
mandatory_ lot mowing program, as set forth below:
(b) Exempt/on _from lot mowing pro_gram. Individual property owners of record
whose real property is included in the ~0unt¥'s mandatory_ lot mowing program may
reauest ~n exemption from incl~si0n in the vrogram by submitting to the county manager.
or his designee, a signed written agreement, acceptable to the county, covenantin~ that
the property owner will maintain the property sO that the height of any grass, weeds, or
otherwise regulated vegetative matter will not constitute a public nuisance or exceed
eighteen inches in height. In addition, the property_ owner must 10r0vide a letter of credit.
performance bond. escrow agreement, Qr other surety acceptable to the County, in ~n
amount not less than three times the County's estimate of its annual costs to administer
and provide mowin~ servk;e to the corresponding propertv($). The surety provided may
vary. but must remain in effect throu~hout the property owner's ownership of the
vropertv(s). The surety provided must inclode a provision alIQwlng the county to elai~
Words :'J'~ .::!: ~::c::gh are deleted, words underlined are added·
-12-
and use the secured funds to administer and perform {~ny mowing which may becom~
necessary due to the property_ owner's failure to maintain the properW as required by the
agreement. In that event the property owner would be provided written notice that the lot
mowing program exemption would be revoked by a date certain, after which date the,
funds from the surety would be used to administer and provide mowing services until
expended. Thereafter, the property would be placed in the mandatory_ lot mowing
pro,am and not be entitled to any further exemptions SO long as owned by the same
prope~_ owner(s).
(c) Establishrnent of lot mowing ~tser fee. Owners of real property, included in the
county's mandatory_ lot mowing program will be charged an annual user's fee so that thc,
county or its authorized agent may administer and provide routine lot mowing services
for the included property.
(d) Amount qfuser_fee. The annual user's fee will be determined by the board based
upon the county's actual costs or reasonable estimate of Costs to administer and provide
for lot mowing services for properties expected to be included in the program. Such fees
collected may be used for any and all costs reasonably related tO lot mowing and
maintenance of the real property included in the program.
(e) Lot mowing bills. In the first quarter of each year, the county will mail an annual
Iot-m0wing bill tO each owner of property included in the program, The bill will be for
services rendered in the prior calendar year (January 1 -December 31). All bills are
immediately due and payable and will become delinquent if not paid in ~11 within 60
days from the date the bill is mailed. All bills will include a notice tO the owner that they
can, at any time, unless previously revoked, reauest an exemption from the program upon
submission ofthe required written statement and surety as set forth above.
60 iDelinquent _fees: delinquent .fee lien. All delinquent fees will incur ~ service
charge of one percent per month on the unpaid balance. Fees that remain delinquent for
more than 60 days may be converted to a lien pursuant to the procedures below.
(g) Initiation of delinquent _fee lien process. From time TO time the county will
compile a list of properties whose lot mowing user fees have remained unpaid for more
than 60 days._af~er bills for said fees have been sent to the property owner ofrecord. That
list of delinquent fees will constitute a preliminary delinquent user fee roll and the county
will present that r011 tO the board at a duly advertised and noticed hearing
(h) Notice. Approximately four weeks prior to the hearing, the board clerk will cause
to be published, once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation, a notice of the time and place of the hearing when the board will meet to hear
and consider any objections or defenses to the levy of a lien against the delinquent
properties. The date of the meeting sO noticed will be approximately 14 days from the
date ofpublicati0n of the second notice. The county will also send individual notices of
the date and time of the hearing to all owners of record of property proposed to be liened
prior to the date of the hearing. Mailing to the last known addr~s~ Of each Owner in
property ap_oraiser's r~cords will constitute sufficient notice, regardless of whether th
notice is accepted or actually received.
Words .aLack '~%-cug, l~ a~e deleted, words underlined are added.
-13-
AGEND~ J~M,-~ \
.°.
APR g 4= 2001
O) Public Hearing. Each owner of record ofany property_ proposed to be liened for
delinquent lot mowing fees. or any person having an interest therein, may appear at the
public hearing and voice any ob!ections to the proposed lien Or the ~mo~nt thereof.
Ob_iections may also be submitted in writing either prior to or at the time of the public
hearing. At the hearing, the board may modify or correct any proposed lien amount
provided that no lien amo~n~ ma)/ be increased over the amount in the proposed roll,
After consideration Of ~11 obiection$ to the proposed lien amounts, the board, bY
resolution, may approve the lew of delinquent user fee liens, effective as of the date Of
recording of the adoption of said resolution. Said liens will be of the same nature and
aoolv to the same extent as ~ lien for general county taxes falling due in the same year or
years said lot mowing user fees were due. Such lien will be superior in dignity to all
other liens, titles and claims, until paid,
O) Limitation on time to contest levF qf lien. Any person aggrieved by the action of
the board in imposing delinquent lot mowing user fee liens mu~t commence an action in
circuit court within thirty 1'30) days from the date the resolution is adopted, lJnles$ such
action is begun within this thirty (30] day period, all objections of that person to the
imposition of the lien will be deemed to have been waived.
(k) Prepayment and recording of lien. For a period of 30 days after the date of the
resolution of the board levying the delinquent lot mowing lien. the lien may be paid
without additional interest. Properties for which payments are received or po,tmarked
within thirty (30) days from the date the resolution is adopted will be deleted from the
lien roll prior to recording. After the expiration of the prepayment period, a certified
cop5, of the resolution and roll will be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court in Collier County.
(7) ,Release qfLien. Owners who have paid the delinquent lien in full after the
recording of the resolution and roll are entitled tO a release and satisfaction of lien from
the county. The recording of the release and satisfaction of lien and any charge~ therefor
are the responsibility of the property owner.
(m) Foreclosure. Liens for delinquent lot mowini; user fees may be foreclosed in the
same manner as liens for property taxes or special assessments. In the event the county
prevails, owners of property against whom a foreclosure action is commenced will be
liable for all fees, costs and expenses incurred by the county or its agents, includine
reasonable attorney's fees. and the same may be assessed as a cost in the foreclosure
action.
(n) Validi_ty qf liens not q~ected by irreg~darities. Any informality or irregularity in
the proceedings to impose a lien for delinauent lot mowing fees will not affect the
validity of the same after the resolution levying the lien has been adopted, and n0
deviation from the procedures prescribed above will affect the validity 0fthe lien unless
it can be clearly shown that the party objecting was materially injured thereby.
(o) Alternate methods qf collection permitted. Nothing herein prohibits the q:0Onty
from utilizing other means to collect delinquent lot mowing fees including, but n ~t
limited to, an action for damages filed in the appropriate court in Collier County, Florid~
Words :='-~:k :~:*::g!: are deleted, words ~nderlined are added.
-14-
APR g 4 2001
SECTION EIGHT: Conflicts and Severability.
In the event this ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any Section, phrase, sentence or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
SECTION NINE: Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such, and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "Section," "Article"
or any other appropriate word.
SECTION TEN: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, this __ day of ,2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLEKK
BOAR~ OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Patrick G Whi~, E'sq
Assistant County Attorney
Words :re:c!: t.~-cu?~ are deleted, words pnderlined are added.
AGENDAJT~M,r' ~ '~
APR 2 4 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PE-99-3, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, REPRESENTING LARRY J. AND MARCY A.
GODE, REQUESTING A PARKING EXEMPTION FOR AN OFF-SITE PARKING ON
LOT 10, BLOCK 2, NAPLES PARK UNIT 1, TO SERVE A COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED ON AN ADJACENT LOT (LOT 9) ON 109'"
AVENUE NORTH IN NAPLES PARK. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO PETITION
V-99-29)
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals consider an application for an off-site parking to serve a
commercial development while maintaining the community's best interest.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioner proposes a 2,700 square-foot office building on lot 9, which is zoned C-3
intermediate commercial. The lot in question is only 50 feet wide, which causes practical
difficulties construct a building and the ancillary parking on such a narrow lot. The applicant also
owns lot 10, which is zoned RMF-6 Residential Multi-family. They are proposing to build the
building and a portion of the parking on the commercial lot and to use the residential lot to install
additional parking spaces.
The owner of the triplex residence located to the west of.the proposed off-site parking lot has
stated that he has no objection to the granting of this request. However, the owner of the
commercially zoned lot developed with a residential dwelling, which abuts the commercial
parcel the applicant intends to develop with a commercial building, objects to this request. She
believes that lot 9 (the commercial lot) should not be developed and shall be used as buffer to
separate commercial developments to the east from the residential developments to the west.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this petition will have no fiscal impact on Collier County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
Approval of this parking exemption 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.
APR 4 2001
Pg.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was not required to be heard by the Environmental Advisory Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition on September 21, 2000 and by a
unanimous vote recommended approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff determined that the proposed Parking exemption (off-site parking) request will have little
impact to any existing and future developments in the area and will enable the applicant to
develop the site; therefore staff recommends approval of this petition.
PREPARED BY:
CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph.D., AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INTERIM CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
q.q .-o/
DATE
R~ERE -'--'--"
, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE
APPROVED BY:
NRiMM. DUNNUCK, III
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
DATE
2
APR 2 2001
AGENDA ITEM 7-D
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DECEMBER 2, 1999
PETITION OSP-99-03, GODE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
OWNER/AGENT:
Agent:
Owner:
William L. Hoover, AICP
Hoover Planning
3785 Airport Road N., Suite B
Naples, FL. 34105
Larry J. & Marcy A. Gode
5475 Shirley St., #2
Naples, FL. 34109
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant requests approval of a petition to allow for off-site parking spaces on Lot 10,
Block 2, Unit 1, of the Naples Park Subdivision. If approved, the petition would allow the owner
to provide nine (9) off-site parking spaces for a professional office located on Lot 9, which abuts
the east property line of Lot 10 also located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, of
Collier County.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The property proposed for off-site parking is located on the north side of 109th Avenue North in
the Naples Park Subdivision approximately 300+ feet east of Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41). See
iljustration on following page.
APR 2 2001
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner owns two small lots each with 50 feet of frontage on 109~ Avenue North. One lot,
Lot 9, is located in the C-3, Commercial, zoning district. The owner proposes to use it for a 2,700
square-foot professional office building. The other lot, Lot 10, is located in a RMF-6, Residential
Multi-family, zoning district. The owner proposes to use it for off-site parking. Lot 10 is the
subject lot for this petition.
Due to the small size of Lot 9, and the fact that the property is required to have side-yard
setbacks of 13 and 15 feet, redevelopment of this parcel is not cost effective without the approval
of the requested off-site parking and approval of reduced side yard setbacks. The petitioner needs
to obtain a variance to reduce the side yard setbacks to accommodate the proposed office
building located on Lot 9 (see companion petition V-99-29). The proposed variance, if approved,
will reduce the west side-yard setback from 15 feet to three (3) feet, and the east side-yard from
13 feet to 10 feet to better utilize the available space. Without approval of the OSP and the
variance requests, the proposed office use of Lot 9 will likely not take place. Furthermore, a
rezoning of Lot 10 from RMF-6 to C-3 is not permitted due to the limitations imposed by the
Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP requires that property proposed for a rezoning must
front a collector or an arterial road. The Future Land Use Element also requires that such
rezoning be the same in depth as the already established commercial district. Lot 10 exceeds that
depth by 50 feet and the closest arterial is U.S. 41 which is separated from the subject lot by
other properties. Therefore, Lot 10 does not qualify for a rezoning.
Approval of an off-site parking request will allow the petitioner to use Lot 10 for professional
office use without rezoning the residential lot to C-3 commercial. By approving an OSP, the
RMF-6 zoning will still be in effect for the subject lot and the proposed parking area would
create a much greater buffer and separation between the proposed office building and
neighboring residential property to the west.
With regard to the reduced buffer, the Board of Zoning Appeals is allowed to reduce buffers per
Section 2.3.4.11.g. of the LDC when it deems the specific buffer is not necessary. In this case,
the petitioner proposes reducing a 15-foot landscape buffer to 10 feet with a six-foot-high wall
along the property boundaries. The reduced buffer should not create any impacts to neighboring
properties. The owner of the abutting residential triplex located to the west of Lot 10 has no
objections to the off-site parking and a reduced buffer (see Buckler 9-29-99), and he believes it
will have a positive impact on his and other nearby property values. Furthermore, the petitioner
has agreed to placing additional trees and landscaping along the perimeter of the property. Staff
recommends that the BZA should approve the reduced buffer.
The intent of the OSP permit is to allow existing non-conforming commercial developments,
especially those with small lots, to use an adjacent residential lot to alleviate an existing parking
problem by installing up to 33 percent of the required parking spaces off-site. However, in
APR 2 q 2001
several occasions in the past, requests which differed from the strict requirements of the Code
were approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Section 2.3.4.11.5.e. of the LDC specifies that
the Board of Zoning Appeals may reduce this requirement for employee parking if the amount of
employee parking does not exceed 15 percent of the off-site parking. The petitioner has stated
that employee parking will be provided on the subject lot but such employee parking will not
exceed the 15 percent rule (1 to 2 spaces), therefore, qualifying it for a reduction of the above
requirement. This proposal will allow 44 percent of the required parking spaces off-site (4
spaces). The difference between 33 and 44 percent in this case is caused by one parking space,
which should be considered as having no impact to surrounding properties. Lot 10 will be able to
accommodate up to nine parking spaces and Lot 9 will contain five spaces. Only nine total
spaces are required by the LDC. Furthermore, the applicant has met with staff to revise his site
plan to meet County requirements and to meet his space needs. He has reduced his building plans
from 3,036 square feet to 2,700 square feet to try to accommodate County requirements while
still providing usable office space. This request is the minimum proposed.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Existing Conditions:
The property proposed for off-site parking is currently vacant and is
zoned RMF-6.
Surrounding:
North - Single family home, zoned RMF-6.
South - Single family home, zoned RMF-6.
East - Vacant commercial, zoned C-3.
West - Triplex, zoned RMF-6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Section 2.3.4.11., Locational Restrictions, states that where off-site parking is proposed for
commercial uses, all of the lots proposed for off-site parking must meet the Locational
requirements for commercial uses as identified in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP). Approval of this petition does not constitute a rezone, but
rather will only permit .the _off-site parking as depicted on the attached site plan labeled Exhibit
"A", or any use which is permitted in the RMF-6 zoning district, should the off-site parking
agreement be rescinded at any time in the future. Furthermore, the subject lot meets the
requirements of the FLUE as discussed in this report (see "Purpose").
EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE:
This petition has been reviewed by all of the appropriate County agencies assigned jurisdictional
oversight, none of which have offered any objection to this petition. Traffic impacts will be
minimal, but no greater than what is already permitted.
APR 2 2001
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staffs 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, and the
site is already disturbed. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is
required. However, pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the
course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological
artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery
shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted.
ANALYSIS:
There are six requirements that must be satisfied in order to be granted approval of off-site
parking. These requirements are as follow:
a. All of the lots are under the same ownership;
All lots are under the ownership of Larry and Marcy Gode.
No off-site parking space is located further than three hundred feet (300') from the
building or use they are intended to serve, measured by the shortest feasible walking
distance, unless special circumstances exist under SeCtion 2.3.4.11.5;
The furthermost off-site parking space is within approximately 40 feet from the existing and
proposed commercial building.
c. The lots are not separated by an arterial roadway as designated in the Traffic
Circulation Element of the Growth Management Plan;
The lots are not separated by an arterial roadway, there are adjacent properties with a
common property line. -
de
At least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the required parking for the development is
located on the lot with the principal structure unless special circumstances exist under
Section 2.3.4.11.5;
Of the nine (9) parking spaces required for the proposed professional office use, four (4)
spaces will be located on the residentially zoned property (Lot 10) as off-site parking. The
remainder will be located on-site (Lot 9). The lot is narrow and does not provide adequate
width to serve both the proposed use and parking and access needs as required by the Land
Development Code; therefore, the application should be considered in compliance with this
APR 2 q 2001
requirement. The difference between meeting the parking requirements as required under this
section are the result of one parking space. Even if the applicant could meet the requirement
to provide one more parking space on site, the off-site parking lot will not change. It will still
be utilized mostly for off-site parking. Furthermore, Section 2.3.4.11.5.e. of the LDC
specifies that the Board of Zoning Appeals may reduce this requirement for employee
parking if the amount of employee parking does not exceed 15 percent of the off-site parking.
The petitioner has stated that employee parking will be provided on the subject lot but such
employee parking will not exceed the 15 percent rule (1 to 2 spaces), therefore, qualifying it
for a reduction of the above requirement. This proposal will allow 44 percent of the required
parking spaces off-site (4 spaces). The difference between 33 and 44 percent in this case is
caused by one parking space, which should be considered as having no impact to surrounding
properties. Lot 10 will be able to accommodate up to nine parking spaces and Lot 9 will
contain five spaces. Only nine total spaces are required by the LDC to meet parking
requirements for the proposed 2,700 square-foot office building.
e. The off-site parking will serve an existing structure or land use.
f.
The off-site parking will serve a new office building; however, the office building is located
within an existing C-3 Commercial district.
The off-site parking facility shall be designed to mitigate any negative effects of this
parking facility on neighboring residentially zoned property. Mitigation shall include,
unless specifically determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals not to be necessary:
1. No vehicular egress shall occur on local streets opposite of residential homes or
within the building lines of unimproved single-family residentially zoned property.
No access point will be within the building lines of the adjacent properties.
2. Lighting shall be shielded, pointing downward, and not over 20 feet in height so as
to prevent glare upon ali neighboring properties.
This requirement has been incorporated into the resolution.
A 15-foot-wide landscape buffer strip shall be provided around the entire perimeter
where it directly abuts residentially zoned property. A six-foot- high fence, wall
(architecturally finished), hedge or berm combination and 10 foot tall shade trees
spaced no more than 20 feet apart on center shall be required.
The applicant proposes a 15-foot landscaped buffer along the north property boundary of
Lot 10, but only a 1 O-foot buffer along the west and south boundaries. The applicant has
increased the landscaping at the southwest comer of lot 10, and it will contain
APR 2 2001
landscaping and an additional tree. A six-foot-high fence will also be installed along the
property lines. Furthermore, the property owner of the adjoining property has no
objections to a reduced buffer along his property line. The attached conceptual site plan
indicates that the petitioner designed the parking lot in accordance with those
requirements. The reduced buffer has been reviewed by the County Landscape Architect
and has determined that the proposed changes are acceptable. It will be staff's duty to
make sure that the approved SDP is in full compliance with the requirements of the Land
Development Code.
REVIEW CRITERIA:
Staff's recommendation to the Planning Board, as well as the Planning Board's recommendation
to the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be based on the following review criteria set forth in
Section 2.3.4.11.6 of the Land Development Code:
The proposed off-site parking facility, including the ingress and egress is safe and
convenient for motorists and pedestrians;
The proposed parking lot will provide a driveway connection onto 109~h Avenue North.
Most traffic will be safely directed to U.S. 41 North.
The proposed off-site parking facility does not adversely impact the character and
quality of the neighborhood nor will hinder the future development of surrounding
properties;
Where off-site parking is proposed adjacent to residentially zoned property, buffering and
landscaping are required pursuant to Section 2.3.4.11.4(g) of the Land Development Code.
In the opinion of staff, this landscape buffer will provide an adequate buffer between the
proposed off-site parking facility and the residentially zoned properties adjacent to the said
parking facility. Furthermore, the abutting property owner has no objections to a reduced
1 O-foot buffer. Staff will review the Site Development Plan for conformance with these
requirements and for eompatibility with neighboring properties.
Approval of the petition will not create parking problems for any neighboring
property;
Approval of this request will not create parking problems.
d. Other more viable parking solutions are not available to the petitioner.
There are no other more viable parking solutions available within the neighborhood to
provide adequate parking for this building.
APR 2 2001
o°'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition OSP-99-03 to the Board
of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval subject to the stipulations listed on the
Resolution of adoption and Restrictive Covenant.
APR 2 q 2001
PREPARED BY:
DONALD,J~Y,/A/I/CP
PRINcIpA~ PLANNER~'
DATE
RE~I:WED BY:
RO~'ALD F. N~O, AICP, MANAGER
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
DATE
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
cD_./ ./i
DATE
APPROVED BY:
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR
COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS.
o/_
DATE
Staff Report for the September 21, 2000 CCPC meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
OSP-99-03 GODE/STAFF REPORT/DJM
APR 2 ~ 2001
~o~ 08 99 01:31p B. Hoover ($41 ] 403-S00S
OFF-SITE PARKING APPLICATION (0SP) ~ -' ~
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DETERMINATION' ~
0 5 P9 9- 0 3---. , . .... ;
PETITION NO. (ASSIGNED BY STAFF) DATE!i .... .-- -r ........ ~_~. ~:
SDP NO. (ASSIGNED BY STAFF)
AND ADDRESS OF BUSINESS TO BE SERVED BY OFF-SITE PARKING
Proposed Gode Professional Building, 109th Avenue North.
L~GAL DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS LOT 9 BLOCK 2
Naples Park Subd.
SEC 28 TWP 48
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OFF-SITE LOT 10 BLOCK 2
Naples Park Subd.
PARKING LOT SEC ~ . TWP 48
PETITIONERtS NAME Lar[¥ J. and Marcy A. ~o~
UNIT 1
RANGE 25
UNIT 1
RANGE 25
PETITIONER'S ADDRESS 5475 Shirley St., ~2, Nanles. FL 34109
TELF~PHONE ~91-4231
AGENT'S NAME William L. Hoover, AICP, Hoover Planninq
AGENT'S ADOI~ESS 3785 Air~ort Road N., Suite B, Naples, FL 34105
TELEPHONE 403-8899
ZONING ON PROPOSED OFF-SITE PARKING LOT RMF-6
ZONING/LAND USE ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PROPOSED OFF-SITE
PARKING LOT.
N RMF-6 Single-Famil~ Home
S RMF-6 Single-Famil~ Home
E C-3 Vacant
W RMF-6 Triplex
ZONING OF LOT T~E 0FF-$IT~ PARKING IS PROPOSED TO S~RVE C-__~
-1-
APR 2 ~ 2001
TYPE OF LAND USE THAT OFF-SITE PARKING IS PROPOSED TO SERVE
(EXAMPLE: MEDICAL OFFICE, RESTAURANT, ETC.)
professional Office.
PARKING FORMULA REQUIRED FOR ABOVE REFERENCED USE (I.E.
SPACE PER 250 SQ. FT.) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.3.14 OF COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
1 per 300 square feet.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR ABOVE USE
10
TOTAL N-UMBER OF PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON SITE Q ,
% OF TOTAL REQUIRED ~
TOTAL NI3MBER OF PARKING SPACES PROPOSED OFF-SITE 10
DISTANCE OF PROPOSED OFF-SITE PARKING LOT TO SUBJECT BUSINESS
50 feet. (MEASURED BY SHORTEST
FEASIBLE W~LKING DISTANCT)
BRIEF NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING:
S99 attached narrative letter.
-2-
APR 2 2001
NOTARIZED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
RE:
Proposed Gode Professional Office Building, Located on the North Side of
109th Avenue North in Naples Park, Unincorporated Collier County, Florida
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that Purse Associates, Inc., 4450 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 9, Bonita
SPrings, Florida 34134 and Hoover Planning, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B,
Naples, Florida 34105 have been engaged by the property owners to act as authorized
agents and to request necessary applications during the Off-Site Parking petition, Site
Development Plan application, possible Variance petition, and related developmental/
permitting processes for the subject project.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF (~£,t.[~ ~?r'
The foregoing instrument was
~c.~-r' , 1999
personally known to me or has produced
as identificatio~and who did (did not) take
-Notary Public, State of Florida '
My Commission Expires: - ~/g/CO ?.
acknowledged before me this'"',._~r'~ day of
by ~c~ 1~- C.~,~,L.. who is
an oath.
APR 2 q 2001
Pr_..~_P_ared by an9 return to
Diana M. Adams
Paralegal
Dawd J. Szempruch, p A.
5100 Tamiami Trail, Suite 201
Naples, Florida .34103
941-261-8484
F,e No.: 98472
Will Call No
2569PG ;580
]3NS DSO8.00
REC FE~
Granlee SS. No
Parcel Idenlffical~on No
[Space Above This Line For Recording Data]_
Warranty Deed
151 ATUTOR'~' FORM - St:gl'ION b89 02, F 5)
This Indenture made th,s 17th day of ,June, 1999 Between
Donald E. Keller and Antoinette Keller, husband and wife whose posl office address ~s
10680 6th Avenue N., Naples, Florida 34108 of the County of Collier, State ot Florida. grantor, and
Larry J. Gode .,nd Marcy A. Gode, husband and wife whose post office address ~s
5475 Shirley Street, #2, Naples, Florida ~4109 of the County of Collier, State of Florida, grantee',
~/itnesseth that said granlor, for and m consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and
other good and valuable Considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the recetPt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, has granted, barga ned, and sold to the saki grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns f~ever, the
followmg described land. s~luate, lymg and being in Collier County, Florida, to-w~t:
Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park Unit No. 1, according to the plat thereof, recorded In Plat Book 1, Page 106,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Grantor warrants that at the time of this conveyance, the subject property ia not the Grantor's homestead
within the meaning set forth in the constitution of the state of Florida, nor is it contiguous to or a part of
homestead property. Grantor's residence and homestead address is: 10680 6th Avenue N., Naples,
Florida 34108.
Subject to taxes for 1999 and subsequent years; covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements,
reservations and limitations of record, if any.
and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to saKI land, and will defend the same agamst lawful c~aims of
all persons whomsoever.
' "Grantor' and 'Granle~' are used fo*' singular o¢ plural, as context requires
In 'Witness ~¥hereo[, granlor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence:
__A_.
Donald Z. Keller
Antoznette Keller 1
APR 2 2001
'~* 0P,: 2569 PG: !581 ***
STATE OF Florida
COUNTY OF Collier
The forego~n§ ~nstrumenl was acknowlecJgeu before me lt;~s 17Ih day of June, 1999 Dy Donald E Keller. who
gersonau? ~,nown Io me or ua$ DlOduC, ef: 8 ~Jfl,'er $ License as IderllllJCRJlOI1.
[Notary Seall ."~ ga,,o J Szem~ Nolary Pubhc . /~. ,
.~ .My cm,~,~ ~736778 Printed Name:
%.,,,,.,/E.~,e, J.~ t ~Z My Commission Exp,,es:
STATE OF Fionda
COUNTY OF Collier
The forego,ng ~nstrument was acknowledged bef(xe me this 17th day of June, 1999 by Antoinette Keller, who is
personally known Io me or has pro~3uced & Drivers L~cense as ~cientification.
[Notary Seaq
.,.~. ~ Core. ss,on CC?0ee'T6 Notary Public -- '~. /
'"-'"' My Commission Expires:
APR 2 q 2001
Ed Buckler
3596 Margina Circle
Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
September 29, 1999
Mr. Larry Gode
5475 Shirley Street #2
Naples, FL 34109
RE: Gode Professional Office Building on 109th Avenue North, Naples Park
Dear Mr. Gode:
As you are aware I am the property owner of the triplex directly to the west of your
proposed parking area. I would like to confirm in my writing that I support your project
including your Off-Site Parking petition.
Based on the site plan you have provided me (see attached) and your description of the
proposed building, I believe your project will have a positive impact on my structure and
the immediate neighborhood. I feel the 10' buffer along our common boundary, with 10
foot high trees spaced 20 feet apart and a 6' high fence or hedge, and another hedge on my
side of your building, will provide more than sufficient screening between the 2 properties.
Approval of your project will alleviate my concerns that the 2 neighboring 50-foot wide
lots will be developed haphazardly due to the following reasons: 1) The 50-foot
commercial lot will be too small to have a building that will be attractive and be feasible in
the future to be well-maintained. 2) The 50-foot wide residential lot, between my
structure and the 50-foot wide commercial lot, will lend itself only to a small inexpensive
home due to concerns of this commercial lot.
Sincerely,
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT 1
PICTURE OF SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE TO PROPOSED BUILDING
APR 2 4 2001
RESOLUTION 2000-
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER OSP-99-03
FOR OFF-SITE PARKING 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 off-site parking, 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 Petition OSP-99-03 and off-site parking as shown on the
attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", in an RMF-6 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 2.3.5.3,
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 William L. Hoover, AICP, representing Lan')' J.
and Marcy A. Gode, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 10, Block 2, Unit 1, Naples Park, per Plat Book 1, Page 106, Collier County, Florida.
be and the same hereby is approved fo/Off-Site parking as shown on the attached plot plan,
Exhibit "A", of the RMF-6 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the
following conditions:
Exhibit "B"
BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number OSP-99-03 be
recorded in the minutes of this Board.
-1-
APR 2 q 2001
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this __ day of ,200'1.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
James D. Carter, Ph.D. ,CHAIRMAN
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Marj oric~3M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
g:ad min]RES OLUTI ON/OS P-99-03/DM/ts
-2-
APR 2 4 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PETITION V-99-29, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP REPRESENTING LARRY J. AND
MARCY A. GODE REQUESTING A 3-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
13-FOOT EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET AND A 10-FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK T 5 FEET IN
ORDER TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON 109TM
AVENUE NORTH FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK 2, NAPLES PARK
UNIT 1. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO PETITION PE-99-3)
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals consider an application for side yard variances
in the "C-3" Intermediate Commercial district while maintaining the community's best
interest.
CONSIDERATIONS:
This variance petition is a companion petition to a Parking Reservation Petition, PE-
99-03.
The applicant wishes to develop this commercial site. The width of the lot is only 50
feet. The applicant also owns the residentially zoned lot to the west of the subject
site, the applicant is requesting, via a companion petition (PE-99-03) to install some
of the parking spaces on the adjacent lot. And also ~:equesting to reduce the existing
setbacks in order to build a commercial building of a 2,700 square feet in area.
Section 1.8.2.B. of the Land Development Code (LDC) permits a reduced setback for
non-conforming commercially zoned properties equal to the height of the building or
15 feet, whichever is lesser. In this case the building is 13 foot high, allowing a side
yard setback of 13 feet. However, the applicant is also requesting an off-site parking
on the residential lot to the east of the subject site, and the setback from the off-site
parking lot, per Section 2.3.4.11. of the LDC is 15 feet.
FISCAL IMPACT: ~-
Approval of this petition will have no fiscal impact on Collier County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
Approval of this parking exemption 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
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 4 2001
Probability Map. Therefore, no survey or Waiver of Histodc and Archaeological
Survey & Assessment is required.
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staffs 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was not required to be heard by the Environmental Advisory Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning commission reviewed V-99-29 on September 21, 2000
and by a unanimous vote recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve
this petition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff determined that the proposed variance request will have little impact to
any existing and future developments in the area and will enable the applicant
to develop the site; therefore staff recommends approval of this petition.
PREPARED BY:
CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph.D., AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
SUSAhI~URRAY, AICP
INTERrI~I CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
R~BE~T J. MULHERE, AICP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
JOl~ M. DUNNUCK, III, INTERIM ADMINISTI::bATOR DATE
COI~IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2
APR 2 ~ 2001
~. .2,.
owns both the subject commercial lot (Lot 9) and an abutting residential lot (Lot 10) that is the
subject of an off-site parking exemption. See off-site parking petition OSP-99-03.
The 13-foot side yard setback is determined to be equal to the height of the proposed building.
Section 1.8.2.B. of the Land Development Code (LDC) permits a reduced setback that is equal to
the building height or the minimum side yard in a commercial or industrial district, whichever is
the lessor of the two, if the lot is commercially zoned and nonconforming. In this case, the lot is
legally nonconforming in size and the proposed building height of 13 feet is less than the normal
15-foot side yard setback for C-3 zoned lots; therefore, the mandatory side yard setback is 13
feet.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of 109th Avenue North, further described as Lot
9, Unit 1, Block 2, Naples Park, per Plat Book 1, Page 106, Collier County, Florida (see map on
following page).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is requesting this variance in order to construct a professional office building on
this lot, Lot 9, and to allow use of Lot 10 (west side) for off-site parking. The principal lot, Lot 9,
is narrow and makes it difficult to develop the site for non-residential purposes as permitted in
the C-3 zoning district. Additionally, the site is too small both to provide a decent building size
for non-residential use and adequate parking and access. The minimum requirement for a lot
width in the C-3 zoning district is 75 feet. This lot is only 50 feet wide.
If approved, the reduced setback on the west side will be used for a three-foot-wide building
perimeter landscape area located between the proposed office building and the parking lot on Lot
10. This reduced setback area and landscaping will be internal to the office development because
the owner owns both Lots 9 and 10, and it will cause no impact to nearby residential properties.
It will also allow the applicant to meet some of his space needs and to provide some of the on-
site parking required by Section 2.3.4.11 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The east side
yard will only be reduced by three (3) feet from the required 13-foot side yard setback and will
cause no impact to the residential (commercially zoned) property abutting the east property line.
Additionally, a six-foot-high wall will be required along the property line between the subject lot
and the abutting property to the east.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Existing:
The property is currently vacant and is zoned C-3.
Surrounding:
North - Single family home, zoned RMF-6.
South - Single family home, zoned RMF-6.
East - Residential, zoned C-3.
2
APR 2 2001
West - Triplex, zoned RMF-6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The requested variance does not have an impact on this property's consistency with the County's
Growth Management Plan.
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of
historical and archaeological probability and has already been disturbed. Therefore, no
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required.
EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Approval of this variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation or the
environment. The reduced setback will be enhanced by placement of a six-foot-high wall and a
Type "A" Landscape Buffer, which will be placed around the perimeter of both Lots 9 and 10.
ANALYSIS:
Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code grants the authority to the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) to grant variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and
utilizes the provisions of Subsection "4" (a) through (h) which are general guidelines to be used
to assist the Commission in making a determination. Responses to items in this Subsection are as
follows:
ae
Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved?
Yes, special conditions and circumstances exist in that the site is small and narrow, and is
nonconforming in width. The small lot is not ideal to a non-residential use such as
proposed. The applicant cannot meet the parking requirements either by using Lot 9
solely or in conjunction with off-site parking proposed for Lot 10. Any proposed non-
residential use will have little room to provide adequate space, parking, and landscaping
if constructed on Lot 9 alone. The request, which is minimal, will permit the petitioner to
provide a small office building with adequate parking space.
bo
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action
of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the
subject of the variance request?
3
APR 2 q 2001
de
Yes. The lot is small and very narrow for non-residential use. The LDC requires that
certain non-residential parking standards be met that make it difficult to access the lot and
to provide adequate buffering and landscaping. Normally, a lot width of less than 75 feet
is not adequate for use of land for non-residential purposes. This lot is only 50 feet wide.
Also, the Growth Management Plan does not allow a rezoning of Lot 10 because it is not
located on a collector or arterial roadway, nor does it meet the depth requirements of
established commercial zoning district. The lot is, therefore, too small to accommodate
the proposed use. The applicant has met with staff twice to scale back the proposed
development in order to meet parking requirements. The proposed office building is the
minimal size needed to develop the property and the variances are the minimal variances
needed.
Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Land Development Code work
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant?
If this request is denied, a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Land
Development Code would work undue hardship on the applicant. He will not be able to
develop the land for a commercial purpose for which it is zoned. It is unlikely that the lot
would develop for non-residential purposes in the near future if this petition is denied.
Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety and welfare? -
The variance requested is the minimum variance which will allow the petitioner to
reasonably utilize the lot and provide off-site parking to meet required parking, and to
provide a minimum of building perimeter landscaping and buffers.
Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege
that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in
the same zoning district?
No. Granting the requested variance would not be perceived as granting a special
privilege to the petitioner that is denied to other lands, buildings or structures in the same
zoning district because the narrow size of the commercial lot makes it more difficult to
utilize than those lots meeting the normal commercial size requirements.
There are a few small infill lots in this C-3 commercial district located along U.S. 41
North that may be faced with a similar situation as development pressure increases. The
likelihood that these lots will need variances and/or off-site parking is high.
4
2001
Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare?
It is staff's opinion, granting this variance will be in keeping with the general intent and
purpose of the C-3 Commercial Zoning District. After considering all possible impacts,
granting the requested variance would not be injurious to the area and it would not be
detrimental to the public welfare. The petition has been reviewed by the Comprehensive
Planning Section and other Planning Services Department Staff, and this request in
conjunction with an off-site parking application is the most feasible way to develop the
property and still get adequate design and buffering. The proposed office use will be a
good, lower impact, transitional buffer area between the residential neighborhood and the
commercial district fronting U.S. 41.
Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the
goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses,
etc.?
The narrow size of the property makes it necessary to apply for this variance.
h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
The proposed variance and companion off-site parking petition have been reviewed by
Comprehensive Planning and found consistent with the GMP. Furthermore, granting of
the requested variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth
Management Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition V-99-29 to the
Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval with the conditions '; stipulated
in the Resolution of Adoption.
APR 2 2001
PREPARED BY:
DATE
,EWED BY:
· ~ LD l~: l~'qO~ AICP
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
DATE
ROBERT J. MULHE~RI~ AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE
APPROVED//BY:
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR
COMMUNITY DEV. & ENVIRON. SVCS DWISION
DATE
Staff Report for the September 21, 2000 CCPC meeting.
Note: This petition has_been tentatively scheduled for the October 24, 2000 BCC
meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRPERSON
STAFF REPORT/V-99-29/DJM
APR 2 2001
VARIANCE PETITION
(VARIANCE FROM SETBACK (S) REQU/RED FOR A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT)
Petition No.
Commission District:
Date Petition Received:
Planner Assigned: Donna1 d M~rray:
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Petitioner's Name: Larry J. and Marcy A. Gode
Petitioner's Address: 5475 Shirley St., Suite 2, Naples, FL 34109
Telephone: ,~c~_a73!
Agent's Name: wi 11 i~m
Agent's Address: 3785 Airport
L. Hoover, AICP, Hoover Planninq & Dev., Inc.
Road N.o Suite
g~ Naples. Fl, R4105
Telephone: 403-8899
Fax. N.:403-9009
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104
PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page I of 8
APR 2 2001
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition.
sheets if necessary)
We are not aware of any associations.
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City
(Provide additional
State. Zip
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City
State Zip.
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City
State Zip.
Name of Master Association:
Mailing Address
City
State. Zip
Name of Civic Association:
Mailing Address
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.
Legal Description of Subject Property:
Subdivision: Naples Park
Section 28 Twp. 48
Metes & Bounds Description:
City
State ~ Zip.
Unit
Range 2 5
Lot (s) 9
Property I.D. #
Block (s) 2
62410200001
NA
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 2 of 8
APR 2 2001
Address of Subject Property:
(If different from Petitioner's address)
109th Avenue North
Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Parcel:
C-3 Zoning/Vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
N C-3
S C-3
Parkinq for Comm./Office Building
Duplex
W PMW-fi V~canh (ownmd
E C-3 Single-Family
Home (Non-conforming)
Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property:
Front: 2 5 '
Comer Lot: Yes [] No [~
Side: 13' (Building Height)
Waterfi'ont Lot: Yes [] No []
Rear: 15 '
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 3 of
1
APR2 2001
HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT INC.
Rezonings, PUDs, PDs, Conditional Uses, Variances, Plan Amendments,
Traffic, Parking, and Feasibility Studies, Site Plans & Subdivisions
NATURE OF VARIANCE PETITION
December 23, 1999
VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED GODE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ON 109TH
AVE. NORTH, NAPLES, FL
Description of Request
The applicant is proposing to develop a professional office building, that would partially be
owner-occupied, on the northern side of 109th Avenue North about 275 feet west of U.S. 41.
The applicant owns 2 vacant parcels that are both 50 wide and 135 feet deep. The eastern parcel
is zoned C-3 and the western parcel RMF-6. The professional office building and most of the
required parking would be located on the C-3 zoned parcel. The RMF-6 Zoned parcel would be
utilized for the remainder of the required parking, some extra parking, and an area to provide
substantial landscape buffering.
A variance is being requested fi.om the required side yard setbacks on the parcel zoned C-3.
Since the C-3 Zoned parcel is non-conforming the side yard setbacks are governed by Section
!.8.2.B. of the Land Development Code, which permit the required side yard setbacks to be the
height of the building (the petitioner has agreed to limit building height to 13 feet). More
specifically, a variance is being requested along the eastern side yard of 3 feet to allow the
building setback to be reduced fi.om 13 feet to 10 feet. A variance is also being requested along
the western side yard of 10 feet to reduce the building setback fi.om 13 feet to 3 feet. The
western side yard is also the common property line between the petitioner's extra parking and
landscaping on the RMF-6 Zoned parcel and the subject C-3 Zoned parcel.
1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved.
Yes, both the C-3 Zoned parcel and the abutting RMF-6 Zoned parcel are non-conforming.
2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the
applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the
variance request.
Yes, both the C-3 Zoned parcel and the abutting RMF-6 Zoned parcel are non-conforming.
3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and
undue hardship or create practical difficulties on the applicant.
Denial of this petition would force the petitioner to construct a very small building on the C-3
Zoned parcel with the parking in fi.om of the building. The petitioner, who is a licensed
commercial builder, has advised that the permitting and construction costs of such a b, '~ ~' ' - --
would not be viable based on the value of thc end result.
APR 2 q 2001
3785 Airport Road North, Suite B, Naples, Florida 34105 ° Phone: 941-403-8899 · Fax: 94.
4. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible
reasonable use of land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety
or welfare.
Yes, the requested variance will allow the petitioner to construct a quality, aesthetic building that
is commensurate with the newer buildings in this neighborhood.
5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege(s) that
is denied by those zoning regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same
zoning district.
No, several other variances have been granted on similar-sized C-3 Zoned parcels in Naples Park.
6. Will the granting of the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this
zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
Yes, the granting of the variance will permit the petitioner to construct a quality and aesthetic
office building with substantial landscaping. This will assist this portion of Naples Park in
transitioning to a better quality neighborhood.
7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals
and objectives of regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc.
No, not in this case.
8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the growth management plan.
Granting of this variance will be consistent with the growth management plan. Additionally, the
proposed variance is easily compatible and complimentary with surrounding land uses as directed
in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
Sincerely,
HOOVER PLANNING & DEV., INC.
William L. Hoover, AICP
HP File #233-A20
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT 1
PICTURE OF SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE TO PROPOSED BUILDING
APR 2 ~ 2001
~./~
NOTARIZED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
RE:
Proposed Gode Professional Office Building, Located on the North Side of
109th Avenue North in Naples Park, Unincorporated Collier County, Florida
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that Purse Associates, Inc., 4450 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 9, Bonita
Springs, Florida 34134 and Hoover Planning, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B,
Naples, Florida 34105 have been engaged by the property owners to act as authorized
agents and to request necessary applications during the Off-Site Parking petition, Site
Development Plan application, possible Variance petition, and related developmental/
permitting processes for the subject project.
STATE OF FL~)RIDA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrui,'~nt was acknowledged
~,.~.-.,-r' , 1999 by
personally known to me or has produced
as identification a~nd )/vho'did (did .not) take an oath.
My Commission Expires: - ~/:3/0
before me this'"'...~ day of
[:¥- C-.--o~-_ who is
OSP9
APR 2 ~ 2001
Prepared by an(/return In:
Diana M. Adam·
Paralegal
David J. Szempruch, P.A.
5100 Tamiami Trail, Suite 201
Naples, Florida 34103
941-261-8484
File No.: 98472
Will Call No.:
2503602 OR: 2569 PG: 1580
07/12/1999 at 01:52~! DWI{;irI i. BLOCK, CLII[
C015 3~$~,~
~C-.70 27i.50
5100 N TAMI~MI TR {201
NAPLNH FL 34103
Grantee S.S. No.
Parcel Identifmat~on No
[Space Above This Line For Recording Data}
Warranty Deed
{b'I'ATUTORY FORM - SticrioN 689.02, F.S.)
This Indenture made Ih~s 17th day of June, 1999 Between
Donald E. Keller and Antoinette Keller, husband and wife whose post offme address is
106~0 6th Avenue N., Naples, Florida 3410~ ct the Counly of C~lller, State o~ Fl~'fl:l·, graMo~. ~
Larry J. Gode ·nd Marcy A. Gl)da, husband and wife who~e pOSt offme addraa~ i~
5475 Shirley Street, #2, Naples, Florida 34109 ct the County of Collier, State of Florida, granle~,
Withe·seth that said grantor, fo~ and in con·ideratidn of the sum of TEN AND NOI100 D(:N&)~S ($10.00) and
other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the reo~ ~hereM ia hereby
acknowledged, has granled, bargained, and sold Io the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assign~ forever, the
following described land, situate, lying and bemg in Collier County, Florida, to-wit:
Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park Unit No. 1, ·ccordlng to the plat thereof, recorded In Plat ~ 1, Palle ¶06,
Public Records ct Collier County, Florid·.
Grantor warrant· that at the time of this conveyance, the subject property ie not the Grants"· f~}meltaa~l
within the meaning set forth in the constitution of the state of Florida, nor is it contiguou~ to ~' · II}alt of
homestead property. Grantor'· residence and homestead address is: 10680 6th Avenue N.. Naples,
Florida 34108.
Subject to taxes for 1999 and subsequent years; covenants, conditions, restrictions, ear, manta,
reservaUons and limitations of record, if any.
and said granto, does here{~/fully warrant the lille to said land. and will defend lhe same ~ lawful clalrn~
all persons wtmmsoever.
· 'G~nto~ and 'G*antee' am used for singt~ar o~ plural, as c~ntext m{lu~es.
In Witness Whereof. grantor has hereunto se{ grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence:
JAPE
!
2569 PG: 1581 ***
STATE OF Florida
COUNTY OF Collier
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged belore me th~s 171h day ol June, 1999 by Donald E. Keller, who is
personally kr, own to me or has prodL~ced a Driver's L~cense as ~denl~ficat~on
'~z~ . ',' ~. /
[Nota~ Seal] ~,M~ C~ ~7~ezTe PrinteO Name:
%,,,~v~' E~es J~ I.~2 My Commission Expires:
STATE OF Flor~a
COUNTY OF Collier
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged bel~e me this 17th day of June, 1999 by Antoinette Keller, who m
personally known to me o~ has procluce(~ a Drive. Cs License as ~dentipcation.
My Commission Expires:
APR 2 ~ 2001
Ed Buckler
3596 Margina Circle
Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
September 29, 1999
Mr. Larry Gode
5475 Shirley Street #2
Naples, FL 34109
RE: Gode Professional Office Building on 109th Avenue North, Naples Park
Dear Mr. Gode:
As you are aware I am the property owner of the triplex directly to the west of your
proposed parking area. I would l~e to confirm in my writing that I support your project
including your Off-Site Parking petition.
Based on the site plan you have provided me (see attached) and your description of the
proposed building, I believe your project will have a positive impact on my structure and
the immediate neighborhood. I feel the 10' buffer along our common boundary, with 10
foot high trees spaced 20 feet apart and a 6' high fence or hedge, and another hedge on my
side of your building, will provide more than sufficient screening between the 2 properties.
Approval of your project will alleviate my concems that the 2 neighboring 50-foot wide
lots will be developed hap~dly due to the following reasons: 1) The 50-foot
commercial lot will be too small to have a building that will be attractive and be feas~le in
the future to be well-maintained. 2) The 50-foot wide residential lot, between my
structure and the 50-foot wide commercial lot, will lend itself only to a small inexpensive
home due to concerns of this commercial lot.
Sincerely,
APR 2 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-99-29,
FOR A VARIANCE 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 thc protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for thc zoning of particular geographic
divisions of thc County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, thc Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of
the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and
provided, and has considered thc advisability of both a 3-foot variance from the required 13-
foot side yard setback to 10-feet on the east side and a 12-foot variance from the required 15-
foot side yard setback to 3-feet on thc west side of Lot 9 as shown on the attached plot plan,
Exhibit "A", in a C-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 2.7.5 of the Zoning
Regulations of said Land Development Code for thc unincorporated area of Collier County;
and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to bc heard by this
Board in 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 Petitio~ ~-99-29 filed by William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning &
Development, Inc., representing Larry J. and Marcy A. Godc, with respect to thc property
hereinafter described as:
Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park Unit l, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 106, of
thc Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same hereby is approved for a 3-foot Variance from thc required side yard setback
of 13-feet to 10-feet and a 12-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 15-feet to 3-
feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the C-3 Zoning District wherein said
property is located, subject to the following conditions:
Exhibit "B' which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
-1-
APR 2 4 2001
BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-99-29 be
recorded in the minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this ~ day of ,200~
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Marj orie(~Vl. Student
Assistant County Attorney
G:/V-99-29 RESOLUTION/DM~ts
J~nes D. Carter, Ph.D.
-2-
No. I ~
APR ; 001
. V, .~a, u n8 ,01
.Z g '£6
,Z g
a§PaH lo aoue3 4§!H ,9 4~!~
/H.O~',# L, IN
APR 2 ~1 2001
Pi._ ~,~"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl,
V-99-29
This approval is conditioned upon the following stipulations:
All buffering and landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the County
Landscape Architect prior to site development plan review.
A six-foot-high opaque masonry wall shall be constructed and maintained along
the property lines of Lots 9 and 10 where those property lines abut residentially
zoned or existing residential properties.
If the proposed use is not approved or constructed, or if the primary use of the
proposed business changes, the new development shall meet all applicable site
development standards of the Land Development Code.
Exhibit "B"
APR 2 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PLAN (HAP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2002, 2002-
2003, AND 2003-2004 AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
PROGRAM.
OBJECTIVE: To expand affordable housing opportunities in Collier County by
presenting a Local Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) to the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation establishing guidelines for the use of State Housing Initiatives Partnership
(SHIP) Program funds.
CONSIDERATIONS: On July 7, 1992 the SHIP Act was signed into law to provide
additional funding to local communities through a documentary stamp tax on real estate
transactions to promote affordable housing. Under the SHIP program Collier County and
the City of Naples receive funds from the State of Florida to provide initiatives to expand
affordable housing opportunities.
As part of this program, the County is required to update its three-year HAP identifying the
strategies that will be implemented to address affordable housing needs.
This HAP provides for the following housing strategies: Down Payment/ Closing Cost
Assistance with Emergency Repair, Impact Fee Relief, Housing Rehabilitation- Owner
Occupied, Housing Rehabilitation- Rental, Land Acquisition/ Transfer with New
Construction, Demoliti6n with New Construction, Special Needs Housing, Emergency
Home Repair, Urban Infill- New Construction, and Urban Infill- Neighborhood Blight.
FISCAL IMPACT: The SHIP Program receives approximately one million eight hundred
ninety-one thousand dollars ($1,891,000) per year from the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation. Ten percent (10%) of this allocation may be used for program administration
expenses. This HAP will serve as a guideline for the use of all SHIP funds.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This HAP will allow the County to expand the
affordable housing opportunities of its citizens furthering the goals of the Housing Element.
-- AGENDA. JTEJ~'.~
of the Collier County Growth Management Plan.
APR 2 4 ZOO1
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed
resolution approving the Collier County Local Housing Assistance Plan for fiscal years
2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. Additionally, that the Board of County
Commissioners re-enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples to jointly
receive and administer funds under the SHIP Program and that the Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners execute the Certification to the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation for transmittal with this plan.
SUBMITTED BY:
~ Date: ~'
Cormac J. Giblin, Manager
Department of Housing and Urban Improvement
REVIEWED BY:
?
~, Director Date:
DepOnent of Housing and Urban Improvement
/~-John M. Dunnuck III, Interim Administrator
Division of Community Development and Environmental Services
APR 2 4 2001
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board Minutes and Records ,,
Giblin, HUI Manager&/
Cormac
April 10, 2001
Local Housing Assistance Plan
Adoption of the Collier County Local Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) will be on the April
24, 2001 Board of County Commissioners agenda.
Due to the volume of the contents of this Plan it may be unreasonable to include the
HAP in the printing of the agenda.
For that reason copies will be available for public viewing in the Board of County
Commissioners office and at the Housing and Urban Improvement Department.
Please feel free to contact me at 403-2336 if you haveany
questions
regarding
this
Plan.
Department of Housing And Urban Improvement
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AGENDA ITiiM
APR 2 4 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMI~Y
~EQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "IVY POINTE"
OBJECTIVE:
To grant final acceptance of the infrastructure
associated with that subdivision known as "Ivy Pointe"
improvements
CONSIDERATIONS:
On November 14, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners granted
preliminary acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements in "Ivy Pointe".
o
The roadway and drainage improvements will be maintained by the
project's homeowner's association. The water and sewer
improvements will be maintained by the County.
The required improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the Land Development Code. The County Development
Services has inspected the improvements and is recommending
final acceptance of the improvements.
o
A resolution for final acceptance has been prepared and
approved by the County Attorney's Office. A copy of the
document is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The roadway and drainage improvements will be maintained by the
project's homeowners association. Water and sewer improvements
will be maintained by the County's Utility Department through their
operation and maintenance budget.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT I~PACT: None
APR 2 2001
Executive Summary
Ivy Pointe
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners grant final acceptance of
the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in "Ivy Pointe"
and release the maintenance security.
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached resolution
authorizing final acceptance.
2. Authorize the release of the maintenance security.
PREPARED BY:
J0hfi R. Houldswo'rt~n, Senior Engineer
Engineering Review
bate
RE~E~D BY:
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
D~te '
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
Date
APPROVED BY:
John ~. Dunn-uck III, Interim Administrator
Community Dev. and Environmental Svcs.
Date
j rh
APR 2 2001
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
1
2
5
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
50
51
52
53
55
56
.... §?
~9
60
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN IVY POINTE, RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND
ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on
April 27, 1997 approved the plat of Ivy Pointe for recording; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102,
as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County
Ordinance No. 97-17), and
WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and
WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services
Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is
recommending acceptance of said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be
granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Ivy Pointe, and
authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the
future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer
improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATE:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:.
JAMES D. CARTER, PHD., CHAIRMAN
Appr%ved as to form and legal
Patrick G. White
Assistant Collier County Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF EFFLUENT UTILITY FACILITIES FOR AUTUMN WOODS
EFFLUENT MAIN
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 and sewer facilities.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1) The Developer of Autumn Woods, has constructed the effluent
main 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 July 23, 1999, 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 effluent main 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.
6) The Utilities Performance Security (UPS), in the form of a
Maintenance Bond No. 5977448 in the amount of $6,613.64, will be
released to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated
agent upon the Boards approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The effluent main facilities were constructed
without cost to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The cost
of operating and maintaining the effluent main facilities will be
paid by monthly user revenues.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project has been connected to the
North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity presently
exists to serve this project.
APR 2 2001
Executive Summary
Autumn Woods Effluent Main
Page Two
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 effluent main
facilities for Autumn Woods, and release the UPS to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
PREPARED BY:
Shirley Nix, Engineering Technician
Enginee~g/Review Services
II
Date
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineer~..ng Review Services Manager
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
Date
Date
APPROVED BY:
John ~. Dunnuck, III, Interim Administrator
COMM~ITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Date
attachments
AGEN --
APR g 2001
LOCATION NAP
APR g 4:2001
SAFECO'
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9818,5
~TENANCE BOND
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, That we,
Bond 5977448
CENTEX HOMES, a Ne~z_"~da General Partnership
as Principal, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ,
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington
and duly authorized to do business in
the State of Florida
, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Collier County, Florida
.~ Obligee, in the penal sum of Six Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and 64/100 ...............................
........................................................... ($ 6,613.64 )
t ~ich pa)maent well and truly to be made we do bind ourselves, our and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors
a assigns jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
~ AEREAS, the said Principal entered into a Contract with the
'er County, Florida
~ffluent Water Facility at Autumn Woods
dated
~'qEREAS, said Contract has been completed, and was approved on
d~ of ·
OW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF TillS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That ff the Principal sh'!l guarantee that the work
· .ill be free of any defective materials or workmanship which became appar¢', ~ ~:~ring the period of
one year(s) folloMng completion of the Contract then this obhgafion shall be vc :d, otherwise to remain in
full force and effect, pro~Sded however, an3' additional warrant3' or guarantee whether expressed or implied is extended by the
Principal or Manufacturer only, and the Surety assumes no liability for such a guarantee.
Signed and sealed this 5th day of
May , 1999
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership (Seal)
(Seal)
S-0843/SAEF 2/98
Countersigned by: 1 ~ h
APR 2 4 2001
¢9._.4 ~.~
(Seal)
SAFECO INSURANCE COI~ANY OF AMERICA
Allyson Dean /X, - Anomey-in-Fact
Registered trademark of SAFECO Corporation.
iOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
POWER
OF ATTORNEY
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA '~
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PI.AZ.A
SEATI'LE, WAS HINGTON 98185
No. 7386
at SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington co,'~ora~;,,n,,~. ,,~ does each
~oint
********************LA*--** W. WALDIE; CARMEN MIMS; ALLYSON DEAN; BRIAN W. LEBOW; DEBBIE L GRIFFITH; Dallas, **xas***********************
true and lawful attomey(s)-in-fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character
~Jed in the course of its business, and to bind the respective company thereby.
WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and
_~sted these presents
this 23rd
R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY
day of F~bruary , 1999
W. RANDALL STODDARD, PRESIDENT
CERTIFICATE
Extract from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA:
ticle \ Section 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS ... the President, any Vice President, the Secretary, and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that
pose ~. the officer in charge of surety operations, shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attorneys-in-fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to
~cute c.'; behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business... On any
trument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or
:lertakJng of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, hcwever, that the seal shall not
necessary to the valiciity of any such instrument or undertaking."
Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adoPted Ju~ 2~, 1970.
'~ any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out,
(i) The provisions of Article V, SecUon 13 of the By-Laws, and
(ii) A copy of the power-of-attorney appointment, executed pursuant thereto, and
(iii 3edifying that said pcwer-ot'-attomey appointment is in full force and effect,
signa'.. ~ of the certifying officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof.' ~
~. -' :,-son, Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby certify that the
j extracts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and of a Power of Attomey issued pursuant thereto, are true and
and that both the By-Laws, the Resolution and the Power of Attorney are still in full force and effect.
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of said corporation
-0974ISAEF 7/98
APR 2 4 2001
PIERSON, SECRETARY
® Registered trademark ot' SAFECO Corporation.
2/23/99 PDF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FUNDING OF LEGAL CHALLENGE TO FLORIDA COMMUNICATION
SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT
OBJECTIVE: The Board of Commissioners authorized the Legal Department to obtain
outside legal counsel to challenge this legislation. The Miami firm of Leibowitz and
Associates was retained. Additional funding is required to continue the Challenge.
CONSIDERATIONS: To date, Leibowitz and Associates has billed Collier County
approximately $40,000 of the $50,000 allocated for legal counsel. It appears the
legislation will pass both houses and become law, requiring Collier County to seek relief
in Federal Court. Upon advice from the County Attorney's Office, additional funds are
being requested to continue the challenge. Leibowitz has represented Collier County's
concerns with the legislation to both houses of the Legislature, their committees, as well
as other counties and cities impacted by the legislation.
Leibowitz is conferring with some fifteen jurisdictions that are following Collier
County's lobbying efforts, including Manatee County and the Cities of Lake Wales,
Valpariaso, and Palm Beach, whose governing bodies have adopted resolutions opposing
provisions of the legislation.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $50,000 would be transferred from MSTD
General Fund 111 Reserves to Cable Franchise Administration MSTD 111.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact to Growth
Management.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$50,000, as recommended by the Office of the County Attorney, to continue the
challenge of~_a Colmmunications Services Tax Simplification Act.
SUBMITTED BY:'~, ~ ~'[~x.~ Date:
D~ug~ ~i'fllan, Cable Franchise Coordinator
Y /~//~//.///_~/-, / .4 Date
~"-"'~l'~e, Dir~tor
~3tility & Franchise l~gulation
APPROVED BY: ~j~ k~x)/Jt~~---~ Date:
J~"'hr~ M. I~u~t~hck III, Interim Administrator
CJ~rnmunity Development & Enviornmental Services Division
Pg:. / , ·
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CODE ENFORCEMICNT LIEN RESOI.UTION APPROVALS
OBJECTIVE:
For the Board of County Commissioners to adopt separate Resolutions assessing separate
liens against certain parcels identified in the Resolutions in order to recover public funds
expended to affcct thc abatement of public nuisances at such locations, all as provided for
in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47, as amended, the Collier
County Litter, Weed and Exotics Control Ordinance.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47, as amended, mandates the
Board to impose a lien against property when an invoice to recover public funds
expended to affect thc abatement of a public nuisance is not paid at the expiration of
twenty (20) days of the date of the notice. The following property owner's have not
remitted the invoiced amounts.
Case No. O~'ner of Record Case Summary Lien
Amount
a. Violation determined 08/11/00
b. Notice of Violation served 08/23/00
c. Notice of Violation Posted n]a $245.00
2000080448 Schnitzler. Herb A. & d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/22/00
Michael Belyea e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/05/00
f. O~vner invoiced fi~r cosls 10/23/00
a. Violati{m determined 08/29/00
b. Notice of Violation served not returned
2000090208 Mohn, Kelly Ann & c. Notice of Violation Posted 10/02/00 $245.00
- d. Unabated nuisance ~erified 10116/00
James O. Mohn II e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/20/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/31/00
a. Violation determined 06/12/00
b. Notice of Violation served undeliverable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 08/15/00 $245.00
2000060797 Daniels, Phleany M & d. Unabated nuisance verified 08/30/00
Brown, Jennifer L. e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/23/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/31/00
APR ? 200!
a. \"kdation determi ned 07/31/00
b. N~tice of Violation served not deliverable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/01/00 $245.00
2000080062 Baron, Mimon d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/11/00
c. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/20/00
f. Ox~ ncr in',oiced fi)r costs 10/31/00
a. Violation determined 09/29/00
b. Notice of Violation served 10/05/00
c. Notice of Violation Posted n/a $245.00
2000100018 Carlton Jr., Philip d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/25/00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 12/11/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 12/14/00
a. Violation determined 08/29/00
b. Notice of Violation served undeliverable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/29/00
2000090223 Sheehan, Lloyd G.
d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/11/00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/20/00 $245.00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/31/00
a. Violation determined 09/08/00
b. Notice of Violation served undeli'~erable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 10/03/00
2000090298 Sheehan, Lloyd G. d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/17/00 $290.00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/20/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/31/00
a. Violation determined 08/29/00
b. Notice of Violation served undeliverable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/29/00 $245.00
2000090199 Whitmer, Bruce T. & d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/10/00
Elsye K. e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/11/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/28/0(}
a. Violation determined 06/16/00
b. Notice of Violation served unclaimed
,~ .., c. Notice of Violation Posted 08/02/00
,~0000603~0 Mills, Namcy E. d. Unabated nuisance verified 08/14/00 $1,140.00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/09/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 11/29/00
a. Violation determined 08/08/00
b. Notice of Violation served undeliverable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/00/00 $245.00
2000080411 H N H Ventures, a d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/18/00
Florida General e. Nuisance abated with public funds 09/25/00
Partnership f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/04/00
a. Violation determined 08/09/00
b. Notice of Violation served unclaimed
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/07/00 $290.00
2000080524 Onofre, Roberto C. d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/18/00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/23/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 11/04/00
a. Violation determined 08/29/00
b. Notice of Violation served not returned
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/29/00 $245.00
2000090214 Morales, Gloria C. d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/10/00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/11/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/23/00
APR 2 q 2001
a. Violation determined 07/20/00
b. Notice of Violation served unclaimed
2000070774 Mayhood, Sue Ann c. Notice of Violation Posted 08/18/00
d. Unabated nuisance verified 08/30/00 $245?
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/02/00
f. ()'.'.'ncr invoiced for costs 10/06/00
a. Violation determined 08/29/00
b. Notice of Violation served 09/29/00
2000090186 Gomez. Jesus c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/29/00
d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/11/00 $245.00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/20/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 11/07/00
a. Violation determined 08/23/00
b. Notice of Violation served undeliverable
c. Notice of Violation Posted 09/06/00
2000080986 Quail Hollow Property d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/14/00 $245.00
Owners Association e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/20/00
Irlc. f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/31/00
a. Violation determined 10/02/00
b. Notice of Violation served 10/16/00
c. Notice of Violation Posted n/a
2000100087 Realty Holdings, L.P., d. Unabated nuisance verified 10/26/00 $335.00
a Pennsylvania Limited e. Nuisance abated with public funds 11/16/00
Partnership f. Owner invoiced for costs 12/05/00
a. Violation determined 07/21/00
b. Notice of Violation served unclaimed
2000070993 Koehler, Marvic L & c. Notice of \,'iolation Posted 08/22/00
d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/05/00 $245.00
Elsie A. e. Nuisance abated with public funds 09/29/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/10/00
a. Violation determined 09/01/00
b. Notice of Violation served 09/14/00
2000090080 Hernandez. Elba & c. Notice of Violation Posted n/a
d. Unabated nuisance verified 09/28/00 $245.00
Noe e. Nuisance abated with public funds 10/11/00
f. O,,vner invoiced for costs 10/30/00
a. Violation determined 05/20/00
b. Notice of Violation served 07/22/00
2000070663 Mesa, Ramon c. Notice of Violation Posted n/a
d. Unabated nuisnnce verified 08/09/00 $350.00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 09/26/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/12/00
a. Violation determined 05/20/00
b. Notice of Violation served 07/22/00
2000070664 Mesa, Ramon c. Notice of Violation Posted Wa
d. Unabated nuisance verified 08/09/00 $350.00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 09/26/00
f. Owner invoiced for costs 10/12/00
a. Violation determined 05/20/00
b. Notice of Violation served 07/22/00
2000070665 Mesa, Ramon c. Notice of Violation Posted n/a
d. Unabated nuisance verified 08/09/00 $290.00
e. Nuisance abated with public funds 09/26/00
f. Owner invoiced fl~r costs 10/12/00
APR 2 4 2001
Pl.
2000090305
Jolly, GeraldD.&
Dorothy S.
a. Violalion determined
b. Notice of Violalion served
c. Notice of Violation Posted
d. Unabated nuisance verified
e. Nuisance abated with public funds
f. Ox~ncr invoiced fl~r costs
09/08/00
undeliverable
n/a
10/03/00
10/11/00
10/23/00
$245.00
Upon the Board's adoption of the Resolutions, copies of such and the Legal Notices of
Assessment will be mailed to the respective properly owners. If the property owners fail
to pay the amounts specified in the respective Resolutions within twenty (20) days
hereof, the Clerk to the Board will record the Resolutions in the official records of the
County.
FISCAL IMPACT: A total reimbursement of $6,720.00 may be anticipated by
voluntary action or foreclosure. The only expense projected to be incurred by the County
is the cost of recording the Liens, which is estimated to be approximately $12.50 per
lien, totaling $275.00, which is budgeted and available in the current fiscal year Code
Enforcement budget.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This request will have no impact on the
County's Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached
Resolutions.
PREPARED BY:
Janet"(lbowers, Operations Manager
Code Enforcement
· W
REX'IE 'ED BY:
DATE:
4
Mi~helle Edwards Arnold, Director
Code Enforcement
APPROVED BY:
John M. Dunnuck III, Administrator
CMmmun~ty Development & Environmental Services
DATE:
DATE:
Pg.. g
BOARI) ()F COUNTY ('()MNIISSIONERS
Ttt ROt!(;ll ITS C()I)E ENFORCI:~MENT I)EPA RTMENT
('()LIAER ('()I!NT'f, I:I.()RII)A
LE(;AL NO'I'ICI~ O!: ASSI*~SS.MI~NT ()E LIEN
SCItN1TZLER. HERB A & MICllAEI~ BEI.YEA
2241 ARBOUR WALK CIR
NAPLES. FL 34109
DATE:
REF. INV# 1685 FOLIO # 36308360005 LIEN NUMBER:
LE(;AL DESCRIPTION: : Lot 21. Block 191. (;()LDEN (;ATE, [;NIT 6. according to the plal
thereof, recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 124 of the Public Records of Collier Count3, Florida.
YOU, as 1}1c OxsHcr(s) Of Ibc propcrl) aboxc described, as recorded in thc records
maintained bx the office of thc Pwpml) Appraiser, arc hm'cbx advised that the Code Eniorccmcnl
Dircctoi-. did on September 22, 2000. order thc abatement of a certain nmsance ex~stm~ on t}~c aboxe
prope~7) prohfl~ited bx Ordinance N~. 9q-51 and serxcd a notice of xiolation upon )ou. The nmsancc
1S:
X~EEI)S: ACCI'MULATION ()F WEEDS. GRASS, ()R OTIIER NON-PRf)TECTEI)
OX'ER(;ROXVTH IN EXCESS OF EI(;IITEEN {18} INCHES.
You failed to abate such ntnsancc: x~hcrcupon, ~I xxas abated bx the expenditure
public funds at a dh'oct cost of FOURT~'-FIVE {$45.00) I)OIA~ARS plus an administratixe
Tx~o-hund;'cd ~$200.00) dollars for a total of TXV(}-llUNI)RED FOURTY-FIVE
DOLLARS.
Such cost. b~ Resolution of the Board of Countx ('ommissioners of Collier Countx,
Fltmda, shall become a ]ich on yom- p;opcn} xxithm mcntx 1201 daxs of tile date of
of a>~cxsment. You ma} requcsl a hearing before the Board ol Countx Commissioncr~ It} sh(m cause.
i~ an~, ~h) the expenses and charges incun'cd bx the Countx under Ct)tlllIX Ordinance No. q9-51 are
exccsslx e or unkk a~anted or xkhv such expenses should not consmuIe a lien agmnst Ihe property. Said
request for heann~ shall be made lt~ lhe Cotlnl~ ,&dlninistralor. Go~cmment Center, 3301 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 in x~nting xkithin ten (10) da>s from the dale of Ibis notice.
F LIENS, MSJR LN\L
APR 2 200
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ('OUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR TIlE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR T}tE COST OF
THE ABATt.]MENT OF PUBLI(? NtTISAN('E, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
t l \VHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47,
12 as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
15 cosl incased bx lhc County, shall be assessed against such propc~>; and
14
15 WHEREAS, the cost thereof Io thc County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
1(, repmlcd Io ibc Board of Count} Comm~ssio~crs, together with a descnpl~on of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligaln)n upon thc
propcn5 against which made unlil p:nd: and
21 WHEREAS. thc assessment shall become duc and pa>able no later than menlx
22 daxs ol thc date of the Legal Notice ol Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
21 bC~lnmng on thc date this Resolution is recorded al Ibc rate of Ixt tine percent {175 ) per annum
2~
25 NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
2~ COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER ('OUNTY, FLORIDA. lhat the property described as follo~vs,
2- hax lng been abated oI a public nuisance alter duc and proper notice thereof to thc ow~lcr(s) of smd
2S propcn}. ~s hcrcbx assessed thc following costs of stlch abalomcnt, to
NAME: SCtlNITZLER. tlERB A. & MICHAEL BELYEA
34
35
30
3-
4O
41
4;
40
47
49
5{}
51
52
54
5~
LI((;AI, I)ESCRIPTI()N: : Lot 21, Block 191, (;()IA)EN (;ATE, UNIT 6, according to the plat
thereof, recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 124 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
('()SI': S245.00
REI:ERENCE#: 1685
FOIAO #: 36308360005
Thc Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessmem of Lien to the owner{s) of thc abo',c
described propcn>, and if such ox~ncr fails to pay such assessment ~ithin Ixxcnt5 {20) da>s hereof, a
certified ct,p5 of this Rcsolmion shall be recorded in thc official records of Collier ('tronic. Io
co~Mitutc a lien agai~lsl such properly according to laxt, unless such direction is sta~cd bx llns Bored
upon appeal of lhe assessmenl bx thc oxk ncr.
This Resolution passed and duly adopled b) thc Board of County Commiss~onc|-s ol
Collier County, Florida, this __ da)of 2001.
AT'I'EST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER ('OlY NTY. FLORIDA
BY:
Dcput) Clerk
Approx ed as to form and
legal su ft'iciencv:
Thoma~ (' Pz~nc~x AsMMalll CouBty Attomc)
James D. Carter, Ph.D. ,Chairman
t LIEN "dS'FR RE5,~ )Lt"FII)N
2 q 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TtlROUGlt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
I.E(;AL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
MOItN, KEI.LY ANN DATE:
JAMES O MOItN Il
22411 E EASTON RI)
CRESTON, Ott 44217
REF. INV.# 1697 FOLIO # 62256640003 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAl. DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 8, Naples Manor Lakes, according lo the plat Ihereof,
on file and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as thc o~nerts) of the prope~y above-described, as recorded in Ibc records
maintained by thc office of the Propen} Appraiser. are herebx adxised that the Code Enforcemen~
Director. did on October 16, 2000. order the abatement of a certain nmsance existing on the ahoxe
propen5 prohibitedb~ Ordinance No. 9O-51 and scrx ed a notice of violation upon you Ttnenui~ance
~VEEI)S: ACCUMUI.ATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, ()R OTHER NON-PROTI'X'TEI}
()VERGRO~ Ttt IN EXCESS OF EIGttTEEN (18} INCITES.
You fmled h) abate such nuisance: whereupon, il was abated b5 thc expcndittuc of
public lunct~ at a direct cost of FORTY- FIVE ($45.00) I)()IA,ARS plus an administralixe cost of
Tx~o-hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TtVO- HUNI)RED FORTY-FIVE {$245.00)
I)()LI.A RS,
Such cosl. bv Reso}kition of thc Board of County Comnaissioners of Collic~ Counl~.
Florida, shall become a lien on your property x~idlin lx~cntv 120i daxs of the date of thi~ legal n,~t~cc
of assessment. You ma) request a hearing before the Board of CoulllX Commissioners to sho~ can>c,
if anx. ~hx the expenses and charges incun-ed b> the Count> under Countx Ordinance No. (19-51 arc
excessixe or un~ arranted or x~lnv such expenses should not constitute a lien against the propc~7}. 5:~id
requesl for hearing shall be made to the County Administralor. Goxemment Center. 330l Tamiami
Trail East, Naples, [florida 34112 in whting xt ithin ICh (10~ da'cs froll3 thc dale of this nonce
F HENS' M'iTR I.N-\L
APR 2 4 2001
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
15
19
20
21
24
25
__7
2S
31
32
33
~4
~5
x7
3~
39
4.1
4~
44
45
46
,47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
57
5S
RESOLLITION NO. 2001-_____
A RESOI_UT1ON OF TItE BOARI) OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITtt ORDINANCE No. 9%51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adminislrat~c
cost incurred by lhe Count}', shall be assessed against such propert}; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the CounLv ;is to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to thc Board of County Commissioners. together with a description of said parcel; and
\VItEREAS, such assessment shall be a leg:d, xalid and binding obligation upon the
property against which made until paid: and
\VItEREAS. thc assessment shall become duc and payable no later than ment'~
dabs of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on thc date thi~ Rcsolulion is recorded at lh~ ru~ ,d' melxc percent ( 12q; ) per annum.
NO\V. THEREFORf!, BE IT RESDL'xi ~.~ BY TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ('OLI.IER C()UNTY. FLORIDA. Ihat the properU described
having been abated of a public ntnsance after due and proper noHce thereof Io the ox~nen~
property, is herctw assessed the follox~/ng costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAMI(:: MOttN, KEI.I,Y ANN & JAMES O. MOHN, !I
I.E(;AI. I)ES{'RIPTI¢)N: Lot 1, Block 8, Naples Manor l.akes, according to the plal thereof,
on file and recorded in the Public Records of Collier Count3, Florida.
COST: $245.1}0
Rlt;I:ERI'~N (TE#: 1697
FOLI() #: 62256640003
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of As~,essment of Lien to thc oxtnerlst of the
described propea>, and if such ownc~ fails to pa> such assessment within lwenU 12111 da\> hereof, a
ce~ificd copy of this Rcsolumm shall be recorded m thc official records of Collier Count\,
con~tHute a lien agtunsl ~uch property according to kin, tlnle~s such direction i~ slaxed hx lhi~ Board
upon appeal of the assessment bx thc oxk net.
This Resolution passed and dulx adoi,~,?d b\ thc Board of ('ounlx Comnnss~oncrs
Collier Count)', Ftonda, this__ da\ of , 2001.
ATTESI':
DWIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Dcpul) Clerk
Approved as to l'orm and
legal sufficien, v:
Thomas C. Pahner. Assistant ('cunt3 Attorney
LIEN MqFR RESi)L1 rTIt ~N
James D. Caner, Pi, D..Chairman
APR 2 q 2001
BOARD OF CO[.~TY COMMISSIONERS
TItR()U(;lt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENI' I)EI~ARTMEN1'
C()LL1ER C¢)UNTY, FLORII)A
LE(;AL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DANIEl,S, PHI,EANY 5I DATE:
BReVe'N, JENNIFER L.
PO BOX 90068
NAPLES, FL 34101
REF. INV.# 1699 FOLIO # 22624160003 LIEN NUMBER:
LE(;AL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, AVAI,ON ESTATES, Block 6, Unit 1, according to plat
recorded in Plat book 3, Page 62, of the public records of Collier Count.~, Florida.
You. as the o~ncrt~ of thc propcrt5 above-described, as recorded in Ibc records
maintained bv the off'icc of thc Propm~} Appraiser, are hereby adxiscd tha~ thc Code Enft~rcemem
Director, did on August 30, 2000. order Ibc abatement of a certain nmsance exisling on thc aboxe
propcn> prohibited by Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a not,ce of violation upon you. Thc nuisance
~'EEI)S: ACCt;NIUI. ATION OF ~VEEI)S, GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PR()TECTED
(}VER(iRO~Vrll IN EXCESS OF EIGHI'I{EN {181 INCttES IN ltEI(;Itl'
You failed lo abate such nuisance: whereupon, it ~a~ abated bx the expenditure t~J
pubhc funds at a direct cost of FORTY-FIVE t545.00) DOLL.IRS plus an admin~stratixc coq
T~o-hundrcd ($200.001 dollars for a total of TIVO-HUNDREI) FORTY-FIVE ~$245.00)
I)OI.LARS.
Such cost. by Resolution of thc Board of Countx Commissioners of ColItcr Counlx.
Florida. shall become a lien on your property ~ ithin lxtcntx 12111 daxs of the dale et this le<aI
of assessment. You ma5 requcsl a hearing before thc Board of Cotmtx Commissioners Io sho~ cause.
if any, ~ h> thc expenses and charges incuged by the County under Countx Ordinance No. ti0 51 arc
excessive or unxvammted or x[hv such expenses should not conslltulc a lien agaHlst the propeYl}. ~aid
request for heanng shall be made to the County Administrator. Government Center. 33r51
Trail East. Naples, Florida 34112 in xx riling within ten (10) days from thc date of this
F IHNS, ',,I'VI'R LN \1
APR 2 q 2001
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
15
£0
21
24
25
~2
33
35
36
3,7
3S
4I
43
44
45
40
47
4$
,49
5O
51
5'.2
54
55
56
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-~__
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 01-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adminisliatixc
cost incun-cd b3 the County, shall be assessed against such properly; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be catcnlated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners. togelher ,a'ith a description of said parcel: and
\VItEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the
properU against ~hich made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the asscssmenl shall become due and payable no later than t~entv
daxs of the dale of the Legal Notice of Assessment and inlerest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
be~innm£~ ~ on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of tx~elve percent I I _-~(,';, 1 per annun~.
NO\V. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (.)F COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that thc propert5 described a~, h~llox~s.
ha\in# been abated of a public nmsance after due and proper not,ce thereof lo the ox~ner{s! ,q- qaid
propc~'t.',, ~s bcrebx assessed the follcm in# costs of such abatement, to x~ it:
N:~ME: DANIEl. S, PtlLEANY M & BRO'WN, JENNIFER
LE(;AL I)li;SCRII'TI()N:: Lot 5, AVALON ESTATES, Block 6, ['nit 1, according to plat
recorded in Plat book 3, Page 62, of the public records of Collier County, Florida.
COST: $245.00
REFERENCE#: 1699
FOLIO #: 226241601}113
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the ox~ncrtsi of tine
described propert5, and if such owner fails to pa5 such assessment x~ithin tx~enty (2o) daxs hcrcol,
certified cop} of tl~is Resolution shall be recorded in the official records of C~dlicr
constitute a lien againsl such property according to law, unless such direction is sin\cd
upon appeal of the assessment by the owner.
This Resolution passed and dui}' adopted b5 thc Board of Count} Couami:~,ioncr-4 of
Collier Count.,,, Florida. this __ da5 of ,2001.
,ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF (?OUNTY COM.",IISS:,IO. 'ERS
COLLLER COUNTY. FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Dcput5 Clerk
Approxed as lc) fom~ and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Pahner, :Xssislanl Count3 Attorne>
F [lin MN'IR RI",()I.I
James D. Carter. Phi)..Chau'man
APR 2 2001
BOARI) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGlt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COI,LIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAl. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
BARON, MIMON DATE:
2375 TAMIAM! TR N STE 300
NAPLES, FL 34103
REF. INV.# 1696 FOLIO # 55200240000 LIEN Nk~1BER:
LE(;AL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Lely Country Cluh, MUIRFIELI), according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 75, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner(s) of the propcn> aboxe-descnbed, as recorded in the records
maintained bx thc office of the Propen> Apprmser. are hereb~ advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on Seplemher 11, 2000, order the abatement of a ce~ain nuisance ex,sling on thc
property prohibited bx Ordinance No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of xiolation upon you. The nuisance
1S:
WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS. GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PROTECTED
O~'ERGROIVTII IN EXCESS OF E1GlfTEEN (18) INCHES IN HEI(iIIT.
You failed to abate such nuisance: whereupon, it x~as abated by the expenditure of
public funds at a direcl cost of FORTY-FIVE {$45.00) I)OI,LARS plus an administrative cost
Txvo-hundred ($200.00} dollars for a total of T~'O-IIUNDRED FORTY-FIVE
DOI,LARS.
Such cost, b5 Resolution of the Board of Countx Commissioners of Collier Counts,
Florida, ~hall become a lien on 5our propetq5 within lxtent> (20) daxs ~f the date of thi> legal
of assessment. You nlz~5 request a hearing before the Board of ('o[lntx Commissioners to sho;~ cauqe,
ifanx, whytheexpensesandchargesincugedbvtheCounlx underCounlvOrdin:mceNo 99-51 are
excessixe or unwarranted or why such expenses should nol constitute a lien against the propen5 Said
request for hearing shall be made to the County Administrator, Goxcmment Center, 3301 Tamiami
Trail Easl, Naple~. Florida 34112 in ~ riling within fen { 1t}} days from Ibc date of lhis nolice.
I LIt N"; Mb;'FR LNAL
? 200
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
17
1o
23
24
3O
31
33
34
35
41
42
4~
44
45
4~
5O
51
52
53
54
57
RESOLL~ION NO. 2001
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC Nt!ISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WttEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47,
as amended, thc direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adnmnstraHxe
cost incurred by thc County, shall be assessed against such property: and
WHEREAS. the cost thereof to the Count>' as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners. together with a description of said parcel; and
\VItEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligati,m upon the
propen> against which made unlil paid: and
WIfEREAS. the assessment shall become due and payable no later than tx~cnt',' (20)
days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessmenl and inlerest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
t~cginning on the date this Resolution ~s recorded at the rate of melxc percent ~, 12q ) per annum.
NO\V. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE BO.\RD OF COI'NTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. that the propen.x described a-, 1olhms,
haxing been abalcd of a public nuisance after due and proper noHce thereof t,, the oxk ne:t <! of said
properly, is hcrcb.~ assessed the follm~ lng costs of such ahalement, t~ w~t:
NAME: BARON, MIMON
I.Ef;:[I. I}ES(;RII'TI¢IN: 1.el 6, I.ely Country Club, MUIRI:ll:1.I), according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 75, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
COST: $245.0t}
REFERENCE#: 1696
FOI.IO #: 55200240000
Thc Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessmem of Lien to the tmnerl:,) of the abo~e
described property, and if such o~vner fails to pay such assessment x~ i¢ltm mm:tx [20} tlax~ hcrcoI, a
certified copy of ISis Resolution shall be recorded in the official record* of Collier ('ountv. lo
conslHute a lien agmnst such propcn> according to la~k, unless such dHcclion is staxcd hx th~s Board
upon appeal of the assessment by the m~ nor.
This Resolution passed and dui.,,' adopted b5 the Board of Cou,'.m, Commiss,.oncrs of
Collier County, Florida. this __ da3 of ,2001.
ATTEST:
DWIG}IT E. BRO('K, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COt'NTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
James D. Carter. Ph.D..Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Pahner. Assistant County Auomcy
LIE%,' MSTR RESOI ! rTI(}N
APR 2 N 2001
BOARI) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I'IlR()U(;II ITS COI)E ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FI.ORIDA
LE(kAL NOTICE ()F ASSICSSMENT OF LIEN
CARl.TON .IR., PltlLIP
700 N E 90TM ST
MIAMI, Fl. 33138
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1731 FOLIO # 64920880003 LIEN NUMBER:
1.EGAI. DESCRIPTION: PAI.M ESTATES Lei 11 OR 405 PI; 505, as recorded in Plat llook
3, Pg. 39 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
You. a~ the eisner(s) of thc property above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained b'~ the off'ice el thc Propert? Appraiser, :ire herebx advised that the Code Enforcement
D~rector. did on October 25, 2000. order the aba~ement of a ce~lain nmsance existing on the aboxe
propert> pruhibited by Ordinance No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of x iolation upon 5ou. The nut',ante
P~'EEI)S: ACCUMI'I.AT1ON OF WI<El)S, GRASS, OR ()TILER N()N-PROTECTEI)
()h'ER(iROV~Ttt IN EXCESS OF EI(;HTEEN (18) INCitES.
You (ailed to abate such nmsance: ;~hereupon. it v, as abated bx the expenditure of
public funds at :.t direct cost of FOURTh'-FIVE ($45.00) DOLLARS plus an administratixe cost of
T;vo-hundred 15200.(}0) dollars for a total of I~,VO-ttUNDRED FOURT'Y-FIVE ($245.00)
I)OLI.ARS.
Such cost. bx Rc~,olution of thc Board of County Commissioners of Collier County.
Florida. shall become a lien on xour propc~l} ltifl~in tl~entx (20) da;s of the date of this legal notice
of assessment. You mJ_x request a hearing before the Board of Counl,, Commissioners to shol,, cause,
ifanx, x~hx thc expenses and charges incurred by the County under Count,,' Ordinance No o9-51 are
excessive or unwarramed or x/hx such expenses sh,~uld not constitute a lien against thc property Said
request for hearing shall he made to the Count} :\dministralor. Government Center. 3301 Tanmmni
Trail East. Naples, Florida 34112 in writing x~ itl~in ten (11)} daxs from the date of this not,cc
F LII!NN' MS;TR L N :,k
APR 2. 2001
'7
9
0
12
13
14
I?
21
24
25
20
2~
29
31
32
33
34
40
41
42
4~
44
45
47
45
49
SCl
51
52
53
5S
RESOLL~ION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
]'HE ABATEMENT OF PUBI.IC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51.
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47,
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administratixe
cost incun'ed by the Count)', shall be assessed against such propen,x; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the Count)' as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported lo the Board of Count)' Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obhgation upon the
propen) against ;,~hich made until paid: and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (2/tl
daxs of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of tx~ elve percent (t 25 } per annum.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. lhal the property described a~, l'ollox~
ha\lng been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper nol~ce thereof to the oxtner~s) oI said
propcrt.~, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatemenl, to
NAME: CARLTON JR, PItlLII'
LEGAl, i)ESCRII'IION: PAI,M ESTATES, Lot 11 or 405 PC; 505, as recorded in Plat lhmk
3, Pg. 39 of the Public Recurds of Collier Count>, Florida.
COST: $245.01}
REFERENCE#: 1731
FOLIO #: 64921;880003
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to thc tmnerls} et thc aboxc
described propell3, and if such owner fails lo pa3 such assessmenl xtilhin ~xtenu' 12(!~ daxs heretiC, a
ccmlwd cop5 of this Rcsol~lion shall be recorded in the official records of Collier Coumx. to
cotlMilule a lien agmnsl such property according to la~, unless such direcmm ~ staxcd bx th~s B,~ard
Upoll appeal of the assessment by the ox~ ncr.
This Rcstflution passed and dui.',' adopted b,. Ibc Board of Ct)unix Commissio, ncrs of
Collier County, Florida. this __ da,,' of ,2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGtlT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOAR[) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
N '
COLLIER COl_ Th, FLORII)A
BY: BY:
Deput3 Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:~ ~.,.~~
Thomas C. Palmer. Assistant Count>' Attorne5
F LIEN' M STR RISC }l I q I( )N
James D. Carter. Ph.D .('haim~an
APR 2 q 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TllROUGlt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLI.IER COUNTY, FLORII):X
LEGAl. NOTICI~ ¢)F ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
SttEEHAN. LLOYD G.
1757 INIPERIAL GOLF CO1JRSE BLVD
NAPLES, FL 34110
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1694 FOLIO # 62099080008 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 9, and 10, l{Iock 10, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, according
to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Pages 67 and 68, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
You, as the owner(s) of the prope~l.,, abo,.c-described, as recorded in thc records
maintained by the office of the Propen3 Apprtuscr. are hereby adxised lhal the Code EnForcement
Director, did on October 17, 2000. order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the abo;e
properl5 prohibited b,, Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a notice of violation upon .vou The nuisance
~,'I51:~!)S: A('C['511_:I.ATION (IF ¥¥EEI)S, GRASS, OR O'[ttER NON-I~ROTE('TI.~I)
OVERGROIVTI! IN EXCICSS OF EIGItl'EEN (18) INCttES.
You failed to ah.Ale such nuisance: whereupon, it ,,','as abated bv the expcnditurc of
public fund:, at a direct cost Of NINETY- /590.00) I)OLLARS plus an administratt,.e cost of
hundred ($200.00~ dollars for a total of T~.VO-I1UNDRED FOL;RTY-FIVE ($290.00)
Such cosl. by Resolution of thc Board of County Commissioners of Collier Count',.
Florida, sh:_dl become a lien on xour proper%v xs ithin l,.',entx (2f)) daxs of the dale of this legal notice
of assessment. You may request a hearing before the Board of Count,,' Commissioners It, sh,~v, cause.
if' an). why the expenses and charges il]curt-cd by thc County under Count)Ordinance No t)9-5t are
exce.ss~xe or unx~arranled or why such expenses should not constitute a lien against the propcm>
request for hearing shall be made to the COUlII} Adminislralor. Goxemment Cenler. 33{)1
Trail East, Naples. Florida 34112 in writing x~ ithm ten 110) da}s from the date of lhi,. nollCc.
F l.ll NS M";TR I X.\l.
APR 2 g 2001
2S
29
30
51
32
33
34
35
4.(I
41
42
4X
44
45
47
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
5,'7
5$
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR TttE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NLIISANCE. IN
ACCORDANCE WITlt ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE Nc). 91-47,
AS AMENT)ED
WItEREAS. as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91--17.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administ~'al~xe
cost incu~Ted by thc County, shall he assessed against such property; and
WHEREAS. the cost thereol to the Count> as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of Count.,.' Commissioners, togetlner ,,~,'ilh a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation up,,n the
prope~zy against \which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become duc and payable no later than tx~entv (20)
daxs t)l- thc date of the Legal Nolicc of Assessment and interest shall accrue on thc unpaid balance
beginning on the date Ihi.'-; Resolution is recorded at the rate of txk ¢1v¢ percent (12c.'~ ) per annum.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CO[¢NTY
CONIMISS1ONERS OF COLLIER CO[JNTY. FLORIDA. that the propen,' de.scribed as f~Mlox~s.
haxing been abated of ~ public nuis~mce after duc arid proper notice thereof to the ox~ner~ s~ of sa~d
prope~-ty, is hereby asscs.~ed thc follox~ ing ct,scs of stroh abatement, to wit:
NAME: SltI'iI'~II:\N. I.LOYI) (i.
1.IC(;.AI. DIC. S(?RIPTIf}N: Lots 9, and 10, Block 10, N,~,PI.ES M:\NOR :\DDITlf)N, according
to thc Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Pages 67 and 68, of the Put, lie Records of Collier
Counly, Florida.
COST: $291}.00
REFERI'2NCE#: 1694
FOI,IO #: 621}991}81}1ti}8
Thc Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of tile
dcscril~ed propel1.\, and if such o~t ncr fails to pa5 st~ch assessment within twentx (2{)i days hcrct~l, a
CCl71I'icd copy of' this Resolution shall be recorded in the official records of Cotl~cr Ct~tmtx.
co~astitutc a lien against such piopc~l5 acc~'ding tt~ lax~. unless such direction is sca\ed [~x this B,~ard
upon appeal of tile assessment by the ex, ncr.
This Resolution passed and dty adopted b)' the Board of Count~ Commissi,mers el
Collier Count>.. Florida. this __ da\ el' 2001.
ATTEST:
D\VI(;I YI E. BROCK, Clerk
BO,,XRF) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COI.iAER COl ;NTY. FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deput> Clerk
Approved :is to form and
legal sufficiency:
'l'honnas (7. Palmer. Assistant County
ir: I lin N'ISTI~. l'{ir£S~ }Ll "1'1~ 1N
James D. Caner. Ph.D..Chaim~an
APR 2 q 2001
B().-~,R1) OI: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THR()U(;II ITS C()I)i.i I~Ni:()RCEMENT DEIhX. RTMENT
('OIA.II{R COtNTY, FLORII)A
LE(;AI. N()TICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
SItEEIlAN. LI.OYI) (;.
17~! IMPI';RIAI. (;OI.F COURSE BI.VI)
NAPLES, FL 34110
DATE:
REF INV.# 1692 FOLIO # 62263920004 LIEN NUMBER:
LE(;AI. DESCRIPTI()N: I,ol 38. in Block 13, all in NAPI.ES MANOR LAKES, according to
Ibc plat lhereof, recorded in Plat Book S, Pages 86 and 87 of Ihe Public Records of Collier
Count3, Florida.
YOLI, as l]lC o~IK'l'(~i of [[1~ propc~) aboxe-dc~cnbcd, as recorded in the record~
ll~;unlanlcd bx lhc tqt'icc of thc PropeRy Appraiser, are hcreb~ adxi~cd lhat the Code Enlorccmem
Director. d~d on Oclober I I, 2000. order thc abatemcnl of a cc:tam nuisance existing on 1t~c aboxe
propc~l) p~oh:bitcd bx OrLhnancc No. 99-51 and served a notice olx io]alion upon )ou. Thc nm~ance
~EEI)S: AC('UMUI.ATIi)N ()I: ~'EEI)S. GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PROTE('TEI)
OVER(;ROXVTH IN EXCESS OF EIGH'FEEN {18) INCttES.
YOU tailed [o a~atc such nuisance: ~hereupon. i[ ~as abated b~ the expcnditm'e of
public lund~ al a direct cos; o] FOURTS'-FIVE ($45.00) I)OI.LARS plus un administratixc cost
T~o-hundrcd ($200.001 dollars for a total ol TXVO-ttUNI)RED FOURTY-FIVE ($245.00}
i)OI.I.ARS.
Such cost. b~ Re~olut~on of the Board of CotH~lx Commissioners of Colher
Florida, shall become u lien on your propen5 x~ithin mentx {2()~ daw of the date ol
ol asse~rnenl You ma) request a hearing before thc Board of Cotlntv Commissioners to shox~, cause.
it' any. why Ibc expenses and char?s incm,cd b5 the Countx under County Ordinance No 9m51 arc
exceSSlX e or tH~x~ arranlcd or xk hx stroh expenses should not constitute a lien a~ainM Iht propeH}. Said
rcqucq for heanng shall be made to the County Administrator. (;ovemment ('enter'. 3301 Tamiami
Tratl East, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within ten { 10~ days from the da~c of this nolicc.
t []IiNh M';II,' IN\I
2001
1
7
,x
to
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
?1
2q
s4
4o
41
4~
44
45
46
47
48
49
5o
51
5s
54
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR TIlE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMEN'F OF PtrBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORI)INANCE No. 9q-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDIN,,\NCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS. as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. O1-47.
as amended, the direct cosls of abalement of certain nuisances, including prescribed admimstrat~xc
cost incurred by the Count5, shall be assessed against such property; and
WHEREAS. tile cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to thc Board of County Commissioners, together ~ itl) a description of said parcel' and
WHEREAS. such assessmem shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon thc
property againsl which made until paid; and
\VItEREAS. thc assessment shall become due and pa3able m, later than iv. tnt\,
daxs of the da~e of lhe l~egal Nonce of Assessment and interest shall accrue on thc unpaid balance
beginning on the date this Rc~olution is recorded at lhe rate of melve percent ( 12'17; ) per annum
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RF~SOI,VEI) P,Y TIlE BOARD OF COI'NTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. thai Ibc properly described a~,
ha\lng been abated of a public nuisance after due and propc~ notice thereof to tile oxtnc~{.s~ of said
propert5. is herclw assessed the following costs of such abatement, lo
' N '
NA: IL: StH;EHAN, LLOYD G.
LFN;AI. DI,~SCRII'TION: Lo! 38. in lllock 13. all in NAPI~ES M:XNOR I.AKES. according
the plat Ihereof. recorded in Plal Book ~, l'a~es g6 ami 87 of the I'ublic Records of
Counl). Florida.
Cf)ST: $245.00
REH';RENCI::#: 1692
F¢)IAO #: 62263920004
The Clerk Mmll mail a Nolice of Assessment el Lien to the ownertst el thc aboxc
described propomy, and if such ()x~ ncr fails to pay such assessment ks ithin Ix\cut\ {201 daxq hereof, a
cemficd copy of Ibis Rcsolution shall be recorded in ~l~e official recoxd5 of Collier Cotmtx. to
constmnc a lien against such propen3 according lo hm, unless such direction is Slaxcd bx Ihiq I3oa~d
upon appeal of the assessmenl b5 the ex, net.
This Resolution passed and dui5 adopted b', tho Board of Counl) ('ommi:,sioncr~ of
Collier Coullly, Florida. this __ ,,lax of . 2001.
ATTEST:
DWI(JIlT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COL!NTY ('OMMISSIONERS
COLIAER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deput) Clerk
Approx ed as to form and
legal sufficient}:
Thomas C. Pahnm. As,,i,4ant Count~ AtlOlqlC~
F I.IFN' 5.1STR Rf-q' il lrlll)N
James D. Carler, Phi). ,Chairman
APR 2 6 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAl, NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OE LIEN
BRUCE T. WHITMER & DATE:
ELSYE K. WHITMER
421} GRIFFITH A~,'E
OWENSBORO, KY 42301
REF. INV.# 1681 FOLIO # 62256160004 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES, evidenced by Plat
of record in Plat Book 3, Page 86, in the Public Records of Collier Count)'.
You. as the o~ner~s) of the properly above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on October 10, 2000. order the abatement of a cerlain nuisance existm.~ on the abo:e
properly prohibited b) Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a notice of xiolation upon you. The nmsance
is:
~,VEEI)S: ACCUM[:I~.S, TI(}N OF WEEDS. GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PROTECTEI)
()'VER(;RO~,'Tit IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN i18) INCITES.
You failed to abate such nuisance: x','hcreupon, it was abated bx thc expenditure e.f
public fund% at a direct cosl of FORTY-FIVE ($45.00) DOI.I.ARS plus an administratixc cost of
Two-hundred ($200.00} dollars for a total of TV~'O-HUNI)RI:~D FOURTY-FIVE {$245.00}
I)OI.LARS.
Such cost. b.', Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Colhcr Countx.
Florida, shall become a lien on your propcrt? within tv~entv ~2(~) daxs of thc dare of this le.sal nohce
of assessment. You may request a heanng before the Board of Counlv Commis:~oners t~ sho\\ cau.;c.
if any, why the expenses and charges incurred b5 thc County under Countx Ordinance No. c)%51 arc
excessive or unwa~Tantcd or v, hv such expenses should not constitute a lien against thc prope~3. Said
request for hearing shall be made to the Counly Administrator. Government Center. 3301 Tamiami
Trail East. Naples. Florida 34112 m writing within ten (101 daxs fi'om the date of this notice.
LIENS MSTR I.NAL
AFR 2 2001
I
2
4
5
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7,
19
23
24
25
27
29
3O
32
34
35
37
;$
3tt
40
41
.12
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
57
5S
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TllE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of ubatement of cerlain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof lo the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to thc Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel' and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the
property against v, hich made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty ~201
days of the date of/he Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date lhiy, Resolution ~s recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12q~) pct' annum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. that the propen.~ described as follows.
having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper not~ce thereof to the owner(s) of said
property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to ,,,,,it:
NAME: BRUCE T. INHITMER & ELSYE K. WHITMER
1,EGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 27. BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES, evidenced bx Plat
of record in Plat Book 3, Page 86, in the Public Records of Collier County.
COST: $245.00
REFERENCE#: 1681
FOLIO #: 622561601}04
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of As,4cssment of Lien to the ownet',~) el thc ab~we
descril~ed property, and if such ex, ncr fails to pa3 st; h assessment x~ithin mentx (201 daxh befool, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recordc~ m the official records of Colhcr Ctmnt5, to
constitute a lien against such propeay according to laxv, unless such direction is si%ed bx thta Board
upon appeal of the assessment by the o;k ncr.
This Resolution passed and dui)' adopted by tine Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County. Florida. this __ day of ,2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Th{m~as C. ~Salmer, As~istunt Count.', Atlorne.,,
F LIEN/MSTR RESOLI;TI()N
James D. Carter. Ph.D. ,Chairman
APR 2 q 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TltROUGtt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LE(;AI. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
MILLS. NAMCY E.
1259 8TM AVE N
NAPI.ES, FL 34102
REF. INV.# 1725
LEGAl. DESCRIPTION:
DATE:
FOLIO # 53350240004 LIEN NUMBER:
Lots 7 and 8, Lake Kelly Uni! 2, a subdivision according to map or
plat thereof recorded in Plat llook 3, Page 93, Public Records of Collier Count), Florida.
COST: $1,140.00 REYERENCE#: 1725 FOLIO #: 53350240004
You~ as thc owner{s} of the property abo~e-dcscribed, as recorded in the records
maintained bx the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on Augus! 14, 2000, order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the aboxe
propcn.,, prohibited bx Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance
V~'EEDS/IATTER: ACCUMULATION OF I~,EEI)S, GRASS, OR OTttER NON-
PROTECTEI) OVI:~R(iROWTIt IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (181 INCHES AND
PROItlBITEI) DUNllqN(;. ACCUMUL4TION, STORAGE OR BURIAl, OF I, ITTER,
WASTE OR ABANI)ONEI) PROPERLY.
You failed to abate such nmsance: whereupon, it was abated b', the expenditure of
public funds at a direct cost of NINE HUNDRED FORTY ($940.00} I)OLLARS plus an
administratixe cost of Tx~o-hundred 15200.00) dollars for a total of ONE TH()US.XND-ONE
tlUNDREI) FORTY ($1,140,001 I)OLLARS.
Such cost, by Resolution of thc Board of County Commissioners of Collier Count),
Florida. shall become a lien on your propert) within m'enty (20) daxs of the date of this legal notice
of assessment. You ma)' request a heanng before the Board of County Commissioners to show cause,
if an,,. wh5 the expenses and charges incurred by the County under Count5 Ordinance No. 99-51 are
excessive or umt arranted or v, hy such expenses should not constitute a lien against the propcn5. Said
request for hearing shall be made to thc County Adminislrator, Goxemment Center, 3301 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples. Florida 34112 in wtsting ~ithm ten (1(1/dax~, from the date of this notice
t: LIEN% MNTR I N \[
APR 2 2001
7
o
Io
13
l o
17
20
21
2~
23
23
25
.50
37
RESeLl ITION NO. 200 l-__
A RI-~SOI,I/TION OF THE BOAR[) OF COUNTY
COMMISSIC)NERS PROVIDIN(; [:OR TIlE
ASSI~iSSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF p[TBLIC NUIS,X. NCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITtt ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No.
AS AMENDED
) 1
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of cerlain nuisances, including prescribed admin~stratixc
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such propert3; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the Counl5 as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners. together ,.kith a description of said parcel: and
WItEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, xalid and bindij~g obligation upon the
propcrl~ against which made until paid: and
WttLrRE.AS. tine assessment shall become duc and pa>able no later than tx~etllX
davs of the date of tile Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpztid
beginning on the dule this Resoltiti,~n is recorded at Iht rate ,~I' tx~elxe percen! ~ 12~5; ) per [ll311tln-~
NO\V, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CO[-NTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COI~L[ER COUNTY. FLORIDA. that the propert> described as folbx,.s,
having been abated of a public nuisance after duc and proper notice thereof to the ox~nerls) (il' said
properl), is hcrebx ussessed the Iollox~ ing costs of stroh ubatcmcnt, to xt;t:
NAME:: MILl. S, N.~\M£'~' E,
I,E(iAI, DESCRII'TI(IN: I~ots 7 and 8, Lake Kelly ['nil 2, a subdivision accor¢li~g
plal thereof recorded i~ Plat Book 3, Page 93, Public Records of Collier Count),
('eST: $1,140.00
RI~I:E R I~:NC i:~#: 1725
I:(}1~10 #: 5335024110114
The ('lerk shull mail a Notice of Assessment
described properly, and if such owner Jails I(a pal> such assessment within tx~elllx (20) di~xs hc~cot', a
ccmit'ied cop) of th~s Rcsolulion shall be recorded
conslilule a lien agamsl such propeNy according to laxx. ttnle~s such dircclion ~s staxed [~x' lhi* Board
upon appeal of the assessment b> the
Tt~is Resolution passed and duly adt~ptcd by thc Board of C~unt\ Con~m~ssloners et
Col}let Counl}, Flozqdi~. this __ da5 of ,2001,
ATTEST:
D\VI(}fIT E. [3ROCK. Clerk
BO.A. RI) OF CO[;NT¥ COMNI1SSIONERS
('()L[,IER ('()1 'N'I'¥, Fl X)RID.q
BY: BY:
Deput> Clerk
Approxed us Io form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Palmer. A,,,s~stant Count5 Attorney
James D. Carter, Ph.l_). ,Chai~q~an
APR 2 4 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TItROUGll ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARI'MENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
EEGAI~ NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF I,IEN
H N H VENTURES, a Florida General Partnership DATE:
4930 12TM AVE SW
NAPLES, FL 34116
REF. INV.# 1647 FOLIO # 36325040007 LIEN NUMBER:
I,EGAI, DESCRIPIION: Lot 4, Block 226, GOEDEN GATE, [!nit No 6, according to the plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat book 15, Pages 124 through 134. of the public records of Collier
Count)', Florida.
You, as the ox~neris) of the properl3 above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser. arc hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on September 18, 2000. order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing nn the above
propcn3 prohibited bx Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance
is:
V~'EEI)S: ACCUMUI~/tTION OF XVEEI)S, GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PROTECTEI)
OVERGROXVTH IN EXCESS OF E1GIlIEEN 118) INCHES IN HEIGHT.
You failed to abate such nuisance: whereupon, it was abated bx the expenditure
pubhc funds at a direct cosl of F()RI'Y-FI'~'I~] ($45.00) IIOLEARS phis an adminlstranxe co-,l of
Txxo-hundred ($200.001 dollars for a total of I'WO-HUNI)REI) FORTY-FIVE {$245.00~
DOLLARS.
Such cosL by Resolutmn of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Countx.
Florida. shall become a lien on ~our propeFty within tx~enlx {20) days of the date of this legal nonce
of assessment. You may request a hearing before the Board of Count} Commissioners to show cause,
if an}, why the expenses and charges incurred by thc Count3 under County Ordinance No. 99-51 arc
excessixe or unaarranted or v, hy such expenses should not constitute a lien against the property. Said
request for hearing shall bc made to the Count} Administrator. Government Centc~. 3301 Tamian-ti
Trail East, Naples, Fk)nda 34112 in v. Firing \\ ithin ten {I 0~ daxs from the date of this notice.
F [.IENS
APR 2 g 200!
1
3
4
5
'7,
9
I 0
I1
~9
3 ~
3~
4~
4~
Ol
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-.__
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE Nc). 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-4'7.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed admimstratp~e
cost incurred by Ihe Courtly, shall be assessed against such properly; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the Courtly as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel: and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and bin&ng obligation upon tile
property against which made until paid: and
WHEREAS. the assessment shall become due and payable no later than IX[CheX
da,,s of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessmenl and mlerest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded iii Ibc rate el m'elve percent I12el; per annum
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOAR[) OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that tile propcrl.', described a',
haxing been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper ntmce theretd Io tile ox~ ncr~
propen3, is herebx assessed thc fol]o~ ing cosls of such abalemenl, to wit:
NAME: tlNH VENTURI'~S, a Florida General Parlnership
I,Ef;AE i)ESCRIPTI(JN: Lot 4. Block 226, (;()IA)r2N GATE, Unit No 6, i.wcording to lhe i)lat
thereof, as recorded in Plat book 15, Pages 124. through 134, of the public records, of Collier
County. Florida.
COST: $245.00 REFERENCE#: 1647 FI}IA() #: 36325040007
l'he Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to lhe ex\ncr!si el tile
described propcn,,, and if such o~ner fail~ to pay such assessmcnl within lkkcnlx [20) dax 5 he,col',
certified cop~ el:this Resolution shall be recorded in thc official records of Cothcr ('ountx,
constitute a lien against such property according lo la~, unless such direclion )* staxcd bx [hi, Board
upon appeal of the assessmenl by the owner.
This Resolution passed and duly adopted bx the Board of ('ountx Commissioners
Collier County. Florida. Ibis ~ day of ,2001.
ATTES'f:
D\VIGItT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEP, S
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to feral and
legal suffic ency:
Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Atlomey
I- lAIN' MS'It,t RI ~)Li
Ja|ncs I). Caner. Ph. I).. ('hairman
APR 2 q 2001
BOARI) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TItROU(;II ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLIAER COUNTY, FI.ORII)A
LEGAI~ NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
ONOFRE, ROBERT() C.
5362 HOLI.ANI) ST
NAPLES, FL 34113
DATE:
REF. IN\L# 1702 FOLIO # 76210840000 LIEN NUNIBER:
LEGAl. DESCRIPTION: Lois 27 and 28, Block 4, V~'.H. Surrency Subdivision. according to
the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 28. of the Public Records of Collier Count),
Florida.
You, as the ox~ner(s) of the property above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained b5 the office of the Propen5 Apprmser, are herebx advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on September 18. 2000. order the abatemenl of a ce~ain nuisance existing on fl~e atx~e
propen5 prohibited by Ordinance No. g9-51 and serxed a notice of xiolation upon 5ou. The nuisance
is:
~VEEI)S: ACCUMt:I,ATION OF ~'EEI)S, GRASS, ()R OTHER NON-I'ROTECTEI)
OVERGROXVIH IN EXCESS OI: EIGIITEEN (18} INCITES.
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated b) d~c expenditure
public funds al a dH'cci cost ol NINETY' ($90.00} I)OI,LARS plu~ an administran~c cost ol T'a
hundred {$200.00) dollars fora total of TXVO-H UNDREI) NINETY' 15290.00} D()LLA
Such cost. hx Resolution of thc Bo'ard oI Countx Commissioners of Collie~ Countx,
Florida. shall become a lien on your prope~y x~ilhin tx~entv 120) daxs of the date ol this le~al notice
of assessment. You ilia} request a heanng before the Board of County Conlmissioner5 to shoxt
if any, why the expenses and charges incurred bx the Countx under Counlx Ordinance No. 99-51
excessive or unxt agantcd or xx hx such expenses should nol con~l~tule a lien against lhe propeN)
requesl for heanng shall be made to the Counlv Admimstrator. Government Center, 3301 Tamian~i
Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 in xx tiring wi0fin ten t 10i days frolll tt~c dale of this nohcc.
}: I.IENS' ',.1STP, LNAL
APR 2 2001
0
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
19
25
2(,
28
3O
31
32
3;
34
4O
41
42
4-i
45
47
4S
4':)
50
51
52
53
54
55
5?
58
59
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOI,UTION OF THE BOAR[) OF CO[INTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PI.!BLI(' NUISANCE. IN
ACCORDANCE WI-IH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SI!CCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No, 91-47~
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as pro',ided m Ordinance No. 99-51. as successor to Ordinance No. 01-47,
as amended, the direcl costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the Count),', shall bc assessed against such propert?: and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the Count3 as to each parcel shall be calculated and
repo~lcd to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel: and
WIIEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal. ~alid and binding obligation upon the
property against which made until paid: and
\VItEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than tx~enlx
days of the date el thc l~egal Notice el Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date tl~is Resolution is recorded ;it the rate of tx~elxe percent 112c~ I pe~ annum.
NOW, TIIL:REFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COt'N1'Y
COMMtSSIONEP, S O[: ('OLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. tha! the property described as
ha~ing becel abaled of a public nuisance afler dtle and proper not,ce thereof 1o the Or, hefts} et said
propen}, is herebx assessed the follox~ing costs of such abatement, to
NAME: ON()I:RE, R(}BERTO C.
I,E(;3.1, I)ES('RII'TION: l,ots 27 and 28, Block 4, W.Ii. Surreno Subdivision. according to
the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 28, of the Public Records of Collier Count3,
Florida.
COST: $29{},11t}
REFERICNCE#: 171}2
FeLl() #: 76210840000
Thc Clerk shall mail a Notice oi' Assessment of Lien to the owneris) oI thc
described propcrl}, arid if such o~kncr falls to pa} such asscsslllClll ~ it]lilq Ix~entx ~,20~ daxs hcroq', a
certified copy of this Resolulion shall be recorded in thc officufl records of Collier CotmlX.
conslitUlC a liclq against such property according lo )axe. unless StlCh direction is sta}ed bx lh~,
upon appeal of thc assessment b} the owner.
This Resolution passed and dui3' adopted bx Ibc Board of County Comnnssi,mcis el
Collier Counly, Florida, this__ da} Of , 200t.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BRO('K. Clerk
BOAR1) OF COUN'I Y ('OMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COt'NTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant Count3 :\ttomex
F LIEN MS'U
James D. Caner. PhD..('hairman
APR 2 200
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT I)EPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF' ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
MORALES, GLORIA C. DATE:
2030 RIVER REAClt DR APT 132
NAPLES, FL 34104-5253
REF. INV.# 1680 FOLIO # 62101520003 LIEN Nk~IBER:
LEGAl. DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 13. NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, according to the
plat thereof, as recorded in Plat book 3, pages 67 and 68 Public Records of Collier County,
Florida.
You. as the o~nerfs'} of the proper'ty above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Properly Appraiser. are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on October 10, 2000. order thc abatement of a certain nuisance ex~sting on thc above
proper't3 prohibited bx Ordinance No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of violation upon you. Thc nmsance
IS:
IVEEI)S: ACCUMUI.ATI()N OF 'CREEDS. GRAS, OR OTHER NON-PROTECTED
OVER(;ROV',Ttt IN EXCESS OF 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; ,.~hereupon. it was abated b5 thc expenditure of
pubhc funds at a direct cost of FORTY-FIVE t545.00) DOLLARS plus an administratixe cost of
TV(O-HI:.~DRED ($200.00) I)OLI. ARS for a total of TWO-ItUNDRED FORIY-FIVE
($245.00) DOLLARS.
Such cost. bx Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Cotlnl).
Florida. shall become a lien on your properU' ~\ithin t,.tentx (20) days of the date of this legal notice
of assessment. You ma.', request a heanng before the Board of Cot,ntv Commissioners to sh -,v, cause.
if an3'. x~h;' the expenses and charges incurred b~ the Count;' under County Ordinance No. 99-51 are
excessive or umvan-anted or x~ hv such expenses should not constitute a lien against the propert3. Said
request for heanng shall be made to the Count.',' Administrator, Go,,emment Center. 33{11 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples. Florida 34112 m w~sting x~ithin ten (10) days from the date of this notice.
r LI[%S~ MSTR [_N/Ak
APR .7. 200!
l
4
6
$
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
23
24
25
3O
3~
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
4O
41
4£
~3
45
47
5O
51
52
54
55
57
61
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
AC('ORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance Nc). 99-51, as successor to Ordinance Nc). 91-47,
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed a&ninistrative
cosl incurred by thc County, shall be assessed against such property; and
WHEREAS. the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together ~'ith a description of said parcel: and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the
property against which made until paid: and
WHEREAS, thc assessment shall become due and payable no later than t,aentx (20)
days of thc date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at thc rate of txvelve percent (12q() per annum.
NOW, TttEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD Of: COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the properly described as follox~s,
hax lng been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the ox~ner(st of said
property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME: MORALES, GLORIA C
LEGAI~ DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 13, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, according to the
plat thereof, as recorded in Plat book 3, pages 67 and 68 Public Records of Collier County,
Florida.
COST: $245.0t}
REFERENCE#: 1680
FOI,IO #: 62101520003
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the o,anen~) of the above
described property, and il' such owner fails to paL such assessment xxithin t~entv (20) days hereof, a
certified cop.,, of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official records of Collier Counl>, to
conslitute a lien against such property according Io lax~, unless such direction is staved b> this Board
upon appeal of the assessment by the owner.
This Resolution passed and dui>' adopted by the Board of Count>' Commissioners of
Collier Count>', Florida. this __ day of 2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGttT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney
F I_IEN/MS;TR RES()I I'TI()N
James D. Carter, Ph.D..Chairman
APR 2 200!
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TltROUGH ITS (;ODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
MAYHO¢)I), SUE ANN DATE:
11071 Terry Street E
Bonita Springs FL 34135
REF. INV.# 1667 FOLIO # 74030960007 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 2, of that certain subdivision known as SOUTlt
I*IM¢)KALEE HEIGHTS, according to the map or plat thereof on file and recorded in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. Florida.
COST: $245.00 REFERENCE#: 1667 FOIAO #: 7403096(}007
You. as the ox~nerls) of the propert5 above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforccmen!
Director. did on August 30, 2000. order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above
propcrl> prohibited bv Ordinance No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of xiolation upon 5ou The nuisance
is:
X,¥EEDS: ACCUMI. rI,ATION OF I¥EEI)S, GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PROTECTEI)
OX,'ER(;ROV~TIt IN EXCESS OF EI(;ItTEEN (18).
You faded to abate such nuisance: whereupon, it was abated bx the expenditure
public funds al a direct cost of FORTY - FIYE ($45.00) I)OLLARS plus an administratixe
Tx~o-hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TVfO ItUNDRED FORTY-FIYE t5245.00!
DOLl,ARS.
Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
Florida, shall become a lien on xour property xxithin lv, enty (20) days of the dale of this legal notice
of assessmenl. You may request a hea~qng belore thc Board of County Commissioners to sho,a cause,
if any. x~ hx lhe expenses and charges incurred by the Count', under Count,.' Ordinance No. 99-51 are
excessive or unwarranted or x,.hy such expenses should not constitute a lien against the property. Said
request for heanng shall be made lo the Count',' Administrator, Go~emment Center, 3301 Tam:ami
Trail East, Naples. Florida 34112 ~n writing ~ithin ten 1('}'~ days from the date of lhis nouce.
[; llkNs ".1STR [.N\[
Pg..~..~
I
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
lO
2o
21
23
24
25
27
2s
3o
31
33
3-1
;5
36
3s
40
41
42
45
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6{)
61
RESOLUTION NO. 20(i
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR T}tE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NLIISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WIT}I ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SI:CCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
\VHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47,
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred b) the County, shall be assessed against such property: and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the Count5 as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reporled lo thc Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel: and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the
propc~l} against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than tx~entx (2111
days of the date of the Legal Not]cc of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at thc rate of twelve percent (1741 per annum.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COELIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the propert.,, described as follox~s.
having been abated of :t public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof 1o the o~ner{s! of said
property, is hcreb~x assessed thc follow ing costs of such abatement, to ~il:
NAME: MAYHOOD, SUE ANN
IA(¢;3.1.1)ESCRII~FION: Lot 8, Block 2. o1' that certain subdivision kno~vn as SOUTII
IMMOK\ LEE HEIGItTS. according to the map or plat thereof on file and recorded in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier Count}'. Florida. Plat Book 3, Page 29.
COST: $245.00
REFERENCE#: 1667
FOLIO #: 74030960007
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the o~ner(s) of d~c aboxc
described property, and il' such owner l-ails to pa)' such assessment ~x~thin mentv !201 daxs hereof, a
certified cop,', of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official records of Collier ('ountx. to
constitute a lien against such property according to law. unless such direction is staved bx th:~ Board
upon appeal of the assessment by the ox~ner.
This Resolution passed :md duly adopted by the Board of Counl;' Commissioner~ ol
Collier County, Florida, this __ da.,,' of ., 2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIlSSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deput5 Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Palmer, Assislant County Attorney
F lIEN' NINTR RF.S()I I 'll(~N
James D. Caner, Ph.D 'hairman
apr 2 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TltROU(;H ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEI'ARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
JESUS GOMEZ DATE:
6034 SXV 27TM STREET
MIAMI, FL 33155
REF. IN\L# 1691 FOLIO # 62102840009 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL I)ESCRIPTION: Lot 3, in BLOCK 14, OF NAPLES MANOR ADDITION,
ACCORDING TO TIlE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 969, AT PAGE
621, OF TIlE PUBEIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
You. as the o~vner{s) of the property above-described, as recorded in thc records
maintained b.~ thc office of the Property, Appraiser. are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Dirccto~. did on October 11, 2000. order the abatement of a certain nmsance existing on the above
properly prohibited bx Ordinunce No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance
WEEDS: ACCUMUI.ATION ()t' WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON-PROTECIED
(}VER(;ROIVTH IN EXCESS ()F EIGItTEEN (18) INCHES.
You faitcd to abale such nuisance; v, hereupon, it was abated bx ibc expenditure of
pubhc lunds at a direcl cost of FORTY-FIVE ($45.00) DOLLARS plus an administrative cosl of
Two-hundred ($200.00} dollars for a total of T~,VO-ItUNDRED FOURTY-FIVE ($245.00}
DOI.I.ARS.
Such co.',t, bx Resolution o! the Board of Counly Commissioners of Collier Count>.
Florida, shall become a lien on .,,'our pr~pcrty x~ilhin t~cnt5 (2{)) days of the date of this legal notice
of assessment. You may request a heanng before the Board of Count,, Commissioners to show cause.
il' :tn.',', why thc expenses and charges incun-cd by the Count)' under Countx Ordinance No 99-51 are
excessive or unwarranted or ,ahv such expenses should not constitute a lien against the property. Said
requesl for hearing shall be madeto thc County Administrator. Government Center. 3301 Tamiami
Trail East. Naples. Fl{>rida 34112 m writing t~ithin ten { 10) daxs from the date of fl~is notice.
F I.IEN~;' MSTR LNAL
2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lO
18
lq
2o
22
23
24
25
20
25
29
30
32
33
30
37
3~
42
45
46
40
5o
5!
53
54
55
50
57
58
59
60
61
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOI.UTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47.
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS. as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the C~,unty, shall be assessed against such property: and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of Count)' Commissioners together with a description of said parcel; and
\VHEREAS, such assessmenl shall bca legal, valid and binding obligation up, m the
properly against ,,~ hich made until paid: and
WHEREAS. the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20!
the date of the Legal No\icc of Assessment and interest shall accrue on thc unpaid balance
n the dale this Resolution i< recorded at thc rate of t~elve percent ( l'Wl } per annum
NOW, THEREFORE. PE FI' RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CO['NTY
COMMi.').'dC, NERS OF COLLIER Ct 5, FLORIDA. that the property described as follows.
having been abated of a public nuisance alter due and proper notice thereof to the ox~ner(s) of said
properly, is hereb.,, assessed the follo,a ing costs of such abatement, to ~*,it:
NAME: GONIEZ, JESUS
LE(;AI~ DESCRIPTION: Lot 3. in BLOCK 14. OF NAPLES MANOR AI)I)ITION,
ACCORI)ING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS REf'()RI)EI) IN PI,AT BOOK 969, .-'iT PA(;E
621, OI: Till5 PUBI.IC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
COST: $245.00
REFERENCE(t: 1691
FOLIO it: 62102840009
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner{s) of the aboxe
described property, and if such owner fails to pa.~ such assessment within mentx (2{)) days hereof, a
certified cop> of this Resolution shall be recorded m die official records of Colhcr Count',. to
constitute a lien against such proper\3 according lo la~, unless such direction is sta~ed hx this F;,,ard
upon appeal of thc assessment by thc owner.
This Resolution passed and dui.,.' adopted b.~ the Board of Count\ Comm~ssi,mc:> of
Collier Count3', Florida, this __ day of .2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Depul3 Clerk
Apprm cd as lo fom~ and
legal sufficiency:.
Thomas ('. Palmer. Assislall[ County Alit)riley
F LIENs MSTR R[iSIILI rTII IN
James D. Carter. Pb D ,Chairman
,
APR 2 q 2001
BOA RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COIA.IER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAl. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
QUAIl. HOLLOW PROPERTY OWNERS DATE:
ASSOCIATION, INC.
6000 Hollo,,s Dr
Naples FL 34112-2927
REF. INk'.# 1695 FOLIO # 68840040000 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAl. DESCRIPTION: Tract A, QUAIL ltOLLOV~' SUBi)IVISION. according to plat
recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 42. public records of Collier Count}'. Florida.
You. as thc owncr(.s) of the property above-described, as recorded in thc records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are herehx ad,,ised that tine Code Enforcement
Director. did on September 14, 2000, order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on thc above
propcrt> prohibited by Ordinance No. 99-51 and scrxed a not~cc of violation upon you. Thc nuisance
is:
V~'EEDS: ACCUMUI.ATION OF ~5,'EEDS, GRASS, OR OTItER NON-PROTECTED
()VER(iR()~VTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHIEEN (18i INCttES IN HEIGHT
You failed to abate such nuisance: whereupon, it ~as abated by the expenditure of
public funds at a direct c~st of FORTY-FIVE ($45.00) I)OLLARS plus an administratxc cost of
Two hundred ($200.00} dollars for a total of TI~,'O-ItUNDREI) FORTI'-I:IVE !.5245.0(I}
DOLLARS.
Such cost. bx, Resolution oi' the Board o1' Countx Conqn~.i:~sioners of Collier C<~u~qtx.
F[oi-ida. shall become a hen tm xour property xtithin tv, entx t201 da',,s of thc date of thb, legal notice
of assessment. You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to shoxx cause.
if an>'. why the expenses and charges incurred by the Count',, under Count'~ Ordinance No. 99-51 are
excesslxe or unwan-antcd or ~h5 such expenses should not constitute a lien against the p~opc~75. Said
request for hearing shall be made to thc County Adminismm~r. C, oxcmmcnt Center. 3301 TamiamI
Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 iT~v, riting within ten (10) daxs fron-] thc date of this notice,
F LIt N"; MSTR I N-',I
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
1~)
21
22
_.'3
2.4
25
£o
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
30
37
38
30
41
42
43
44
45
,47
4S
49
50
51
5-
53
54
55
58
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COL!NTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WIIEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 01-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrati\c
cost incun'ed by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and
\VHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to thc Board of County Commissioners, together v,,rith a descnption of said parcel; and
\VttEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation) upon
property against which mnde until puid: rind
\VHEREAS. the assessment shall become due and payable no later than tx,,entx 20t
days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on thc dale this Resolution is recorded at thc rate of t~\ el\'e percent (12q'~) per annum.
NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE BOARD OF CO['NTY
('OMM1SSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORID:\. that the proper~y described a~, lolh~\xs.
having been abated of a public nuisance after duc and proper notice thereof to the o~ncr~s, of ~,aid
propen3, is hereb;' assessed thc following cosls of such abatement, to wit:
NAME: QUAIl, t10!,1,O~%' I~ROPI:.RTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
LEGAl, DESCRIPTi()N: Tract A, QtTAII. HOI.LO%'~' S['ItDIVISION, according to t)lat
recorded in Plat llook 14, Page 42, pul)lic records of Collit'r County, Florida.
(7()ST: $245.00
RI~FI,}RI£NCE#: 1695
FOLIO #: 68841}040001}
The ('lerk shall mail a Notice of Assessmcn~ of Lien to the ex, hefts5 {~1' tile t~bo,c
described properly, and if such owner fails to pay such assessment within twenty (20) dt~\s hereof, a
certified copy of Ibis Resolution shall be recorded ill the official records of Colhcr ('ounl',. Io
constitute a lien again~,t such proper\> according to la\t, unless such direction is staxed bx tin, I';,,ard
upon appeal of the assessment by the owner.
This Resol~Hion passed and duly adoplccl by the Board of Counly Commissioners oi
Collier County, FIo~sda, this __ day of .2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COtrNTY COMMISSIONER%
COLLIER ('O[~NTY, FI,ORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved us to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomns (7. Palmer. Assistant (?ount5 At\omc.5
l: I.II!N, MSTI4 I{I%S~![
James D Caner, Ph.D..Chats'man
APR 2 2001
BOARD OF COtNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT I)EPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
REALTY HOLDINGS, L.P., DATE:
A Pennsylvania Limited Partnership
4001 Tamiami Tr N Ste 300
Naples FL 34103
REF. 1NV.# 1722 FOLIO # 61381}040004 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRllrF1ON: Lots 1, 2, and 3, NAPLES BAYVIE~,'~' ADDITION, per Plat in Plat
Book 4, Page 20, public records of Collier County, Florida.
You. as the owner(s) of the properI~ above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained b) the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereb) advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did tin October 26, 2000, order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the
propen5 prohibited by Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a notice of `.iolation upon you. The nuisance
IS:
V','EEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTItER NON-PROTECTED
OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN 1.18) INCHES IN HEIGHT.
You failed to abate such nuisance: ,.`.'hereupon. il ,.'.as abated by the expenditure of
public funds at a direct cosl of ()NE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE ($135.00) DOLLARS plu~ an
administrau`, e cost of T,.,. o hun&cd ($200.00) dollars for a total of THREE-HUNDRED THIRTY-
FIVE (.$335.00) DOLLARS.
Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of Count', Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida. shall become a lien on your propen> within ment.x. (20) days of the date of this legal notice
of assessmenl. You may request a heanng before the Board ol County Commissioners to sho~`, cause,
if an`.', why the expenses and charges incurred bb. the County under Count} Ordinance No. 99-51 are
excessive or uny, an'anted or ~hy such expenses should not constitute a lien against the propeny. Said
request for hearing shall bc made to the Count.,, Administrator. Goxemment Center. 3301 Tamiami
Trail East. Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this notice.
F LIENS MSTR LNAL
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
40
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, 1N
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance Nc). 91-47,
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and
WttEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS. such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the
property a~_ainst which made until paid; and
WlqEREAS. the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20t
da>s ol the date of thc Legal Notice of Assessment and interesl shall accrue on the unpaid balance
beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12~i) per annum.
NO\V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF (*OLrNTY
CONIMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COU'NTY, FLORIDA, that the p~,~i,cll.', described ~.'. follows,
haxing bccn abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner, s) of said
property, is hereby assessed the follow, lng costs of such abatement, to ~'it:
NAME: REALTY HOLDINGS, L.P., a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership
LE(;AL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, and 3, NAPLES BAYX'IEW ADDITION, per Plat in Plat
Book 4, Page 20, public records of Collier Count)', Florida.
COST: $335.00
REFERENCE#: 1722
FOLIO #: 61380040004
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the abo~e
described propen.v, and if such owner fails to pa5 such assessment within twenty (20) da.,,s hereof, a
certified cop~ of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, to
constitute a lien against such propen5 according to lax~,', unless such direction is stayed by this Board
upon appeal of the assessment by the o~ ncr.
This Resolution passed and dui.',' adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier Count.',, Florida. lhis __ day of ,2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMIM1SS1ONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Pafmer, Assislant County Attome3
James D. Caner, Ph.D., Chairman
F LIEN 'MSTR RES£)LI'aI{'~N
APR 7 2001
BOARD OF COUNT~~ COMMISSIONERS
THRO[!Gtt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
KOEHLER, MARVIC L. & ELSIE A.
20005 106ru SE
KENT, ~'A 98031
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1668 FOLIO # 35989320009 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Block 89, Unit 3 part GOLDEN GATE, according to plat
thereof recorded in Plat book 5, Page 105 of the public records of Collier County, Florida.
You. as the o,.vnerls) of the property above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on September 5, 2000. order thc abatcmenl of a certain nuisance ex~sting on the above
property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance
is:
~,~,'EEDS: ACCI_LXlI_51.ATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTtlER NON-PROTECTED
¢)'~'ERGR(}IVTIt 1N EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES.
You failed to abate such nuisance; %vhereupon, it ~as abated b> the expenditure of
pubhc funds at a direct cos! of FORTY-FIVE ($45.00) DOLLARS plus an administratixc cost of
Two-hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO-HI_SN'DRED FORTY-FI'~'E t$245.00}
I)OI.LARS.
Such cost. b> Resolution of the Board of Count5' Commissioners of Collier Countx.
Florid:~. r, hall become a lien on your property within twent,,' f20) days of the date of this legal not~ce
of assessment. You may request a heanng before the Board of Count>' Commissioners to show cause,
if any. x\h> the expenses and charges incurred by the County under Count5 Ordinance No. 99-5l are
excessive or un~.arranted or why such expenses should not constitute a lien against the propen>. Said
request for heanng shall be made lo the Count>.' Administrator, Government Center. 3301 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples. Florida 34112 in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this notice.
F LII~\S,' MNTR I.NAL
AF N 2 z; 2001
t
2
'7
$
9
I0
11
13
14
15
10
17
£0
24
41
4£
4~
44
4O
4'7
45
St)
~4
~?
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLI_WION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PL1BLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE Nc). 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47,
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administratixe
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property: and
WHEREAS, the cosl thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reporlcd to the Board of County Commissioners, togelher with a description of said parcel; and
WttEREAS. such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the
property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than txxent'~ {20~
da,,,s of the dale of the Legal Notice of Assessmenl and interest shall accrue on the unpaid b,Mancc
beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded al the rate of tv,'el~e percent (12"~) per annum.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COIrNTY
COM*IISSIONERS OF COI~L1ER COL!NTY, FLORIDA, that the propert.,, t!.~scnbed a~ follox~s,
haxing been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper not~ce thereof It, the ov, nerls/ of sa~d
propert), is hereby assessed the follo,,ving costs of such abatement, to v~il:
NAME: KOEHLER, MAR~,'IC L. & ELSIE A.
I~E¢;AI. DES(?RIPTION: Lot 11, Block 89, Unit 3 part (;OLDEN (;ATE, according to plat
thereof recorded in Plat book 5, Page 105 of the public records of Collier County, Flor;dh.
COST: $245.01}
REFERENCE#: 1668
F()I.IO #: 3598',~3200(19
Thc Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of l.~cn to the o~.,nerts) of thc ai~oxe
described propert.~, and it' such owner fails to pay such assessmcnl ~ithin t~cnt', (20) dax% hc~,:of, a
certified cop>' of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official records t: Collie! Cotl~ :',. to
constHute it lien against such property according to laxt. unless such direction ~s ~,laved [-x chi, i~,,):n'd
upon appeal of the assessment by the or, nec.
This Resolution passed and duly adopled b5 thc Board of Coungx Comn~>stoncrs of
Collier County, Florida, this __ da5' of ,2001.
ATTEST:
I)\VIGttT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSi(DNERS
COLLIER COLTNT'f. FLORID:\
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas C. Palmer. Assistanl COUII[)Attornc>
I' LIt!N,' MST}{ RI~S()LI~WION
James D. Caner. Ph.D., ('1 Mrman
": 200!
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TttROUGIt ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLI.IER COUNT't'. FLORII)A
I,E(;AI~ NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
HERNANDEZ, ELBA & NOE
3956 12TM Street N #3
Naples. FL 34104
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1689 FOLIO # 35981480002 LIEN NUMBER:
I.EGAI~ DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 82, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 3, according to the plal
thereof, as recorded in Plat book 5 at Page 105 of the public records of Collier Count)', Florida.
You. as thc o%',nerls) of the property above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained b,, Ibc office of lhe Propelq.x Appraiser. are hereb; advised that the Code Enforcement
Director, did on September 28, 2000. order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above
propen> prohibited hx Ordinance No. 99-51 and serxed a notice of violation upon you. Thc' nuisance
is:
x,~,'EEI)S: ACCt'NII:i. ATION OF ~,~,'EEDS, GRASS, OR OTItER NON-I:'ROTECTEI)
O'~'ER(iROX,'s'TI! IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCITES.
You failed to abate such nuisance; x~hcreupon, it was abated b3 the expenditure of
public fund~ at a direct cost of FORTI'-FIVE ($45.1)I}} I)OI.I.ARS plus an administratixe cos~ of
T,,xo-hundred ~$200.00) dollars for a total of T~,~,'O-ttUNI)RICD FORTY-FI~,'E {$245.00}
I)OIA. ARS
Such cost. b'. Resolution of the Board of Count', Commissioners of Colliei Cotlnt,..
Florida. shall beck,hie a lien on xour propert5 x~'ithin Ixvenl~. {201 days of the date of this Legal noIice
of assessment. You ma> request a henring before the Board of Count> Commissioners to show cause.
if an>'. ~\'h> thc expenses and charges intuited b'. the Countx under Count', Ordinance No 9~-51 are
excessive or un,,~.an-anted or v, h,,' such expenses should not constitute a lien aga~nsl the prope[x>. Said
request for hearing shall be made ltl the Countx Administrator. Government Center. 3301 Tamiami
Trail East. Naple~,. Florida 34112 in writing ~xithin ten (10t days from the date of this notice.
F I.IliNq N1Nq'I{
APR 7. 2001
1
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2?
2s
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
30
37
3s
39
41
42
43
44
45
40
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABA'FEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, 1N
ACCORDANCE WITIt ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WItEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adminismmxe
cost incun-ed by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the Count> as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of County Commissioners, logether with a descripnon of said parcel; and
WHEREAS. such assessment shall be a legal, xalid and binding obligation upon the
propcrl> against v,'hich made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than menty 120)
daxs of lhe date of the Leg:ti Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpmd balance
beginning on the date Ibis Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (125 ) per annum
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ('OLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as l'oll~>x~s.
haxing been abaled of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to Ibc mvncns~ of ~,aid
properly, is he,cb5 assessed the folk)wing costs of such abatement, to v,m
NAME: tlERNANI)EZ, ELBA & NOE
IA:~(iAI. I)I.;SCRIPT1ON: Lot 1, Block 82, GOLI)EN GATE, UNIT 3, according to thc plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat book 5 at Page 1115 of the pulflic records of Collier Count.,,. l:lorida.
COST: $245.00
REFERENCi~.#: 1689
FOLIO #: 359814811002
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessment of Lien to the ownerfs) of tine aboxc
described property, and il' such ox~ner fails to pa.',' such assessment xkithin ment> (20i days hc~cof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in thc official records of Collier ('ountx, to
consntute a lien against such property according to law, unless such direction is stayed bx thi, I>,~ard
upon appeal of tbc assessment by the owner.
This Resolution passed and dui,', adopted b> tine Board of Count> Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida. this __ day of , 2(i)01.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
~I'homas C. Palmer, Assistant Count5' Attorney'
James D. Caner, PIL D, Chairman
BOARi) ()1: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TItR()U(;lt ITS CODE ENF()RCI';MENI' DILPARTMENT
COI,IAER COUNTY, FLORII)A
1,E(;AI, NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT O1: LIEN
MFSA, RAMON
5911 SX~.' 44"' Terrace
Miami, FL 33155
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1657 FOLIO # 62265880003 LIEN NUMBER:
I,E(;AI. DESCRIPTION: Lot 2. in Block 17, NAPLES MANOR LAKES, as recorded in Plat
hook 3, Pages 86 & 87 of the public records of Collier County, Florida.
You. as the o~ner~) of tile propen5 aboxe-descnhed, as recorded in the records
maintained by lhe office of lhe Prope~%' .Appraiser, are herebx adxised that the Code Enforcement
Director, did on August 09. 2000, order lhe abatemenl of a certain nuisance existing on tJqc aboxc
p~opert> prohiNtcd by Ordinance No. t19-51 and serxed a not~ce of xiolalion upon >ou. The nuisance
IXI'IER: PROltlIIITEI) DUMPIN{;, ACCUMULATION, STORAGE OR BURIal, OF
I,ITTER. I~'ASTE OR ABANIIONED PROPERT5-.
You failed to abalc stlch nmsance: ~hereupon. it x~as abated bx thc expendiwrc of
public fund5 al a direct coq of ONE I1UNIIRED FIFTY {$150.00t DOIA, ARS plus
adll~iBiMriiUxc cosl of Tx~o-hundrcd i5200.00) dollars for a total of TIIREE-HUNDRFI} FIFTY
($350.{1111
Such ct>si, bN Resolution of the Board of Count5 Commissioners of Collier Countx.
[riel'ida, shall become a mien ,,n xour propcrl5 xtithin tk~enlx (20i d:tx~ of thc date of thi~ legal
of assessment You nqay request a hearing before the Board of Cotl~llv Commissioners to shoxs ?Jt~sc.
if any, x~hy the expenses and charges incun'cd by the Countx under ('ountx Ordinance No. 99 51 arc
excessive or unwa~Tanted or whx such expenses should not conslilulc a lien against the pl'opert>. Said
request for hearing shall be made to lhe County Adn~inislnttor, Goxcmment Center. 33(~1 Tam~arn~
Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 in ~nling within fen il0) daxs from thc date of this nol~cc.
k
1
6
?
9
10
I1
12
13
I4
15
17
19
2o
22
25
26
2s
29
~0
32
33
q4
35
37
40
41
42
43
44
45
40
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
0u
RESOLI~F1ON NO. 2001-__
A RESOLUTION OF ~FHE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TIlE COST O1:
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE. IN
ACCORDANCE WITlt ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SI. ICCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administratixe
cost recurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and
WttEREAS, the cosl thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported 1o lhe Board of County Commissioners, togelher with a descnplion of said parcel; and
\VIIEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, \fa]id and binding obligation upon
propert> against which made until paid: and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than tx~entv {21~1
days of the dale of the Legal Notice of Assessment and inlerest shall accrue on the {repaid balance
beginning on the date this Resolution ~s recorded al lhc rate of t~ehe percent tl2q) per annunl
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLL1ER COUNTY, FI_ORII)A. that the property described
having heen abaled of a pubhc nmsance aller due and proper nonce thereof to Ibc
proper{>, is hereby assessed the tolhm lng toms of such abatement, to wit:
NAME: MESA. RAMON
LIL(;AI. I)ISSCRII'TI()N: Lot 2, in Block 17, N&PI~ES MAN()R LAKES, as recorded in Plat
book 3, Pages 86 & 87 of the public records of Collier County, Florida.
COST: $350.00
RF]FERENCI~#: 1657
F()I JO #: 62265880003
The ('lerk shall mail ii Notice of Assc,,,'4nlenl of Lien lo the oxtnen~) ,,I thc aboxc
described propcily, and if such ox\ncr fails to pay such assessment ~ {thin lxkcnlx {2l)j d;lxx IlerC,q. a
ce~liJied cop} of lhis Resolution shall be recorded in the official records of Collier ('ounlx, t~
constitute a lien against such proper{} according Io law, unless Sklch direction i5 smxed lax thiy Board
upon appeal of tile assessment by thc ox~ ne~.
This Rcsolulion passed and duly adopted by the Bt}ard of County ('onm~issioncr~, el
Collier Count5. Florida. this __ day of . 2{}I11.
AqT'EST:
DWIGItTE BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COt NTY, FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Depmy Clerk
Approxed as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Tjx)mas C. Palmer, Assislant Count5 Athwnev
F LI[!N' Nlql'R Rl('-,t)t.I 'TIC)N
James D. Cmler, Ph. D,, Chairm,.m
l'
2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THR()UGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAl. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
MESA, RAMON
5911 SW 44th Terrace
Miami, FL 33155
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1654 FOLIO # 62265960004 LIEN NULMBER:
LEGAE DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 in Block 17, NAPLES MANOR LAKES, as recorded in Plat
book 3, Pages 86 & 87 of the public records of Collier Count>', Florida.
You. as the or, ncr!s) of the property above-described, as recorded in the records
maintained bv the office of the Properly Appraiser. are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement
Director. did on August 09, 2000, order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on thc aboxe
property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99-51 and served a notice of ;iolation upon you. The nuisance
is:
LITTER: PROHIBITED DUMPING, ACCUNIUI. ATION, STOR.\GE OR BURIAl. OF
LIT'I'ER, WASTE OR ABANI)ONEI) PROPERTY.
You failed to abate such nuisance: whereupon, it was abated h,, the e,,penditure o~
public funds at a direct cost of ONE ttUNDREI) FIFTh' ($150.00} DOLEARS pitts an
administrative cost of Two-hundred {$201}.00~ dollars for a total of THREE-HUNI)REI} FIFTY
t$350.00) DOLLARS.
Such cosL b.', Resolulion of the Board of Count',' Commissionern of Colticr Coumx.
Florida. shall become a lien on x~mr property x~ithm twentx t20~ days of thc date of lhis legal notice
of assessment. You n'my request a hearing before the Board of Countx Commissioners to shov, cause.
ii- an5', why the expenses and charges incurred by thc County under County Ordinance No 99-51 are
excessi'~e or unwarranted or why such expenses should not constitute a lien against the property. Said
request for heanng shall be made to the County Adminislrator, Goxcmment Center, 3301 Tamiami
Trail East. Naples, Florida 34112 in x~nting within ten (10) days from lhe date of Ibis not~cc.
F LIENS,' MS'FI.{
0
7
S
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
31
32
;4
~5
36
3'~
3~,
41
42
43
44
45
47
4S
5O
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TIlE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE. IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
\VHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No 91-4'~,
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adminisn'atlxe
cost incurred by' the Count}', shall be assessed against such property; and
WHEREAS. thc cost thereof lO the Count,', as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board of Count}' Commissioners, together wilh a description of said parcel: and
WttEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon thc
proper~5 against which made until paid: and
\VttEREAS. thc assessnlenl shall b,:,:~mac due and payable no later than ~x~cr, tx {2(1}
days of tlae dale of the Legal Nc)lice of Asses~:~:, :~1 ,l shall accrue on the unpzud balance
beginning on fl~e dale this Resolutmn ~s recorded at ti - : c,~clvcpercent(12r;Iperannum.
NOW, TttEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE BOARD OF COUNT'f
COMMISSIONERS OF COLI.IER COUNTY. FI.ORIDA. that the properly described a~ follox~s.
having been abated ot' a ptlbhc nuisance after due aiid proper not,cc thereof to tile o\\t~eri~,l of ~,a;d
properl}, i', hereby assessed tile foilowin~ cosls of such abatement. It) x~ it:
NAME: MESA, RAM()N
LF.(;AI~ DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 in Block 17, NAPLES MANOR LAKt:'.S, a,, recorded in Plat
book 3, Pages 86 & 87 of thc' public records of Collier ('ounty. Florida.
(/()ST: $350.00
REEERF;NCE#: 1654
FOLI( } #: 62265960004
Thc Clerk shall mail a Notice of A,,-c>.,mcnt of l.ien to the o:'.ncr!s)of thc abt~,,c
described property, and if such ox~ner fails to pa) st a,scssment within tx~cnt~ ~2(/~ daxs hc~c,q', a
certified cop3 of this Resolution shall be recordcc ,n thc oft'icad records ,.ff Collier C'~mn~x. ti,
consllttllC a lien against such property accordin~ to lax~. unless such dlrccl~on is qK~xed bx Iht< B,~ard
upon appeal of thc assessment by the o~ net.
This Resolution passed and dui}' adopted bx the Board ot Count\. Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, this __ day of 2001.
ATTEST:
I)\VIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOAP, I) OF ('OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUN'FY, FIX)RI1)A
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Appro,.ed as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Tholll:.p, (' Palmcr. Assistant ('ountv Attorney
1: I.IEN' Nih'FI), I(i]%()L['T[{ ~N
James D. Caner.
BOARI) OE COL~NTY COMMISSIONERS
TIIROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT I)EP..*tRTMEN]'
COI.LIER COLiNTY, FLORII),.\
LEG:XL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
NIES:~., RAMON
5911 S~% 44th Terrace
Miami, FL 33155
DATE:
REF. IN;Z# 1655 FOLIO # 62265920002 LIEN NUMBER:
LEe;AL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 in Block 17, NAB.ES MANOR L:~,KES, as recorded in Plat
book 3, Pages 86 & 87 of the public records of Collier Count)', Florida.
You, ;ts the o~ner{s) of the propen5 abovc-doscribcd, as recorded in the records
mainluiHcd hx thc office of thc Prope~l5 Appraiser. arc hcrebx adxised that thc Code Enforcement
Director, d~d on August 09, 2000. order thc abatement of u ce~ain nuisance existin~ on the
propcIly prohibited bx Ordinance No. 09~51 and served a notice of xiolalion upon >ou Thc ntns:ince
LITTER: PROlllBITEI) DUMPIN(;. :XC('tTMt~I..STI()N. STORA(~;I5 OR BIRIAI.
LITII(R. ~ ASTE OR ABANI)()NEI} I'ROI'ERIY.
You failed lo abalc stlch tlt~a]~cc: x~hcrcupon, ~I was al~ted hx thc expcnd~i:~c
pt;blic funds ul a direct cost of NINETI' {$90.00) DOLL.XRS plus an adminisHatixc coqt t~l'
hundred {$200.00} dollars for a total of TXX'O -H[*NDRED NINETY ~$290.00}
Such cost. by Resolution of the Board of ('ountv Col~llllissionoI'b of C{}[iicI'
Florida. shall become a lien ora xoui- propen) x~ ithin tx~enlx {201 dax~ of the date of this local
of assessment ¥ot: ma> request ;, hearing before tine Board of Coulllx ConanliSsloncrs to show
if an}, xt hx the expenses and charge~ incurred by the Courtly under CoulqtV Ordinance No. $)9 51 arc
excessixe or unWUll'Ulllcd OF whx such expenses should not constitute u lien against thc pr,,pcn) Said
reqt~est for hearing shall be made to the Count5 Adminislrator, Goxernmenl CeHlcr, 3301
Trail EaM. Naples. Florida 34112 in ~ritmg x~i~hin ten (10) days from the dale of t}qis
~: Ill Nb M%'IN I N\I
AF'?,. 2 2001
'7
9
10
Il
14
16
17
1S
£5
~4
41
4~
45
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
5fl
5'7
5S
00
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOIAq'ION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TIlE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51.
AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WtlEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91--17.
as umendcd, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adminisu-an',e
cost incun-ed b~ thc County, shall be assessed against such property: and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to the Board ol- County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel: and
\VItEREAS. such assessment shall be :l legal, valid and binding obligation upon thc
property against x~hich made until paid; and
\VHEREAS, thc assessment sbatl become due and payable no later than tx~enlv (201
daxs of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and inleresl shall accrue on thc unpaid balance
beginning on the dute this Resolulion is recorded al the tale nf lx~elve percent 112~; ) pc~ annuna.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COM*IISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that thc property described as foll,w,s.
ha\ ing been abaled of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to thc oxt ncrlsi of said
properly, ~s herebx assessed tile following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME: MESA, RAMON
I.I5(;:\1. I)ESCRiI'TION: Lot 3 in Block 17, NAPI.ES MANOR LAKES. as recorded in Plat
book 3, Pages 86 & 87 of the public records of Collier County. Horida.
COST: $290.01l
REI:ERENCE#: 1655
6_~6.
FOIAO#: ~a ; a
The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Assessmenl of L~en lo tile ox~nens) oI thc aboxc
described propcrt.,., and if such o~xner fails to pay such assessment x~ ithin t~enlx (201 daxs [~Cl-COI. a
certified cop5 of this Rcsolumm shall be rccordcd m the ofl'icial records of Coll~c~ Cotmtx. to
conqitutc a lien againsl such prope~l5 according to lax~, unless such direclion is staxcd bx thi, B,~,ird
upon appeal of the assessment by the owner.
This P, esolunon passed and dui>' adopted b.,, the Board of Count~ Commtss~,mers ol
Collier Count), Florida. this ___ da,,' of ,2001.
.ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COl ~NI'Y COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COL!NTY, t:LORIDA
BY: BY:
Dep ut.,, ('lerk
Appro',ed tls to form and
legal sufficiency:
Thomas ('. Palmer. Assistant County Attorney
t [1t N ',.15T1¢ Ri{SOl I'71( iN
Jame~ D. Cartc~, Ph.D., Chairman
BOARD OF C()I_~TY COMMISSIONERS
TllROU(;H ITS COl)lC ENI:ORCEMENT I)EPA RTN1ENT
C()LIAER COUNTY. FIA)RII)A
LEGAI~ NOTICE OF ASSESSNli~]NI' ()F LII{N
JOLIJY, GERALI) !). & DOROTItY S.
5453 IIRYANT AVE.
NAPLILS, FL 34113
DATE:
REF. INV.# 1682 FOLIO # 62202440008 LIEN NUMBER:
LEG.~L DESCRIPTION: Lot 41, Block 4, amended plat of NAI)LES MANOR EXTENSION,
according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat book 3 at Page 101, of the public records of
Collier County, Florida.
You. as thc owner, s) (~l the property aboxe-dcscrihcd, as recorded in the records
maimained bx the office of tl~e Prope~q) Appramscr, arc hcrebx adxised gnat the ('ode
l)n'ector, did on Octol)er 3, 2000, order thc abatement ol a certain nuisance ex~qt~n~ on thc
propen3 prohibited bx Ordinance No. 99-5t and served a nonce ol'x iolauol] UpOD 3 ~RI. Thc
I~EEI)S: ACCUMUI~ATI()N OF I~'EEDS, GRASS, ()R OI'IlI<R N()N-I'R(I'I'I{(q'[I)
OhlSR(;RO~Vl'tl IN I{XCESS OF EI(iHIT](N (18) INCllES IN ltEl(;trl'.
You lailcd to abate such nuisance: xthcrcupon, ~1 xkas abated bx thc eM>enditu~c
public funds at a direct cost of FOURI'I'-FIVIC ($45.00) I)OIA.ARS plus an admmistratixc
lx~o-hundrcd 152(}00(1) dollar5 2u- a total of I'~VO-H['NI)Rt51) FOURTh-I:IXI.~
I)OLLARS.
Such cost. bx Rc~olution of tla0 Board of Counlx Ctmmaissioncrs of Colhc~
Florida, shall become a lien on your prope~q} x~ ithm txxentx {21i) ti,tx s of the date of Ih i, lu~:.}
if an5. ~ll~ tile expense> and charges incurred bx file CoulqtX under Counlx OIdilqallCC No. {)t).q
excessive or unwammted or whx such expenses should not conshtu~o a lien against thc pr, q~crt,,
request for heating shall be made to the County Administrator, (}oxernn~enl ('cnlc~. 3X()l
Trail Easl. Naples. Florida 34112 in ~ tiring xtilhin ten { 10) ttax~ fl'oU1 thc date of 0-1i5
o
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I0
1-7
ltl
21
22
24
25
2s
;I
34
35
41
42
.44
45
4(,
47
4~,
49
50
51
52
53
54
..x5
56
58
61
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLt~TION OF THE BOARD OF CO[~NTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR TIlE
ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COS1' OF
TIlE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN
ACCORI)ANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99-51,
AS S[ICCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91-47,
AS AMENDED
WItEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47.
as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed adminlslralixc
cost incurred b,,, the Count,,'. shall be assessed against sut,h properly'; and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and
reported to thc Board ot County Commissioners, togelher with a description of said parcel; and
WttEREAS, such assessment shall be u legal, '~alid anti binding obligation uptm fl:e
propert3 against x~ hlch made until paid: and
WHEREAS. the assessment shall become duc and pa.\able no later than Iv, entx
days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the t_H?il~d
bcmnnin,, on the date this Resolution is recorded :.It thc rate of t,aelxe percent I t2q~ ~ per anlltllll
NO\\', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED PY 'rite BOARD OF ('()I'NT'~'
COMMISSIONERS OF COIAAER COUNTY. FLORIDA. t!,.
having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper ~.
properly, is hcreb; assessed the following costs of such abalemc~tt. !o ,a it:
NAMI:x J()IAA-. GERAI,D I). & DOROTIIY S.
i,E(;.,\I~ I)ESCRIPTI()N: Lot 41, Block 4, amended plat of NAPLES MANOR 1.~XTI::NSI¢}N,
according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat book 3 at Page 101, nf the public records
Collier Count), Florida.
COST: $245.t}0
REI'ERENCE : 1682
I:()IA¢) #: 62202440008
The Clerk shall mail ii Notice of Assc~,sment of Lien to the ,.mncns~ ol the abo,,c
described pi'opeN), and if such owner fails to pa) such assebsnlcgl Xt IIhin Ix~cntx 1211~ d:~', 5 IICI'COl. :l
cerulicd cop5 of tins Resolumm shall be recorded in the official IeCol'ds of Colhcr t'~,untx, to
constitute a lien agmnsl sttc]l propen> according lo Ia,,. unless such dn'ection is staxed b', lh~, B~atd
upon appoa} of thc assessment by the oxvnor.
Tins Resolution passed and duly ad, q, ted bv thc Board of Count\ Colnn;2>si~,r~cr., of
Collier Count5. Florida, tins __ da}, of ,2001.
ATTEST:
I)\VIGIfT E. BROCK. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER CO[ NTY. FLORIDA
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to fom~ and
legal sufficiency:
,...,...--~ '
Thomas (7. Pahncr, ..\ssistant County Attorney
[' [ ItiN M";'I R RITSI)[ I:TI()N
James D. Carter. Ph. D .('halrln,m
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT FIVE"
OBJECTIVE:
To grant final acceptance of "Grey Oaks Unit Five"
CONSIDERATION:
On November 15, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners granted
preliminary acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks Unit Five".
o
The roadway and drainage improvements will be maintained by the
project's homeowners association. The City of Naples will
maintain the water system, and the County will maintain the
sewer syetem.
The required improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the Land Development Code. The County Development
Services has inspected the improvements and is recommending
final acceptance of the improvements.
A resolution for final acceptance has been prepared and
approved by the County Attorney's Office. A copy of the
document is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The routine maintenance and upkeep of the sewer improvements will
come from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the Utilities
Division.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
APR 2 4 2001
Pg. / ,,
Executive Summary
Grey Oaks Unit Five
Page 2
RECOM/~ENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners grant final acceptance of
the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks
Unit Five" and release the maintenance security.
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached resolution
authorizing final acceptance.
2. Authorize the release of the maintenance security.
PREPARED BY:
Jo-h~ R. Hou~ds~6~th, Senior Engineer
Engineering Review
Date
RE~~ ~. q~
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
Da%e '
APPROVED BY:
Jo~VM. Dunnuck III, Interim Administrator
Co~D~nunity Dev. and Environmental Svcs.
Date
j rh
APR 001
APR 2 & 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
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
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
,..._. 5'7
8
J9
6o
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS 1N GREY OAKS UNIT FIVE,
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY,
AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENT'S THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on
June 14, 1994 approved the plat of Grey Oaks Unit Five for recording; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102,
as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County
Ordinance No. 97-17), and
WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and
WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services
Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is
recommending acceptance of said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be
granted forthose roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Grey Oaks Unit
Five, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the
future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer
improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATE:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
JAMES D. CARTER, PHD.,CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal
Patrick G. White
Assistant Collier County Attorney
APR 4 2_001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT SIX"
OBJECTIVE:
To grant final acceptance of "Grey Oaks Unit Six"
CONSIDERATION:
On October 27, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners granted
preliminary acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks Unit Six".
The roadway and drainage improvements will be maintained by the
project's homeowners association. The water system will be
maintained by the City of Naples; the County will maintain the
sanitary sewer improvements.
The required improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the Land Development Code. The County Development
Services has inspected the improvements and is recommending
final acceptance of the improvements.
A resolution for final acceptance has been prepared and
approved by the County Attorney's Office. A copy of the
document is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The sanitary sewer improvements will be maintained by the County
Utilities Division. Funds for the routine maintenance and upkeep
will come from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the
Utilities Division.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
Executive Summary
Grey Oaks Unit Six
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners grant final acceptance of
the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks
Unit Six" and release the maintenance security.
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached resolution
authorizing final acceptance.
2. Authorize the release of the maintenance security.
PREPARED BY:
Jo~n -R. Hould-sw~th, 'Senior Engineer
Engineering Review
Date
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
K/q/o/
Date
Date
APPROVED BY:
Date
j rh
APR g ,~ ;7001
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
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
8
59
60
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN GREY OAKS UNIT SIX,
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY,
AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on January.
7, 1997 approved the plat of Grey Oaks Unit Six for recording; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water
and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as
required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102, as
amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County
Ordinance No. 97-17), and
WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and
WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services Department
has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is
recommending acceptance of said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'THE BOARD OF COLrNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be
granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer'improvements in Grey Oaks Unit
Six, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future
maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer
improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATE:
ATTEST:
DW1GHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:.
JAMES D. CARTER, PHD., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal
suf~
~atridk'~G. White
Assistant Collier County Attorney
AGENDA IT~ ~"A~,~
,o.
APR 2 4 200I
Pg'. ~_._.__
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT SEVEN"
OBJECTIVE:
To grant final acceptance of "Grey Oaks Unit Seven"
CONSIDERATION:
On October 27, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners granted
preliminary acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks Unit Seven".
o
The roadway and drainage improvements will be maintained by the
homeowner's association. The water improvements will be
maintained by the City of Naples. The sanitary sewer
improvements will be maintained by the County.
o
The required improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the Land Development Code. The County Development
Services has inspected the improvements and is recommending
final acceptance of the improvements.
o
A resolution for final acceptance has been prepared and
approved by the County Attorney's Office. A copy of the
document is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The sanitary sewer improvements will be maintained by the County
Utilities Division. Funds for the routine maintenance and upkeep
will come from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the
Utilities Division.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
APR 2001
Executive Summary
Grey Oaks Unit Seven
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners grant final acceptance of
the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks
Unit Seven" and release the maintenance security.
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached resolution
authorizing final acceptance.
2. Authorize the release of the maintenance security.
PREPARED BY:
John R. Houldsworth, Senior Engineer
Engineering Review
Date
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Robert Mul'h~re, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
J/f/o/
Date
Date
APPROVED BY:
Jo~N M. Dunnuck III, Interim Administrator
C~munity Dev. and Environmental Svcs.
Date
j rh
APR 2 & 2001
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
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
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
"57
8
59
6O
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN GREY OAKS UNIT SEVEN,
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY,
AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS
AS S OCIATION.
W3-IEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on
February 21, 1995 approved the plat of Grey Oaks Unit Seven for recording; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102,
as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County
Ordinance No. 97-17), and
WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and
WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services
Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is
recommending acceptance of said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be
granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Grey Oaks Unit
Seven, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the
future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sexver
improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATE:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
JAMES D. CARTER, PHD., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal
~Wh~te
Assistant Collier County Attorney
APR 2 4 2001
EXECUTIVE S~RY
REQUEST TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT NINE"
OBJECTIVE:
To grant final acceptance of "Grey Oaks Unit Nine"
CONSIDERATION:
On March 2, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners granted
preliminary acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks Unit Nine".
o
The roadway and drainage improvements will be maintained by the
project's homeowners association. The water improvements will
be maintained by the City of Naples. Collier County will
maintain the sanitary sewer improvements.
The required improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the Land Development Code. The County Development
Services has inspected the improvements and is recommending
final acceptance of the improvements.
A resolution for final acceptance has been prepared and
approved by the County Attorney's Office. A copy of the
document is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The sanitary sewer improvements will be maintained by the County
Utilities Division. Funds for the routine maintenance and upkeep
will come from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the
Utilities Division.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
AGENDA 17~V[/~1% _~--
APR 200!
Executive Summary
Grey Oaks Unit Nine
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners grant final acceptance of
the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in "Grey Oaks
Unit Nine" and release the maintenance security.
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached resolution
authorizing final acceptance.
2. Authorize the release of the maintenance security.
PREPARED BY:
John R. Houl~sworth, Senior Engineer
Engineering Review
Date
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Robert Mu!here, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
Da~e '
Date
APPROVED BY:
John ~' Dunnuc~ III, Interim Administrator
Commu~/ty Dev. and Environmental Svcs.
Date
j rh
APR 2001
AGENDA 'l~M
APR 2 ,~ 2001
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION AUTHORiZING FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN GREY OAKS UNIT NINE,
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY,
AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENT'S THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on
April 22, 1997 approved the plat of Grey Oaks Unit Nine for recording; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102,
as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County
Ordinance No. 97-17), and
WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and
WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services
Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is
recommending acceptance of said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORiDA, that final acceptance be
granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Grey Oaks Unit
Nine, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the
future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer
improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATE:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORiDA
By:
JAMES D. CARTER, PHD., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal
~Ywhite
Assistant Collier County Attorney
AG E N D A ,~T F:~,.."'~,~'~
APR 2 2001
~ Pg.._, 4 ,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL
106 ", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
OBJECTIVE:
To approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 106", a
subdivision of lands located in Section 11 Township 48 South, Range
25 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 "Mediterra
Parcel 106". These documents are in compliance with the County Land
Development Code and Florida State Statute No. 177. Ail 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
improvements, together with a Construction and Maintenance Agreement
for Subdivision Improvements, shall be provided and accepted by the
Planning Services Director and the County Attorneys office prior 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
"Mediterra Parcel 106" be approved for recording.
final plat of
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project cost is $173,259.60 (estimated) to be
borne by the developer.
The cost breakdown is as follows:
a)
b)
Water & Sewer
Drainage,
Paving, Grading
- $ 58,033.00
- $115,226.60
The Security amount, equal to 110% of the
project cost, is $ 190,585.56
APR 2 2001
Executive Summary
Mediterra Parcel 106
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: $3,142.58
Fees are based on a construction estimate of
$173,259.60 and were paid in January, 2001.
The breakdown is as follows:
a) Plat Review Fee ($425.00 + $4./ac)- $ 534.55
b)
c)
Paving, Grading (1.3% const, est.)
GROWTH MA/qAGEMENT IMPACT:
Construction Drawing Review Fee
Water &
Sewer (.50% const, est.) - $ 290.17
Drainage,
Paving, Grading (.42% const, est.)- $ 485.42
Construction Inspection Fee
Water &
Sewer (1.5% const, est.) - $ 870.50
Drainage,
- $1502.50
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:
There are no outstanding environmental
There are no historical or
archeological impacts
EAC RECOMMENDATION: Approval
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Approval
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat of
"Mediterra Parcel 106" for recording with the following
stipulations:
Approve the amount of $190,585.56 as performance security
for the required improvements.
APR 2 4 200f
Executive Summary
Mediterra Parcel 106
Page 3
o
Approve the
Agreement, and
standard 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:
Thoma~ E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Robgrt %4ulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
APPROVED BY:
CJo°mh~u~ t~U~en'vu~ lko~ Im~t
Interim Administrator
& Environmental Services
Date
Date
Date
Date
j rh
APR 2 2001
P CT
LOCATION
LEE CO.
COLI
ROAD
VICINITY MAP
0 0.5 1
2
APR 2 ~ 2001
EXECUTIVE SIIMMARY
REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SANTA BARBARA
ESTATES"
OBJECTIVE:
To approve for recording the final plat of Santa Barbara Estates, a
subdivision of lands located in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Engineering Review Section has completed the review of the final plat
of "Santa Barbara Estates" This document is in compliance with the
County Land Development Code and Florida State Statute No. 177. Ail
fees have been paid. There are no subdivision related improvements
associated with this plat.
Engineering Review Section recommends that the final plat of "Santa
Barbara Estates" be approved for recording.
FISCAL IMPACT:
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: $450.00 Plat Review Fees
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
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: There are no environmental issues.
Executive Summary
Santa Barbara Estates
Page 2
HISTORICAL / ARCHEOLOGICAL
ISSUES: There are no historical or
archeological issues
EAC RECOM~4ENDATION: This project did not require EAC approval.
CCPC RECOMMENDATION: This project did not require CCPC approval.
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMI~ENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat of
"Santa Barbara Estates" with the following stipulations:
1. Authorize the recording of the Final Plat of "Santa Barbara Estates."
PREPARED BY:
John R. Houldsworth, Senior Engineer
Engineering Review
Date
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
APPROVED BY:
~o°hmnmu~ .Cka In~I ~.n Iv~tr oe nr imemn tAad~i ~vi cS ts .ratOr
D~te'
Da~e '
Date
APR
pg.. ~-~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CURRENT LOT CONFIGURATION IN TRAIL
ACRES UNIT 3 FOR THOSE LOTS FORMERLY KNOWN AS LOTS 17 THROUGH
36 BLOCK 1; LOTS 33 THROUGH 81, BLOCK 2; AND LOTS 17
THROUGH 45 BLOCK 3, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THESE PARCELS AS LOTS OF
RECORD
OBJECTIVE:
To acknowledge the current Lot configuration in Trail Acres
Unit 3 for those Lots formerly know as Lots 17 through 36,
Block 1; Lots 33 through 81, Block 2; and Lots 17 through 45,
Block 3.
CONSIDERATIONS:
On April 6, 1965 the Board of County Commissioners approved a
Resolution vacating the subject Lots. Since that time, the
Lots have been resold to individuals. Some of the Lots were
resold prior to October 14, 1974, and are therefore
considered legal Lots of Record. Other Lots may be considered
a prior subdivision according to Section 3.2.4.9 of the
Collier County Land Development Code. The County Planning
Services and the County Attorney's office have determined
that it is impractical to require platting of the Lots in
question and would cause an undue burden on the current
property owners. The majority of the Lots are larger than
the original platted Lots, and conform with the RSF-4 Zoning
District requirements. A portion of the vacated Lots were
subsequently re-platted as Tail Acres Unit Four. The re-
platted Lots are not part of these considerations.
The property owners have been assessed for sewer improvements
and roadway improvements by Collier County based on the
current Lot configuration.
The County Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the
attached Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
There is no growth management impact. The current lot
configuration does not increase the approved density for this
area according to the Future Land Use Element Map (FLUE)
APR 2 & 2001
Executive Summary
Trail Acres
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
1. To acknowledge the current Lot configuration for those
Lots in Trail Acres Unit 3 formerly known as Lots 17 through
36 Block 1; Lots 33 through 81 Block 2; and Lots 17 through
45 Block 3, and consider said parcels as Lots of Record.
2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Resolution
3. Direct the Clerk to make appropriate notation of this
action on the original plat as recorded in Plat Book 3 Page
94, Public Records.
4. That any future or further subdivisions of these Lots must
comply with the Land Development Code Regulations.
~ARED BY:
JOHN R. HOULDSWORTH
SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E.
ENFINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
JO~ M: -DUA/NUCK III, INTERIM ADMINISTP~ATOR
COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS.
DATE
DATE
APR 2 4 2001
iFINE TREE A~ //
,ANDREWS AV
IWOOD$[DE AV '/' 1
?
F~OVE ACRES
T50S
T5tS
e,,l~ e,i
-18
TRAIL
.... ' ( 2L~O ~ L~---x~L- .... ,
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY "-,,. ~ .I a
APR 2 ,N 2001
P~._ ~
6
7
8
9
10
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
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AS LOTS OF
RECORD OR NONCONFORMING LOTS OF
RECORD, THE CURRENT LOT CONFIGURATION IN
TRAIL ACRES UNIT 3, FOR THOSE LOTS
PREVIOUSLY PLATTED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 94,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS LOTS 17 THROUGH 36,
BLOCK 1; LOTS 33 THROUGH 81, BLOCK 2; AND
LOTS 17 THROUGH 45, BLOCK 3.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on
April 6, 1951, approved the vacation of only the above-stated Lots, without affecting the
remaining adjacent platted rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, seventeen of the vacated Lots (Lots 17 through 23 Block One, and
Lots 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 52, and 55 Block Two) were subsequently replatted
as fifty foot (50') wide lots in March, 1966 as Trail Acres Unit Four, found at Plat Book
7, Page 103; and
WHEREAS, these Lots have since been resold over the ensuing years in
varying configurations without a further subdivision plat ever having been filed or
approved; and
WHEREAS, all of the fifty-three lots (as currently configured) are listed on the
attached Exhibit "A," and the lots are grouped into their current configuration as either
fifty foot wide lots or seventy foot wide lots on each of the two adjacent streets where
the lots are located, and the lots are also cross-referenced as to each lot's Folio
Number and STRAP Number; and
WHEREAS, the width of forty of the fifty-three lots is seventy feet (70') or more
(identified hereafter and in Exhibit "A" simply as seventy foot lots), and as a result,
these lots all comply with the minimum requirements for lot dimensions and area for the
RSF-4 Zoning District where all fifty-three of the lots are located; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.2.4.9 of the Collier County Land
Development Code ("LDC"), the forty seventy foot (70') wide, properly-sized lots
comprise a "prior subdivision" and are therefore exempt from the LDC's current platting
requirements, and these lots otherwise comply with the definition for "Lot of Record"
status set forth in LDC Section 6.3; and
WHEREAS, the width of the thirteen other lots is fifty feet (50') and either the
deed creating a lot was recorded prior to November 13, 1991, so as to comply with the
definition for "Lot of Record, Non-conforming" status set forth in LDC Section 6.3; or a
residential unit has been constructed on the lot, or both; and
WHEREAS, each of the lots, as currently configured, was assessed in May,
1992 for sewer improvements to the lots that were constructed by the County; ......
APR 2 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
WHEREAS, representatives of the Planning Services Department and the
County Attorney's Office have determined that filing a subdivision plat for the previously
vacated lots is no longer required or is not a practical alternative given that the lots are
held by individual property owners; and
WHEREAS, the current configuration of fifty-three lots comprises a total area of
15.48 acres which, assuming one dwelling unit per lot, equates to a gross density of
only 3.49 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the lots are located in an area designated on the Future Land Use
Element of the Growth Management Plan as an Urban Coastal Fringe Sub-district
which has a maximum residential density of four dwelling units per acre, and
WHEREAS, these properties and the RSF-4 zoning on these lots was
previously determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan via Policy
5.9 of the Future Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, the configuration of the current lots does not exceed the allowable
density for either the corresponding land use designation or zoning district; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the forty (40) seventy foot (70') wide lots as they are
currently configured as "Lots of Record" and the thirteen (13) fifty foot (50') wide lots as
they are currently configured as "Non-conforming Lots of Record" under the LDC would
not result in an increase to either the density or the intensity of their use or
development, and would be in the best interest of the public; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the thirteen (13) fifty foot (50') wide lots as Non-
conforming Lots of Record would not be inconsistent with the Intent provisions set forth
in LDC s. 1.8.1.1.; and
WHEREAS, not recognizing the existing lots (i.e., as they are currently
configured and appear on Exhibit "B") as either Lots of Record or Non-conforming Lots
of Record which otherwise comply with current LDC and Comprehensive Plan
requirements would be inequitable, especially where the lot owners have made
payments for improvements provided to their lots in reliance on their individual lot's
configuration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The current lots, as listed on Exhibit "A," and as depicted on attached Exhibit
"B," are hereby recognized in their present configurations, and as such, each
such lot listed on Exhibit A as:
1)
a seventy foot (70') wide (or actually greater) lot hereby constitutes a
"Lot of Record," as that term is defined in LDC Section 6.3, and this
status will control whenever any development permits or building
permits may be requested for such lots; and ,
APR 2 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
2)
a fifty foot (50') wide lot hereby constitutes a "Non-conforming Lot of
Record" as that term is defined in LDC Section 6.3, this status, as
well as any conforming aspect of each such lot's actual
configuration, will control whenever any development permits or
building permits may be requested for such lots, subject to the
provisions of LDC s. 1.8.2. A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this Resolution be recorded
in the Public Records of Collier County, and that the Clerk of the Board make a
marginal notation of the Official Record Book and Page numbers where this Resolution
has been recorded in the public record for the plats of Trail Acres Unit Three, found at
Plat Book 3, Page 94, and Trail Acres Unit Four, found at Plat Book 7, Page 103, so
that the effect of this Resolution may be made better known.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATE:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal
)~ncy:
P~c[ G. White
Assistant Collier County Attorney
APR 2 4 2001
EXHIBIT "A"
Previously Platted Lots from
TRAIL ACRES UNIT 3-
AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED
The Folio #'s for 70' Lot properties, by street where located:
Folio # STRAP #
Porter Street:
00440880000 502632 007.016
00441400007 502632 007.029
00446760001 502632 138.000
00440360009 502632 007.000
00441320006 502632 007.027
00440800006 502632 007.014
00446200008 502632 124.000
00446240000 502632 125.000
00446280002 502632 126.000
00441000009 502632 007.019
00446320001 502632 127.000
00446360003 502632 128.000
00446400002 502632 129.000
00441080003 502632 007.021
00446480006 502632 131.000
00446440004 502632 130.000
00446520005 502632 132.000
00446120007 502632 122.000
00446000004 502632 119.000
00445960006 502632 118.000
00445920004 502632 117.000
00446040006 502632 120.000
00446640008 502632 135.000
00446680000 502632 136.000
00446560007 502632 133.000
00446080008 502632 121.000
00446600006 502632 134.000
00441240005 502632 007.025
00446720009 502632 137.000
00440960001 502632 007.018
00440440000 502632 007.005
00440920009 502632 007.017
Benson Street:
00440280008
OO44144OOO9
00440680006
00440400008
OO44O64O004
00440720005
00440760007
00441160004
502632 007.001
502632 007.030
502632 007.011
502632 007.004
502632 007.010
502632 007.012
502632 007.013
502632 007.023
I OF2
APR 2 200]
The folio Numbers and STRAP Numbers for the 50 foot Lots, by street where
located are:
Folio # STRAP #
Porter Street:
441400007
440840008
440240006
441200003
44616OOO9
502632 007.029
502632 007.015
502632 007.000
502632 007.017
502632 123.000
Benson Street:
441360008
440560003
440520001
440480002
440600002
446800000
441280007
441120002
502632 007.028
502632 007.008
502632 007.007
502632 007.006
502632 007.009
502632 139.000
502632 007.026
502632 007.022
2 OF2
APR 2 2001
.8. ~ ~. q ,~xz
APR 2 ~ 200!
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CYPRESS WOODS
FIRE HYDRANT
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 Cypress Woods Maintenance Center, 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 November 4,
in accordance with Ordinance 97-17.
1998,
3) Staff has recorded all appropriate legal documentation which
had been reviewed by the County Attorney's office for legal
sufficiency.
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 Community Development and
Environmental Services Division staff and found to be
satisfactory.
6) The Utilities Performance Security (UPS), in the form of a
Cash Bond in the amount of $354.94, will be released to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent upon the
Boards approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The water facilities were constructed without cost
to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The cost of operating
and maintaining the water facilities will be paid by monthly user
revenues.
GROWTH ~NAGEMENT IMPACT: This project has been connected to the
County Regional Water Treatment Plant. Capacity presently exists
to serve this project.
APR 2 2001
Executive Summary
Cypress Woods Fire Hydrant
Page Two
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 water facilities
for Cypress Woods Fire Hydrant, and release the UPS to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
PREPARED BY:
Shirley ~ix) ~n/gineering Technician II
Engineeri-n~ Review Services
Date
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Services Manager
Date
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
Date
APPROVED BY:
Jo~ M.~"Dunnuck, III, Interim Administrator
COM~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Date
attachments
APR 2 2001
BONITA SPRINGS
NAPLES
~,4~ I~OT 18
~OT 16
GOLDEN
GAlE
EJOl 15
2001
ORDER OF
NAME OF REMITTER
ADDRESS
Issue~ By,.ln~grated.Paymen! S'y~.ems Inc..Enaiewooa Colorado
To CitiL~ank [:New Yo;;k $ta~):'Bufiate N v
SouthTrust Bank of Southwest Florida, N.A.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
~:O 8 POOORr=R,:r=8,, i, oor=o 8 oB&
Official Receipt- Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CDPR1103 - Official Receipt
ITrans Number I Date I Post Date I Payment Slip Nbr ~
79476 I6/18/98 12:05:22 PM 6/18/98 I MS 38466
NORTHBROOKE DEV. LTD
CYPRESS WOODS FIRE HYDRANT
Fee Code
12BOND
Payor' SOUTHTRUST
Fee Information
Description ~GL Account
DEPOSITS-COMM DEV (CASH BOND~)67000000022011300000
Total
Amou~ Waived
$354.94
$354.g4
IPaymentCode
CHECK
Memo:
Accoun~Check Number
86234788
Payments
Total Cash
Total Non-Cash
Total Paid
Amount i
$354.94 j
$o.oo I
$354.941
$354.941
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT
Cashier/location: GARRETT_S / 1
User: NIX_S
APR 2 ~. 2001
Printed:6/18/98 12:05:55 PM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CYPRESS
WOODS M~INTENANCE CENTER
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 and sewer facilities.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1) The Developer of Cypress Woods Maintenance Center, has
constructed the water and 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 December 14, 1998,
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 water and 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.
6) The Utilities Performance Security (UPS), in the form of a
Cash Bond in the amount of $450.00, will be released to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent upon the
Boards approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The water facilities were constructed without cost
to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The cost of operating
and maintaining the water and sewer facilities will be paid by
monthly user revenues.
GROWTH M~NAGEMENT IMPACT: This project has been connected to the
County Regional Water Treatment Plant and North Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity presently exists to serve
this project.
APR 2 2001
Executive Summary
Cypress Woods Maintenance Center
Page Two
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 water and sewer
facilities for Cypress Woods Maintenance Center, and release the
UPS to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
PREPARED BY:
Shirley/Nix, ~n~ineering Technician
Enginee~ Review Services
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas--E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Services Manager
II Date
Date'
e~ ~
Rob AICP ----
Planning Services Department Director
APPROVED BY:
Jo~' M. Dunnuck, III, Interim Administrator
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
attachments
Date
Date
BONITA SPRINGS
NAPLES
pl(w~t E~T T6
~OLDEN
GATE
APR 2 ~ 2001
~.__~_~
: : :i :ii"' ': : ::: '. ..~..,t"Z.Di":~ J./ 1_ ::'9;8 .r.,
BANK'S'
...... $ *****'450.00.*****
TO THE *********BOND OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS**********
ORDER OF
*******NORTHBROOKE DEVELOPMENT LTD. ********Drawer: SoumTrust Bank of moric~a.
NAME OF R~{'m'ER ~
'ADDRESS BY
{~ue~ 8¥ +.}eg,~te~ Pa¥,T, em Systems mc Eng,ewOOO Colora0o AUTHOR{Z50 S{G~rAq--UR5
To ~Damk{Ne~ Yo~k State): Buffalo. NY
APR 2 ~ 2001
Official Receipt- Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CDPR1103 - Official Receipt
Trans Number Date I Post Date Payment Slip Nbr
98911 10/09/1998 8:55:55 AM 10/09/1998 MS 43443
NORTHBROOKE DEV. LTD.
CYPRESS WOODS MAINTENANCE CENTER
Payor: NORTHBROOKE
Fee Information
Fee Code Description [GL Account
12BOND DEPOS TS-COMM DEV (CASH BOND)67000000022011300000
Total
Amount Waived
$450.00
$450.00
Payments
Payment Code I Account/Check Number I Amount
CHECK i 318950025 I $450.00
Memo:
Total Cash $0.00
Total Non-Cash $450.00
Total Paid I $450.001
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT
Cashier/location: GARRETT_S / 1
User: NIX_S
APR 2 ~ 2001
Printed: 10/09/1998 8:56:40 AM
SUMMARY
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR TERRA VERDE AT
GREY OAKS
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 Terra Verde @ Grey Oaks, 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 May 14, 1998, 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.
6) The Utilities Performance Security (UPS), in the form of a
Cash Bond in the amount of $1,623.50, will be released to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent upon the
Boards approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The sewer facilities were constructed without cost
to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The cost of operating
and maintaining the sewer facilities will be paid by monthly user
revenues.
GROW~TH ~%NAGEMENT IMPACT: This project has been connected to the
North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity presently
exists to serve this project.
APR 2001
Executive Summary
Terra Verde @ Grey Oaks
Page Two
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 Terra Verde @ Grey Oaks, and release the UPS to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
PREPAREp ~Y;
Shirley Ni~,~ng!ne~ering Technician
Engineer ing~eview Services
II
Date
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Services Manager
Robert Mulhere, AICP
Planning Services Department Director
Da%e '
Date
APPROVED BY:
John~. Dun~uck, III, Interim Administrator
COMM~ITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Date
attachments
LAPR 4= 2001
m
~m! m
"PRO,JE~'~ I
~ LOCATIONI-~
GULF OF' I, tEXICO
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
Section
NO.
2~wn s-h~ p 49
~ERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER A SM~, ~C. ~.
/' ~ ~ ~~
mine *Board of Cou issioner FB~ a I nc .
~DER OF -' -- ''
-
~e Thousand S~x Hundred ~enty Ihr~ollars and50~
~o. ~-o~c~ ~ ~
~ '
APR 2 4= 2001
Pg.
Official Receipt - Coliier County Board of County Commissioners
CDPR1103 - Official Receipt
tTrans Number Date Post Date I Payment Slip Nbr
74234 ,5/14/98 2:02:58 PM 5/14/98 i MS 36529
Sub-Div: Terra Verde at Grey Oaks, A Condominium
Payor · MERRIL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH
Fee Information
i Fee Code
L 12BOND
Description
', GL Account ! Amount
DEPOSITS-COMM DEV (CASH BOND) 67000000022011300000 I $1623.50
Total [ $1623.50
Waived
Payments
Amount
L Payment Code
i CHECK ~983
:Account/Check Number
$1623.50
Memo:
Total Cash
Total Non-Cash
Total Paid
$0.00
$1623.50
$1623.50 ~
Cashier/location: FROLOFF E / 1
User: NIX S
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT
I AGENDAJTEM /~ i
I
APR 2 4:2001
Printed :~rPF47~ 2~
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CYPRESS
WOODS CLUBHOUSE
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 and sewer facilities.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1) The Developer of Cypress Woods Clubhouse, has constructed the
water and 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 December 14, 1998,
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 water and 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.
6) The Utilities Performance Security (UPS), in the form of a
Cash Bond in the amount of $2,756.00, will be released to the
Project Engineer o~ the Developer's designated agent upon the
Boards approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The water facilities were constructed without cost
to the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The cost of operating
and maintaining the water and sewer 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 Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity presently exists to serve
this project.
APR 2 q 2001
Executive Summary
Cypress Woods Clubhouse
Page Two
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 water and sewer
facilities for Cypress Woods Clubhouse, and release the UPS to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
PREPARED BY:
Shirley N~x, E~gifie~ring Technician II
Engineeri/lg~ Review Services
Date
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas E. Kuck, P.E.
Engineering Review Services Manager
Date
Robert~ Mulhere, ~CP
Planning Services Department Director
Da~e
APPROVED BY:
~UNM~T~U~.~Lk~O~I~I~, Interim Administrator
Date
attachments
APR 2 2001
BONITA SPRINGS
B(~ITA I~EA(~I RD
~ J~C)C~ RO ~T 16
NAPLES
GOLDEN GATE
I0
2 ~ 2001
C)
0
0
0
C~
0
ICI
APR 2 ~ 200f
Official Receipt- Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CDPR1103 - Official Receipt
Trane Number tDate PostDate I Payment Slip Nbr
96616 09/29/1998 3:16:35 PM 09/29/1998 MS 42977
NORTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT, LTD.
CYPRESS WOODS CLUBHOUSE
Payor · NORTHBROOK DEV
Fee Information
Fee Code Description ~GL Account
12BOND DEPOSITS-COMM DEV (CASH BOND~67000000022011300000
Total
Amount Waived
$2756.OO
$2756.OO
Payment Code
CHECK
Account/Check Number
319276064
Payments
Total Cash
Total Non-Cash
Total Paid
Memo:
Utilities Performance Security Cash Bond
Cypress Woods Clubhouse - SDP-97-87
Northbrooke Development Ltd. Check No. 319276064 (Southtrust Bank)
Amount L
$2756.00
$0.00 [
$2756.00
[ $2756.oo I
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT
Cashiedlocation: GARRETT.~S / ~A,~TEM
User: KOMORNY-BiAPR~~,~. I~LR) l/P2~ 2001
Printed:09/29/1998 3:17:31 PM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.784,
"B.R.B. LAKE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION," LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSH~ 47,
SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND EAST BY VACANT LAND
ZONED ESTATES, ON THE SOUTH BY 66TM AVENUE, N.E., AND ON THE WEST BY THE
MAIN GOLDEN GATE CANAL AND LONGAN LAKES EXCAVATION ON AGRICULTURAL
LAND.
OBJECTIVE:
To issue an excavation permit to Michael D. Smith and Darrell Taylor for the project known as "B.R.B.
Lake Commercial Excavation" in accordance with County Ordinance No. 92-73, Div. 3.5.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Petitioner proposes to expand an existing 2.8 acre lake to a surface area of 3.8 acres (+/-) at a depth
of 20(+/-) feet. The resultant 22,000 (+/-) C.Y. (1375 truckloads) of fill will be used off site. Because
the site is well under the 500,000 C.Y. criteria, EAC approval was not required. The duration of the
excavation at 1 truckload per hour for a ten hour day would be roughly 6 months.
This project was submitted prior to the present suspension of excavation permitting in Golden Gate
Estates. The submittal was incomplete, but the fees were paid on time, so a decision was made to
process the application upon completion of the submittal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Community Development Fund, Development Services has or will receive $974.00 in revenues
broken out as follows:
Application Fee $ 850.00
Permit Fee $124.00
$ 974.00 TOTAL FEES
A security in the amount of $i0,000 must be posted prior to permit issuance. Road impact fees will be
computed at the time of permit issuance, but are estimated to be about $3300.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
None.
I AGENDA J,'~EM
APR 2 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
The site is across the Main Golden Gate Canal from Longan Lakes, a large commercial excavation in
agriculturally zoned land. There will be no adverse impacts to the local environment from this
excavation.
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
None.
EAC RECOMMENDATIONS:
No EAC public hearing 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. 59.784 to
Michael D Smith and Darrell Taylor for the project known as "B.R.B. Lake Commercial Excavation"
with the following stipulations:
1. The excavation shall be limited to a bottom elevation of 20 feet below grade.
2. Off-site removal of material shall bc subject to "Standard Conditions" imposed by the
Transportation Services Division in document dated 1/13/98 (copy attached). Hours of
operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mon. thru Fri., excluding holidays.
3. Dewatering is not allowed.
4. No blasting will be permitted.
5. The petitioner must apply for a Vegetation Removal Permit. Environmental Staff shall perform
a site visit to determine thc need for a Vegetation Removal Permit and to check for any listed
species. No work shall be done prior to that site visit.
6. Thc lake littoral zone shall be created and planted as indicated on the Plan of Record. Location
to be field determined. Additional landscaping per BCC directive may be required.
AGENDA ITE.M
7. No Excavation Permit shall be issued until all impact fees have been paid. .o. ~--d./~/I
APR 2 4 ?.001
2
pg. ~
PREPARED BY: /~ /3
~-- /
ENGIN-'"'EIER ' ' '
SENIOR
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
DATE
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
DATE
APPROVED BY:
DATE
59.731 EX SUMMARYISC/H/EAB Exec. Summ.
.o.
APR 2 A 2001
APR ~
Pg. ,L~
COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
"STANDARD CONDITIONS"
EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS INVOLVING
OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL
The intent of these "Standard Conditions" are to provide excavation permit applicants a summary of
conditions which may affect their projects and which should be taken into consideration during all
stages of project development:
Haul routes 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 fxont 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 to suspend or prohibit off-site removal of excavated material should such
removal create a hazardous 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 routes utilizing public roads shall be subject to road maintenance and road repair or an
appropriate fair share by the permittee in accordance with Excavation Ordinance No. 91-102
as amended Div. 3.5 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 Administration reserves the right to establish emergency weight
limits on public roadways affected by the off-site removal of excavated material; the
procedure for establishment of weight limits shall be the presentation of an applicable
resolution before the Board of County Commissioners. Should weight limits be instituted,
the permittee shall be responsible to implement measures to assure that all heavy truck
loadings leaving the permit's property conform to the applicable weight restriction.
o
The Excavation Performance Guarantee shall apply to excavation operations and also the
maintenance/repair of public roads in accordance with current ordinances and applicable
permit stipulations.
EXHIBIT "B"
Page One of Two
AGENDA T / _
APR g 2001
-
o
°
Based on soil boring information per Ordinance No. 91-102 as mended, a blasting permit
may be appropriate. Should a blasting permit application be submitted and should
residential areas exist within one mile of the excavation site, the County reserves the fight 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 right of 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 terms of private property damage and/or related physical effects of blasting
operations.
No excavation permit shall be issued until receipt of a release fi.om the Transportation
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
Page Two of Two
APR 2001
COUNTY API~LICA1'IO~ FOR i~XCAVA~O~ Ff~UT
59.
O£VI/.OPMElq'i,
NO.
P, ECEIP~ NO.. ..............
b.
?.
tO
il.
12.
Michael Smith
101 25th Street N.W. Naples, FI 34120
B R.B. SiLe Development
L~anon of ~va~n: Se,non 30 ommsh, p 47
f_e~1~: w 75' of Tract 15 GGE unit
An,/P.i~,ht'.of'-W'ny Easements Acrass t~nd W.' eli Would %e ati%emed (PubBe ~ l~vate)
Yes- {Vo No llryes, shaw on sur~.ey
i'~mTeee ,r~,v,~ Onsite fill and Offsite sale
house pans and offsite
~ (~,.. 22,356 c.y.
sflowin~ a{! info~ ,,,,qui~ m Se.tim, I.,,r.6 ~O~dim~ce.
m)
¢¢) At~ac~t"~" - Ev~ provided t~. applicant ~-tating to .qec~ew '5 $~.4 $ ofthr O~na~
No. ~2;~, D".'~o~. 3.! and agree to .--un4uet the e~envatie, m
Om'ma.ce ~. ti; Cemmt,/and {rote Cod~s and f.J~,
b)
c)
EXC-2001-AR-589
B.R.B. LAKE
PROJECT' 2001030084
DATE: 03/29/01
AGENDA I'~ ~,~
NO. / ' ..~. /
APR 2 4= 2001
Pg. _7 . · -
II I II I Ii I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.764
"JESSE HARDY COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION AND AQUACULTURE", LOCATED IN
SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH, EAST,
AND SOUTH BY VACANT LAND ZONED AGRICULTURE, AND ON THE WEST BY VACANT
LAND ZONED ESTATES.
OBJECTIVE:
To issue an excavation permit to Jesse Hardy for the project known as "Jesse Hardy Commercial
Excavation and Aquaculture" in accordance with County Ordinance No. 92-73, Div. 3.5.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Petitioner proposes to excavate one lake initially, with a surface area of 20 acres (+/-) to a depth of
20(+/-) feet. The resultant 480,000 (+/-) C.Y. of fill will be used off site. After three years, the project
will be re-evaluated by County Staff, applicable Advisory Commissions, and the Board of County
Commissioners, at which time additional excavations may be permitted.
Conditional Use 2000-16 allowing this use was heard and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on Tuesday, March 13, 2001.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The C,~mmunity Development Fund, Development Services has or will receive $3850.00 in revenues
broken out as follows:
Application Fee $ 850.00
Permit Fee $3000.00
$ 3850.00
TOTAL FEES
A security in the amount of $120,000 must be posted prior to permit issuance. Road impact fees will
be computed at the time of permit issuance, but are estimated to be about $7000.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
None.
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg. I
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
The excavation and aquaculture operations will be monitored by the County during the construction
and operation phases until the requirement to monitor is suspended by the BCC
HISTORICAI,/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
None.
EAC RECOMMENDATIONS:
EAC recommendations were addressed by the BCC during the public hearing for CU 2000-16.
CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS:
CCPC recommendations were addressed by the BCC during the public hearing for CU 2000-16
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Board of County Commissioners approve the issuance of Excavation Permit No. 59.770 to
Jim Weeks for the project known as "Jesse Hardy Commercial Excavation and Aquaculture" with the
following stipulations:
1. The excavation shall be limited to a bottom elevation of 20 feet below grade.
Off-site removal of material shall be subject to "Standard Conditions" imposed by the
Transportation Services Division in document dated 1/13/98 (copy attached). Hours of
operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mon. thru Fri., excluding holidays.
Dewatering is allowed upon obtaining proper permits or pem~fission from the South Florida
Water Management District.
4. No blasting will be permitted unless proper permits have been obtained..
The petitioner must apply for a Vegetation Removal Permit. Environmental Staff shall perform
a site visit to determine the need for a Vegetation Removal Permit and to check for any listed
species. No work shall be done prior to that site visit.
The lake littoral zone shall be created and planted as indicated on the Plan of Record. Location
to be field determined. Additional landscaping per BCC directive may be required.
7. No Excavation Permit shall be issued until all impact fees have been paid.
AGENDA ITE~ ~ .
"o.
APR 2 4= 2001
pg. ~ ~
PREPARED BY:
STAN CHRZANO,WS. KI, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINE;ER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
DATE
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
APPROVED BY:
DATE
59.731 EX SUMMARY/SC/H/EAB Exec. Suture.
3
No..
APR ~ ~ ~001
I_
No.
APR ~ 4 200
COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
"STANDARD CONDITIONS"
EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS INVOLVING
OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL
The intent of these "Standard Conditions" are to provide excavation permit applicants a summary of
conditions which may affect their projects and which should be taken into consideration during all
stages of project development:
Haul routes 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 track traffic. Where residential areas front collector roads, appropriate mm 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 to suspend or prohibit off-site removal of excavated material should such
removal create a hazardous 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 routes utilizing public roads shall be subject to road maintenance and road repair or an
appropriate fair share by the permittee in accordance with Excavation Ordinance No. 91-102
as amended Div. 3.5 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 Administration reserves the right to establish emergency weight
limits on public roadways affected by the off-site removal of excavated material; the
procedure for establishment of weight limits shall be the presentation of an applicable
resolution before the Board of County Commissioners. Should weight limits be instituted,
the permittee shall be responsible to implement measures to assure that all heavy mack
loadings leaving the permit's property conform to the applicable weight restriction.
The Excavation Performance Guarantee shall apply to excavation operations and also the
maintenance/repair of public roads in accordance with current ordinances and applicable
permit stipulations.
EXHIBIT "B"
Page One of Two
AGENDA · --
APR 2 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 exist within one mile of the excavation site, the County reserves the fight to
deny a blasting permit based on concerns for off-site impacts fi.om blasting at an excavation
site. Should a blasting pen'nit be considered and approved, the minimum conditions of
approval in addition to conditions per Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended are as follows:
ho
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.
Do
The right of 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 terms of private property damage and/or related physical effects of blasting
operations.
No excavation permit shall be issued until receipt of a release fi.om the Transportation
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
Page Two of Two
No. __.t4~ 2/ t 0 '
APR 2 2001
pg,.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. EXP-2001-
AR-660, "YARBERRY LANE WET DETENTION POND" LOCATED IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
49, SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY VACANT LAND ZONED RSF-
1, ON THE EAST BY THE CARLISLE @ NAPLES AND VACANT LAND ZONED
AGRICULTURAL, ON THE SOUTH BY OCCUPIED LAND ZONED RSF-1, AND ON THE WEST
BY YARBERRY LANE AND OCCUPIED LAND ZONED RSF-1
OBJECTIVE:
To issue a commercial excavation permit to Collier County Transportation Department for the project
known as "Yarberry Lane Wet Detention Pond" in accordance with County Ordinance No. 92-73, Div.
3.5.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Petitioner proposes to excavate one lake with a surface area of 4.11 acres (+/-) at control elevation
to a depth of 12(+/-) feet, which is the rock layer. The resultant 85,000 (+/-) C.Y. of fill will be used
off site for the construction of the Airport Road widening. Because the site is well under the 500,000
C.Y. criteria, EAC approval was not required. The duration of the excavation should be less than one
year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Community Development Fund, Development Services has or will receive
transfers broken out as follows:
Application Fee $ 850.00
Permit Fee $ 313.00
$1163.00
TOTAL FEES
No security or road impact fees are required.
$1163.00 in fee
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
None.
APR 2 200!
Pg-._ I
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
None
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
None.
EAC RECOMMENDATIONS:
No EAC public hearing 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. EXP-2001-
AR-660 to Collier County DOT for the project known as "Yarberry Lane Wet Detention Pond" with
the following stipulations:
1.
2.
o
The excavation shall be limited to a bottom elevation of 15 feet below grade.
Off-site removal of material shall be subject to "Standard Conditions" imposed by the
Transportation Services Division in document dated 1/13/98 (copy attached). Hours of
operation shall be as allowed by the Land Development Code.
Dewatering is allowed upon obtaining proper permits from SFWMD.
No blasting will be permitted.
The petitioner must apply for a Vegetation Removal Permit. Environmental Staff shall perform
a site visit to determine the need for a Vegetation Removal Permit and to check for any listed
species. No work shall be done prior to that site visit.
The lake littoral zone shall be created and planted as indicated on the Plan of Record. Location
to be field determined. Additional landscaping per BCC directive may be required.
No Excavation Permit shall be issued until all impact fees have been paid.
2
A~.E~OAJTE__I~
APR g 4:2001
PREPARED BY:
STAN CHRZANO~KI, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
DATE
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
DATE
APPROVED BY:
J~N M. D~UNNUCK, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR
C~MMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS.
59.731 EX SUMMARY/SC/H/EAB Exec. Summ.
DATE
APR 2 4 2001
NO,
APR g A
COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
"STANDARD CONDITIONS"
EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS INVOLVING
OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL
The intent of these "Standard Conditions" are to provide excavation permit applicants a summary of
conditions which may affect their projects and which should be taken into consideration during all
stages of project development:
Haul routes 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 track traffic. Where residential areas front 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 to suspend or prohibit off-site removal of excavated material should such
removal create a hazardous 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 routes utilizing public roads shall be subject to road maintenance and road repair or an
appropriate fair share by the permittee in accordance with Excavation Ordinance No. 91-102
as amended Div. 3.5 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 Administration reserves the right to establish emergency weight
limits on public roadways affected by the off-site removal of excavated material; the
procedure for establishment of weight limits shall be the presentation of an applicable
resolution before the Board of County Commissioners. Should weight limits be instituted,
the permittee shall be responsible to implement measures to assure that all heavy truck
loadings leaving the permit's property conform to the applicable weight restriction.
The Excavation Performance Guarantee shall apply to excavation operations and also the
maintenance/repair of public roads in accordance with current ordinances and applicable
permit stipulations.
EXHIBIT "B"
Page One of Two
AGENQA ITI~M-
APR 2 ~ 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 exist 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:
Ao
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.
Co
Control of size/depth/number of charges per blast by the Development Services
Director.
Do
The right of 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 terms of private property damage and/or related physical effects of blasting
operations.
No excavation permit shall be issued until receipt of a release from the Transportation
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
Page Two of Two
APR ZOO1
1~7. ~
COLLIER COUNTY APPLICATION FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT
ORDINANCE NO. 92-73
PERMIT NO.
CATEGORY:
59.
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
EXP-2001 -AR-660
YARBERRY LANE
PROJECT 19990056
DATE: 04/09/01
NONKEFUNDABLE APPLICATION KEVIEW FEE:
PRIVATE ($85.00)
COMMERCIAL ($850.00)
DEVELOPMENT ($125.00)
RECEIPT NO.
PERMIT FEE
RECEIPT NO.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
Name of Property Owner: * CO/her Co'~-T)/
(Indicate exactly as Recorded) ~oq
AddressofPropertyOwner: 330/ ~5'F 'T'~m ,'~.m' 'Tlm¢'{- ~ ~[.. '7)
rhone Number ofOwn~r: C~q/- ~3~7- ~77 f/
Nme orE×cavator: ~ePke~- ~&, Z--~c,
Location of Excavation: Section ~2. , Township ~/~ S., Range 2..5'- E.
LegalDescription: _vee ?4qq~c,4act w~rr~,~7'/ ?ce3,
Any Right-of-Way Easements Across Land Which Would be Affected (Public or Private)
Yes No ~. If yes, show on survey.
Vurpose of Excavation: {/(/6:r~ '])¢'~p~'TLf~
Intended Use of Material to be Excavated ~o~ d~vr~/
Proposed Excavation Size:
Surface Area: /'/' q ~ Acres; Depth: ] q' ~
The following information is to be submitted with application:
(a)
Co)
Feet; Quantity: ~' ~ 2/,~ C.Y.
Attachment "A" prepared by a surveyor or engineer registered in the State of Florida
showing all information required in Section 3.5.6 of Ordinance.
Attachment "B" - List of names and addresses of nearby property owners as required by
Section 3.5.6.1.3.4 of the Ordinance, for commercial applications.
(c) Attachment "C" - Evidence provided by applicant relating to Section 3.5.5.4.5 of the Ordinance.
I have read Ordinance No. 92-73, Division 3.5 and agree to conduct the excavation in
accordance with the Ordinance and all County and State Codes and Laws.
Signature of Property Owner*/Agent**/Excavator**
*a)
b)
c)
If owner is land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries.
If owner is corporation other than public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major
stockholders.
If owner is partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name p:
If the application is made by any person or firm other than the owner of the property invol~
written and notarized approval from the property owner shall be submitted prior to process:
the application.
AGENDA ITli[~
mip~.~ ~ .~1'
· .d, ~PR 2 & Z001
ag of
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CR 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD),
BOTH EXISTING AND FUTURE ROADWAY, AS A CONTROLLED ACCESS
FACILITY FROM US 41 TO IMMOKALEE ROAD AND A LIMITED ACCESS
FACILITY FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO THE LEE COUNTY LINE.
OBJECTIVE: That the Board designates the CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) Corridor as
controlled and limited access.
CONSIDERATIONS: At the April 11, 2001, joint meeting of the Collier and Lee
County Boards of County Commissioner and the Bonita Springs City Council, the
Board members received an update as to the status of the extension of CR 95t from
immokalee Road Bonita Beach Road. Discussion included pending development
plans in regard to the alignment of the northerly extension of CR 951 and potential
access to the extension. Questions were raised by Collier County BCC members as
to the intent to limit access to the extension of CR 951.
The Transportation Division Administrator has recently provided a staff evaluation of
the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. It included a possible alternative to the
current recommended alignment that would require the control of the access along
CR 951 maximize the capacity potential of that facility.
.~.~,~FISCAL IMPACT: The action of the resolution does not create a fiscal impact.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Access management is an integral
component in protecting the capacity of the roadway system and providing
acceptable level of service to the traveling public. The designations would therefore
be consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt the proposed resolution designating CR
951 as a controlled access facility from US 41 to Immokalee Road and as a limited
access facility from Immokalee Road to the Lee County Line and authorize the Chairman
to sign the resolution.
Prepared by: /~,~~~ Date:
~a"~,, R.A/~'ol(e, T?-ansportati~lanning Director
Approved by: / ~ ~~_ Date:
N~re ~.' Feder~T~nspodation Se~ices Administrator
APR 2 2001
RESOLUTION NO.2001 -
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CR 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD), BOTH
EXISTING AND FUTURE ROADWAY, AS A CONTROLLED ACCESS
FACILITY FROM US 41 TO IMMOKALEE ROAD AND A LIMITED ACCESS
FACILITY FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO THE LEE COUNTY LINE.
WHEREAS, the limited arterial road system in Collier County provides few opportunities
for continuous north/south travel; and
WHEREAS, those limited opportunities must be capitalized upon to maximum their
roadway capacities by controlling and limiting access; and
WHEREAs, CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) currently provides for a continuous north/south
link from Marco Island to Immokalee Road; and
WHEREAS, the Long Range Transportation Plan for Collier County identifies the need
for an additional continuous north/south multi-lane roadway facility east of 1-75; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation has programmed a Project
Development and Environmental (PD&E) Report Study in their adopted work program
for fiscal year 2004 for the extension of CR 951 into Lee County; and
WHEREAS at the Joint Collier County, Lee County and City of Bonita Springs Meeting
on April 11, 2001, the Collier County Commissioners restated their desire for CR 951 to
be a controlled and limited access facility.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Collier County, Florida that:
The existing CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) from US 41 to Immokalee Road be
designated as a controlled access facility and the future extension of CR 951 from
Immokalee Road to the Lee County Line be designated as a limited access facility. The
level and degree of access control to be established through a facility specific eValuation
such as the FDOT PD&E process, during the design of capacity improvements for the
existing sections of CR 951 by Collier County or by a countywide access management
plan update.
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
,2001.
__ day of
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BY:
JAMES D. CARTER, PhD., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
~quel'lne Hubbard Robinson
· ~sistant County Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
SERVICE FIRMS (RFP #00-3131).
OBJECTIVE: To approve contracts with six professional landscape architectural firms for
annual contracts under RFP #00-3131.
CONSIDERATIONS: On February 27, 2001, the Board approved Agenda Item 16(B)(4), RFP
#00-3131 -Fixed Term Architectural Landscape Services, and directed staff to negotiate and enter
into agreements with the six firms designated by the Selection Committee. The six firms are:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A. Gail Boorman & Associates
IBIS
J. Roland Lieber, PA, Landscape Architects
McGee & Associates, Inc.
Outside Productions, Inc.
Wilson Miller, Inc.
Each agreement will be for a term of one (1) year contract with two (2), one-year renewal options in
accordance with County Purchasing Policy. Staff will utilize these firms via Work Order.
~%FISCAL IMPACT: This RFP (#00-3131) is available for use by all divisions and departments
Under the Board. Funding for landscape architectural services under these agreements shall be
provided by individual divisions/departments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve selection of six
landscape architectural firms named above, and authorize the Chairman to execute the fixed-term
agreements with same upon review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.
II,
.7~5..o~l,t Petersen, Enginee: ~La~t~:ape Opera~ions
Pamela J. Luliclx _~LA, Landscape Operatio.n. s Man~
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:'ZTc(~(! /0'" "/
DATE: d./~///J-' ~'~
D_*_TE: /-'/-.//- c2 ./
· APR 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF "CONTINUOUS DEFLECTION
SYSTEM (CDS)" UNIT FOR STORMWATER PIPE ON BAYSHORE DRIVE
AND WEEKS AVENUE INTERSECTION, PROJECT NO. 31110
OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the SOLE SOURCE
purchase of a "CDS" (Continuous Deflection System) trash collection unit for the storm
drain pipe which runs south along Bayshore Drive from US-41 and outfalls to Haldeman
Creek. The purpose of the unit is to divert and collect stormwater pollutants from
commercial areas and roads presently discharging into Haldeman Creek and Naples Bay
from this outfall.
CONSIDERATION: The Collier County Stormwater Management Department is
taking a proactive role in controlling the impact that pollution from stormwater runoff is
having on "Impaired Water Bodies" within the County. Haldeman Creek receives
stormwater runoff from highly urbanized areas, and consequently is a contributor of
stormwater runoff pollution to Naples Bay which has been designated an Impaired Water
Body by State and Federal environmental agencies. In the near future, land contributing
stormwater runoff to Impaired Water Bodies will be subject to greater restrictions on
development. This project applies new technology designed for removing gross
pollutants in stormwater runoff in highly developed areas where standard pollution
retention methods are impractical due to space constraints.
CDS Technologies, Inc. of Winter Park, FL, has patented a concrete stormwater pollutant
separator unit (Patent # 5,788,848) that has been proven effective in these gross pollutant
collection applications. This company is the sole provider of these types of separator
units. The proposed project consists of installing one (1) unit inline with an existing 43"x
68" storm drain pipe along Bayshore Drive. CDS Technologies has given the County a
proposal for $45,898.00 for delivery of the appropriately sized unit, and funding is
available. The unit is anticipated to lower the cost of trash removal along the lower
portion of Bayshore Drive and vicinity by allowing crews to remove trash only once per
year (according to the manufacturer), unless the need is greater.
FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $45,898.00 are budgeted in Fiscal Year
2001 for this purchase. Source of funds are Ad Valorem Taxes. Installation is estimated
at an additional $30,000.00. The County has entered into a Cooperative Resources
Funding Program with the BCB (Big Cypress Basin), Contract No. C-11755, whereby the
BCB will refund half of the cost upon completion of installation.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project presently has no impact on the
growth management plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissione~
source purchase of a CDS unit from CDS Technologies.
Executive Summary
Installation of CDS unit
Page Two
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
R.XfShaTne"E'ox, P.E., ProjeCt Manager
Stormwater Management D~!~artment
v~ 9F' (~*' dfC" Date:
' St-ep"~e~n '¢. C~nell, Directtor
Purchasing Department
Robert C. Wilesk~P.E., Senior Project Manager
Stormwater Management Department
Jol~ H. Boldt, P.E., P.S.M., Director
S~;~t Department Date:
N~)r~'a~ Feder, A~lministrator
Tr;sportation Division
dr..-I1- o!
.11-ol
APR 2 ~ 2001
TECHNOLOGIES
The Solution to Stormwater Pollution
March 26, 2001
Mr. Steven V. Preston
Collier County Stormwater Department
2685 S. Horseshoe Dr., Suite 212
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: Publix Plaza
Naples, FL
Dear Mr. Preston:
As requested, attached is a hardcopy of the previously faxed quote for the above referenced
project.
As always, I am looking forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact
me if you have any additional questions.
Very tmly yours,
CDS Technologies, Inc.
Dan Pham, E.I.
East Coast: 1035 S. Semoran Blvd., Suite 1015, Winter Park, FL 32792 + Toll Free: 1-800-848-9955 * Ph: 407-681-4929 + Fx: 407-681-4916
West Coast: 16360 S. Monterey Rd., Suite 250, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 * Toll Free: 1-888-535-7559 * Ph: 408-779-6363 * Fx: 408-782-0721
www. cdstech.com
TC-CHNOLOGIES
March 22, 2001
QUOTATION--- CDS® StorTTwvater Pollution Control
PROJECT: Publix Plaza- Collier County
F~ject No: FL-00-018
Quote No: FL..00-01~I
CDS STORM WA1T=R TREATMENT ASS~BLY WITH PRECAST MANHOLE COMPONENTS TO FINISHED
GRADE:
QTY PRECAST ASSEMBLY PRICE
PMSUS0_42: manufacture and supply CDS model PMSU50_42 storm water treatment
1 unit with necessary precast components and cast iron manhole covers and frames $38,000
to finished grade for: Oil Baffle Included
1 Weir Chamber: manufacture and supply concrete weir chamber precast components
and cast iron manhole cover and frame to finish grade. $5,300
Subtotal: $43,300
6.0% Sales Tax: $2,598
Total, CDS Units to Finished Grade: $45,898
2. Lil~g ~ fumished wilh the CDS equipment to radii[alu equiprnent handhg shall be ~ to (supplier name) within 30
15% handing
6. Interest wi]l be charged on lhe unpaid invoiced bala'x:e at lhe rate of l ¼% per mo'~ for the arn~nt received afta' 30 days from
7. Any colleclion cosls and altomey fees incurred by CDS Technologies Inc. in the effort to relrieve unpak~ mo3ey d~ ~i ~
9. A valid order shall be ~ by counlemignhg this quote and m~uming it to CDS Technologies, wilh or wilhout a
10. This quo~don ~ is valid for 30 days.
To place lhe order, please ~ign ~his document and fax to my of E:e in (slate & fax number)
Respeclfully Submitled,
Dan Q. Pham, F_i.
Pmje~ Er~ineer
ACCEPTANCE Of QUOTE TO PROVIDE THIS CDS UNIT FOR $45,898
Date
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg. 4
CDSTechnologies, Inc. ° www.cdstech.com · cds~,cdstech.com
Caifomia~, 16360 ~Road, Suils250, Mongan H~, CA 95037 · Phone: (888)535-77~9 · Fax: (408)7820721
Apn'I 10, 2001
Cdlier ~ ~ ~t
268.6 S. Hm,seah~Dr., Suit212
D~ Mr. Cox:
~gl~~a~~~~~~ S~w~~l~
~ ~hv~ ~~ f~ ~h ~t. For yo~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1o~ is
P~~~ ~,788,~, ~Au~ 1~8.
~ ~ I ~ ~ ~d ~ ~~u~~j~ P~~~~
V~ ~y ~,
Dan Pham, F,.I.
APR £ ~i 2~9i
EaSt Coast: 10~ ~. t~mman BIv~.','$uite 1015. tNlmm Pa~ FL 3;Z792 ',- T~ Frae: I~ * Phc 40't-e81-49~ * F',a 407-68'i-n'9~t6
~ ~ 16360 ~. ~ Rd., ~ _'2~__. MofeJart ~ CA 95037 * lbll Free:. 1.~,B-5~.755~ ~' I=~ 40~-~ * Fx= 40&.782-.072t
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE TIMELY RESOLUTION OF
UNANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL WORK AND COST OVERRUNS FOR AIRPORT-
PULLING ROAD CONSTRUCTION. COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 62031, CIE
NO. 55.
OBJECTIVE: To receive Board approval of a budget amendment that will allow funds to be
appropriated into the project account to facilitate timely resolution of unanticipated additional
work that was not included in the original design.
CONSIDERATIONS: To establish a contingency fund in the amount of $250,000.00 to
facilitate timely resolution of unanticipated work for growth related changes that have occurred
since the completion of the original design of this project. The construction contract has been
awarded to Better Roads, Inc. in the amount of $6,784,788.74. A Budget Amendment is needed
to transfer $250,000.00 from the Road Impact Fee District 2 Reserves and appropriate in the
project account to facilitate timely resolution of potential unanticipated additional work that may
result from growth related changes that have occurred since the completion of the original design
such as turn lanes and driveways, utility conflicts. The additional funding will also cover pay
item cost overruns. This fund will be used to avoid costly delay claims, and facilitate the timely
completion of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT: A Budget Amendment is needed to transfer $250,000.00 from the Road
Impact Fee District 2 Reserves and appropriate in the project.
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 the necessary
Budget Amendment in the amount of $250,000.00 to facilitate: (1) Timely resolution of
unanticipated additional work necessary to complete the above referenced project and, (2) To
offset the cost differential between plan quantity and actual quantity of pay items.
APR 2 q 2001
Pg. I
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
A. Nyankadau Korti, Project Manager
Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Department
Mitch Riley, P.E., Sr. Project Manager
Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Department
Stephen/~vtiller, P.E., Director
Tran_sp~tation Ffl-fg~ee~ng & Construction Management Department
/ /~,/,-/.~v__. _ Date: ~/~//~(
No,an'FedeX'. Tt'~ansportation Division Administrator
,/ /
'~--'~E!~iDA ITEM
No. ;7
APR 2 ~t 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND BRENTWOOD LAND PARTNERS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF TARPON BAY
BOULEVARD AND 20TM AVENUE NW.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain direction from the BCC to authorize the County Attorney's
Office to prepare a Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) between Collier County
and Brentwood Land Partners, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, for the
improvements of Tarpon Bay Boulevard/20th Avenue NW. The DCA will include road
impact fee credits in an amount not to exceed $855,548 for the construction of Tarpon
Bay Boulevard and a portion of 20th Avenue NW.
CONSIDERATIONS: Prior Board of County Commissioner action consolidated
several individual PUDs, which individually would have had sole access to Oaks
Boulevard, currently a two-lane collector with single-family homes as the
predominant land use. As part of the consolidation of the PUDs, an opportunity to
provide access to Immokalee Road as well as Oaks Boulevard was developed. This
roadway connection, Tarpon Bay Boulevard and a portion of 20th Avenue NW, will
provide limited relief to the intersection of Immokalee Road and Oaks Boulevard.
Brentwood Land Partners is constructing the improvements to the maximum extent
physically feasible to be consistent with a minor collector road typical section.
The estimated cost to provide the minimum required access to the PUDs would have
been $233,678.25 that is non-creditable. The estimated cost to construct the entire
limits of Tarpon Bay Boulevard/20~h Avenue NW from Immokalee Road to Oaks
Boulevard is 1,089,226.25. The difference between the improvements to be constructed
and the minimum requirements for access is $855,548. This is the limiting amount of
impact fee credit that Brentwood Limited Partners shall be entitled.
This DCA is one of the remaining agreements that will not be subject to the limitation of
the new Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated amount of credits for the difference between
construction of Tarpon Bay Boulevard and 20th Avenue NW versus an access driveway
is $855,548. An estimate of the road impact fees to be collected from the development
of the Malibu PUD is in excess of $1,000,000. Therefore, buildout of the developments
will result in additional impact fees to be collected from the PUDs above the credits
permitted. The credits will be in Impact Fee District 6 and any additional amount due to
the County will be deposited into the Impact Fee District 6 Fund.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The addition of the secondary ro
Immokalee Road to Oaks Boulevard will provide relief to the intersecl
Boulevard and Immokalee Road. This action is consistent with the GMF
~tdway~E:~D~iTEM
~n oN~_aks/6 ,._~ ~
API 2 2001
Pg._ I
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board directs the County Attorney's Office to develop
a DCA between Collier County and Brentwood Land Partners for the improvements of
Tarpon Bay Boulevard and 20th Avenue NW.
Prepared by: ~~~on Date: '~/,/~'/D/
[~a Planning Director / /
Reviewed by: ~tt ~ .~~v~ ~ Date:
~a~qu~n-~/HL~b~rd RobinsOn, Assistan{ County Attorney '
Approved by: Date:
Norm~/n-I~; Fed'~r, "l'ransportation Services Administrator
/
AGENDA ITEM
APR
Pg. ,~.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE 1-75 IN COLLIER AND LEE
COUNTIES.
OBJECTIVE: That the Board encourage the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDO'I') to consider additional alternatives for the interim improvements to 1-75 other
than the addition of the ~ and 6th general use lanes.
CONSIDERATIONS: At the April 11, 2001, joint meeting of the Collier and Lee
County Boards of County Commissioner and the Bonita Springs City Council, the
Board members received an update as to the status and objectives of the FDOT's 1-
75 Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Studies. The Boards were
informed that additional alternatives should be considered in staging the ten-lane
typical section. Simply adding the 5th and 6th general use lanes without
improvements to the interchanges would have only short-term benefit and fail within
ten years of completion of the improvements. Given that the funding for Florida
Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) improvements is limited, the desire is to leverage
the approximately $250,000,000 programmed in Collier and Lee Counties towards
an interim alternative that advances the development of the ultimate ten-lane typical
section. Such alternatives should include the consideration of use of tolls.
FISCAL IMPACT: The federal and state funds are non-attributable and typically are
not counted against Collier County's equitable share of federal and state funds for
transportation improvements.
GROVVTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: 1-75 is an integral part of the regional
transportation network in Southwest Florida. Maintaining an acceptable level of
service on 1-75 is necessary for consistency with the Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt the proposed resolution encouraging
FDOT to consider additional alternatives for the interim improvements to 1-75 that would
lead to the ultimate ten-lane interstate improvements, authorize the Chairman to sign the
resolution and letter of transmittal, and direct staff to transmit copies of the resolution to
Lee County and the _City of Bonita S/~ings.
Prepared by: ,/~~~ Date:
bav~n- Ri WoTf~,/T4~ansport~;~n..~lanning Director ' / /
Reviewed by:, ¢o...~¢~J~a,~, (~--~it~.,,, Date: ~'
:queUe I--lubl~ard fiobinson, Assistah-i-County Attorney
Approved by=/ /~J~ Date: YA
rq", ~'r~an E ~. ~d~r, Transportation Services Administrator
i APR 2 2O J'i
RESOLUTION NO.2001 -
A RESOLUTION FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ENCOURAGING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 1-75 CORRIDOR AS PART OF THE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES IN COLLIER
AND LEE COUNTIES
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation is currently conducting Project
Development and Environmental (PD&E) Studies for 1-75 corridor within Collier and
Lee Counties; and
WHEREAS, the approximately $250,000,000 available from state and federal intrastate
funds for 1-75 improvements is insufficient to build an ultimate ten lane interstate; and
WHEREAS, the approach has been to initially construct the 5th and 6th general use lanes;
and'
WHEREAS, the 5th and 6th lane improvement is projected to fail within the decade that
these improvements would be completed; and
WHEREAS, the interchanges cause the majority of congestion, operational problems and
safety concerns on 1-75; and
WHEREAS, current proposed funding will not provide any significant improvement to
the interchanges; and
WHEREAS, the needs for Flor/da Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) improvements far
exceed the projected available resources; and
WHEREAS, without a deep water port and limited rail service, 1-75 Corridor is critical
for the inter-regional movement of people and goods, and as such the economic vitality
of southwest Flor/da; and
WHEREAS, the 1-75 Corridor is a critical link for the health, safety and wel£are of the
residents of Southwest Florida for the purpose of emergency evacuation in the event of a
hurricane or other natural disaster; and
WHEREAS at the Joint Collier County, Lee County and City of Bonita Springs Meeting
on April 11, 2001, the elected officials stated their desire for the consideration of interim
alternatives that would leverage the available funds programmed towards the construction
of the ultimate ten lane typical section. AG£NDA ITEM
I~iO._~~_~
APR 2 2001
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOI[,VED .BY THE BOARD OF COI~TqTY
COMMISSIONERS of Collier County, Florida that:
The FDOT include a number of staging or phasing alternatives towards the
ultimate ten~iane typical section in the PD&E studies for Collier and Lee Counties.
The alternatives should seek to leverage the approximate $250,000,000
programmed for improvements to 1-75 in the region to advance the ultimate ten-lane
typical section. This should include the consideration of alternatives such as, but not
1/m/ted to, the purchase of the ultimate right-of-way; construction of the four center high
occupancy lanes as toll lanes with the toil revenues used to improve the interchanges; and
to construct the additional general use lanes with toll revenues to complete the ultimate
ten lane typical section.
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
., 2001.
__ day of
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BY:
JAMES D. CARTER, PhD., CHAIRMAN
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
J.~cq. ubtine_Hubb ard Robinson
k~ssistant County Attorney
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LIVINGSTON ROAD CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
KISINGER CAMPO AND ASSOCIATES CORP (KCA). (Project No. 60061) (CIE No. 53)
OBJECTIVE: Obtain Board approval for Amendment No. 2 of the Livingston Road (Radio
Road to Golden Gate Parkway) Construction Engineering Inspection Professional Services
Agreement with the consultant firm of Kisinger Campo and Associates Corp.
CONSIDERATIONS: On February 23, 1999, the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approved the Professional Services Agreement with the consultant firm of
Kisinger Campo and Associates Corp., for the provision of Construction Engineering Inspection
(CEI) services for Livingston Road (Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway).
Due to the proposed six-laning of Livingston Road, the construction duration of this corridor has
been extended beyond what was originally anticipated. In order to continue with our current CEI
services, we need to amend the original agreement. We anticipate the construction to be
completed by August of this year. Adding three months to KCA's current contract will enable us
to complete the project with the necessary inspection and construction management. This
Amendment has been reviewed for legal sufficiency by the Office of the County Attorney.
~-FISCAL_ IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $125,247 are available in Road Construction
Impact Fees District 2. Source of funds is Impact Fees.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This Capital Improvement Project No. 53 is
consistent with the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Amendment to Livingston Road Construction
Engineering Inspection Professional Services Agreement with Kisinger Campo and Associates
Corp. in the amount of $125,247.00 and authorize the Chairwoman to sign for the Board.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mitch Riley, P.E., Sr. Project manager
TE & CM D
AGENDA
No._ -
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg.
Executive Summary
Livingston Road CEI Services Agreement
Page 2
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Steve Miller, P.E., TE & CM Director
Tan Feder, Transportation Administrator
Date:
Date:
AGENDA ~M
No.
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg.
LIVINGSTON ROAD
(RADIO ROAD TO GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY)
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement dated February 23, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of
., 2001, by and between the Board of County Commissioners for
Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter
referred to as the "OWNER") and kisinger Campo and Associates Corp. a Florida
corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose business address is
2201 North Lois Ave., Suite 1200, Tampa, FL 33607 Tamiami Trail North, Suite
200, Naples, Florida 34108 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT").
WlTNESSETH
WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT currently have a valid professional
services agreement for the Construction Engineering and Inspection Services of
Livingston Road (Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway), Project #60061 (hereinafter
referred to as the "PROJECT"), said services more fully described in said
AGREEMENT; and
WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications (time
extension due to permitting complications, and the six laning of Livingston Road) to the
services being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessary; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that he has the expertise and the type of
professional services that will be required for completion of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions
contained herein, parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
1.1 CONSULTANT shall provide to OWNER professional Construction
Engineering and Inspection services in all phases of the project to which this
Amendment applies.
No.~
APR 2 ~ 2001
1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide professional services in addition to those as
outlined in said AGREEMENT as noted in Exhibit A of this Amendment; as attached
hereto.
ARTICLE TWO
2.1 OWNER agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder
as prescribed in Exhibit B, entitled "Exhibit B - Fees" for Basic Services and
Consultant's Estimate of Additional Services, as outlined in said AGREEMENT with the
modifications to Exhibit A to said AGREEMENT which are attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
ARTICLE THREE
3.1 The schedule for said PROJECT will be revised to reflect the three months time
extension added in this Amendment as reflected in Exhibit "C" attached hereto.
ARTICLE FOUR
4.1 The AGREEMENT, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
APR 2 2001
Pg. ~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Professional Services Agreement for the Construction Engineering and Inspection Design
of Livingston Road the day and year first written above.
ATTEST: (As to Chairman)
BOARD OF COUNTY COIVIMISSIO~ FOP.
COLLIEK COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL
SUBDMSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
By:
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
By:
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
ess
Wimess
Kisinger Campo and Associates Corp.
By.'~~ /~. &/r~
J~g~?M. Campo, P.E., P~sident
(CORPORATE SEAL)
SCHEDULE A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Schedule A consists of the following component Parts:
A. 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A.2. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
A.3. DETAILED OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION
-]8-
AGENI~A ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
P~. (~
A.1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.
A. 1.1. Location: The project involves the construction engineering inspection of a new urban
[our-lane_ arterial roadway from Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway, including appropriate
modifications at intersections and terminus points to provide safe access.to existing roadWays.
A.1.2. Type of Work: The project involves the construction engineering inspection of a new
urban four-lane arterial roadway which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, clearing and
grubbing, excavation, placement of embankment, stormwater facilities, utilities construction and
relocation, complete roadway and bridge construction, retaining and gravity wall construction,
safety barrier and noise reduction wall construction, signalization and lighting installation,
protection of private property immediately adjacent to construction activities, and public relations
for business and residential impacts.
A.2. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
A.2.1. Consult with the OWNER and contractors as reasonably required and necessary with
regard to construction of the Project, including but not limited to pre-construction conference
and regularly scheduled coordination meeting with OWNER and contractor.
A.2.2. Review materials and workmanship of the Project and report to OWNER anY deviations
from the Contract Documents which may come to the CONSU. LTANT's attention; determine the
acceptability of work and materials and make recommendation to OWNER to reject items not
meeting the requirements of the Contract Documents.
A.2.3.
stopped if, in CONSULTANT's judgment, such action is necessary to allo~
avoid irreparable damage to the work, or avoid subsequent .rejection of worl
readily replaced or restored to an acceptable condition. Such stoppage to
Recommend to the OWNER in writing that the work, or designated portions thereof, be
p rg/i~Ni~)E~ion
which c5_uld not be
APR 200!
)e only for a period
reasonablY necessary for the determination of whether or not the work will in fact comply with
the requirements of the Contract Documents.
A.2.4. Require that any wOrk which is covered up without being properly observed be
uncovered for examination and restored at contractor's expense if deemed appropriate by the
CONSULTANT.
A.2.5. Issue interpretations and clarifications of Contract Documents during construction, and
evaluate requests for substitutions or deviations therefrom. Notify OWNER of any such
requested deviations or substitutions and when reasonably necessary provide OWNER with a
recommendation concerning same. Prepare work change orders as directed by OWNER.
A.2.6. Submit to OWNER, in a format acceptable to OWNER, weekly progress and status
reports, including but not limited to manpower, amount of work performed and by whom,
equipment, problems encountered, method to correct problems, errors, omissions, deviations
from Contract Documents, and weather conditions.
A.2.7. Review and make recommendations to shop drawings,'diagrams, iljustrations, catalog
data, schedules and samples, the results of laboratory tests and inspections, and other data
which contractors are required to submit for conformance with the design concept of the Project
and compliance with the provisions of the Contract Documents. All submittals shall be approved
by the designer of record.
A.2.8. Monitor all required Project records, including but not limited to delivery schedules,
inventories and construction reports. Based upon the Project records, as well as
CONSULTANT's observations at the site and evaluations of the data reflected in contractor's
application for payment, CONSULTANT shall render a recommendation to OWNER concerning_
the amount owed to the contractor(s) and shall forward the contractor's
-2.0-
a~-~:~~uch
APR 2 ~ 2001
amount to OWNER. Such approval of the application for payment shall constitute
representation by CONSULTANT to OWNER, based on observations and evaluations, that:
(a)
(b)
(c)
the work has progressed to the point indicated;
the work is in substantial accordance with the Contract Documents; and
the contractor(s) is (are) entitled to payment in the recommended amount.
a
A.2.9. Receive and review all items to be delivered by the contractor(s) pursuant to the Contract
Documents, including but not limited to all maintenance and operating instructions, schedules,
guarantees, warranties, bonds and certificates of inspection, tests and approvals.
CONSULTANT shall transmit all such deliverables to OWNER with CONSULTANT's written
comments and recommendations concerning their completeness under the Contract
Documents.
A.2.10. Support the OWNER'S efforts to negotiate with the contractor(s), the scope and cost of
any necessary contract change orders, using as a basis for such negotiations data or oth,
information emanating from the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the bid sheet,
technical specifications, plans, shop drawings, material specifications, and proposed material
and labor costs. At OWNER'S request, prepare, recommend and submit for OWNER'S
approval such change orders under the owner's direction and guidance. Under no
circumstances shall the CONSULTANT be authorized to make commitments on behalf of or
legally bind the OWNER in any way to any terms or conditions pertaining to a prospective
change order.
A.2.11. Upon receiving notice from the contractor advising CONSULTANT that the Project is
substantially complete, CONSULTANT, shall Schedule and, in conjunction with OWNER,
conduct a comprehensive inspection of the Project, develop a list of items needing completion
or correction, forward said list to the contractor and 'provide written rF, r, nmmc, nrt2fir~nS."
A~3ENDA ITEM I ~3~
OWNER concerning the acceptability of work done and the use of the Prc !e~.°-~sT
of thi ,,ovis o., co.,¢.tio, sh , to th[
Project where the Project can be utilized for the purposes for which it was intended, and where
minor items need not be fully completed, but all items that affect the operational integrity and
function of the Project are capable of continuous use.
A.2.12. Perform final inspection in conjunction with OWNER, and assist OWNER in closing out
construction contract, including but not limited to, providing recommendations concerning
acceptance of Project and preparing ali necessary documents, including but not limited to, lien
waivers, contractor's final affidavit, close-out change orders, and final payment application.
A.2.13. PrePare and submit to OWNER upon completion of construction of the Project, five (5)
sets of record drawings and one (1) set of reproducible record drawing mylars of the work
constructed, including those changes made during the construction process, using information
supplied by the contractors and other data which can reasonably be verified by CONSULTANT's
personnel.
A.2.14. Prepare and submit to OWNER upon completion of construction of Project a final report
of variations from-the construction Contract Documents, including reasons for the variations.
A.3. DETAILED OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION.
A.3.1. Construction work shall be done under the full-time observation of at least one
representative of CONSULTANT; or by such additional represe, ntatives of the CONSULTANT as
may be necessary for observing the construction of the Project, as may be authorized and
approved by the OWNER.
A.3.2. During detailed observation of construction CONSULTANT shall act to protect OWNER's
· interests in Project and:
(a) take 3 x 5 color 35 mm photographs of important as
including by way of example and not limitation, all exi~
;ting pdvate facilities
Pg. I0'
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
within the work zone, existing pre-construction surface conditions, important
phases of construction, construction observations that detect questionab,
practices or special interest areas, problems or accidents, surprises from
unanticipated conditions and other items needing visible documentation for
future reference, process and submit same together with corresponding
negatives on a continuous basis-to OWNER; such pictures to be properly
categorized and identified as to date, time, location, direction and
photographer, with subsequent notations on drawings;
maintain appropriate field notes from which record drawings can be
generated;
perform the appropriate materials and placement sampling and testing in
accordance with Flodda Department of Transportation and Collier County
standards;
maintain appropriate field records to document any and all disputes or
claims, whether actual or potential with respect to construction of' the
Project; and
observe operation or performance testing and report findings to OWNER
and contractor (e.g. including copies of bacteriological and pressure tests
when potable water lines are involved upon completion of operable units,
signalization and lighting testing, etc.).
END OF SCHEDULE A
A(~,EN._DAg'EM
APR 2 ~ 2001
SCHEDULE B
BASIS OF COMPENSATION
B.1.1. As consideration for providing. Basic Services as set forth herein in Parts A. 1, A.2, and
A.3 of Schedule A, OWNER agrees to pay, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept,, the time and
reimbursable fees or unit prices (whichever is applicable) as shown on Attachment A entitled
"Estimated Costs Construction Engineering and Inspection Services" Sheets 1 through 4
inclusive.
B.1.2. Payment For Basic Services under Pads A.2 and A.3 of Schedule A shall be paid on a
time and reimbursable or unit price basis (whichever is applicable) upon receipt of an
approvable invoice on no more than a monthly basis.
B.2.1. As consideration for providing Basic Services under Part A.3 entitled "Detailed
ObserVation of Construction" and for propedy approved Additional Services set forth in Article
Two of this Agreement as estimated on Attachment C entitled "Consultant's Estimate of
Additional Services", OWNER agrees to pay and CONSULTANT agrees to accept payment on a
time and reimbursable or unit cost basis (whichever is applicable). Payments for Part A.3
services and propedy approved Additional Services shall be made monthly on a time and
reimbursable or unit cost basis (whichever is applicable) computed in accordance with either
Attachment B entitled "Consultant's Employee Hourly Rate Schedule" for employees working
under this Agreement or Attachment C entitled "Consultant's Estimate of Additional Services".
Payment shall be made monthly on an as needed basis, not to exceed 40 hours per person per
week. Payment for services performed by individuals beyond 40 hours per week or Saturdays,
Sundays or holidays, shall be increased by a factor of 1.5 applied to Attachment B provided
such overtime work is approved by OWNER in advance whenever possible and not due to
CONSULTANT'S own fault or neglect. No.A~tE~j:~ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
-24-
Pg. 12-
B.2.2. Reimbursable costs shall mean the actual expenditures made by the CONSULTANT
while providing Basic Services under Part A.3 or Additional Services, in the interest of th~
Project, listed in the following sub-paragraphs:
(a) expenses for transportation and subsistence incidental to out-of-town travel
required by CONSULTANT and directed by OWNER, other than visits to the
Project Site or OWNER's office;
(b) expenses for preparation, reproduction, photographic production
techniques, postage and handling of drawings, specifications, and similar
Project-related items required in Parts A.2 and A.3 of Basic Services;
(c) when authorized in advance by OWNER, except as specifically otherwise
provided herein, the expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular
rates; and
(d) expenses for renderings, models and mock-ups requested by OWNER.
B.2.3. By way of example and not limitation, reimbursable costs shall specifically not include
expenditures, except aS otherwise described in paragraph B.2.2, such as:
(a)
(b)
(c)
.(d)
expenses for transportation and subsiStence;
overhead, including field office facilities;
overtime not authorized by OWNER; or
expenses for copies, reproductions, postage, handling, express delivery,
and long diStance communications.
B.3.1. In no case shall the time and reimbursable figures or unit costs (whichever is applicable)
on Attachment A be exceeded without a change in the scope of the project being approved by
the County Admini'strator or his designee
B.3.2. Detailed Construction Observation work perforr~ed under Pad
Services, shall be paid as substantiated to the limits shown in Attachmenl
the sum of those figures without execution of an appropriate Agreement ar
A¢.--~NI~ITEM
¢,N9~..~J I~$el~ ~¥r~d
,AP 2 2001
~enamCht.
B.3.3. Payments will be made for services rendered, no more than on a monthly basis, within
thirty (30) days of submittal of an approvable invoice. The project number and number of the
purchase order by which authority the services have been made, shall appear on all invoices.
All invoices shall be reasonably substantiated, identify the services rendered and must be
submitted in triplicate in a form and manner required by OWNER.
B.3.4. CONSULTANT acknowledges that Attachment A - Schedule of Fees for Basic Services,
Attachment B - Consultant's Employee Hourly Rate Schedule, and Attachment C - Consultant's
Estimate of Additional Services, each attached to this Schedule B are incorporated herein and,
will be the basis for OWNER's budgeting, authorizing and monitoring of expenditures under this
Agreement.
B.3.5. As compensation'for coordinating subconsultant activities (other than Forge Engineering,
Inc. which submitted as a subconsultant for material testing services as a part of the original
proposal) for OWNER, CONSULTANT shall be allowed an administrative fee not to exceed ten
percent (10%) of the actual cost of services rendered under Part A.3 and Additional Services.
For the purposes of t~is provision the actual cost of services rendered shall not include any
mark-up between the vendor who actually performed the services and any sub-consultant. No
administrative fee or mark-up shall be paid in conjunction with the provision of Basic Services as
set forth in Part A.2 of Schedule A.
END OF SCHEDULE B.
-26-
AGENDA, J, TEM
NO.
APR 2 2001
Pg.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Kisinger Campo & Associates, Corp.
HOURLY BILLING PATES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
ON THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD CEI PROJECT (Project No. 60061)
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
POSITION / CLASSIFICATION
QC Engineer/Sr. Technical Advisor
Project Manager
HOURLY BILLING RATES*
$130.56
Chief Engineer
Senior Engineer S103.74
Engineer S 76.95
Designer Technician S 61.11
Senior CADD Technician S 55.50
CADD Technician
Clerical
Quality Control (CEI)
Project Engineer (CEi)
Senior Inspector (CEI)
Secretary (CEI)
S127.47
S113.25
$ 43.95
$ 33.45
$110.00
$ 75.00
$ 60.00
$ 39.00
'Houdy billing tales include salary, overhead, fringe benef~'..s, and operating margin.
' AGENDA_I'I'~M
No.~ ! [() .J~, _/¢ --
APR 2 2001
KCA Project No. 59902.00
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C
CONSULTANT'S ESTIMATE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
(INCLUDING DETAILED OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION)
[reduce schedule to be provided by CONSULTANT and place it here]
-29-
APR 2 ~ 200!
ESTIMATED COSTS - CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES
Prepared for: Collier County, Florida
3/2/01 15:46
Project Description: Livingston Road, Collier County, Florida
Employee
Classification
Project Enginer
Senior Inspector
Senior Inspector
Secretary
TOTALS:
Regular Time
Manhours
495.0
495.0
495.0
495.0
1,980
Avg. Hourly
Billing Rate*
$ 75.00
$ 60.00
$ 60.00
$ 39.00
$ 58.50
Salary
Costs
$ 37,125.00
$ 29,700.00
$ 29,700.00
$ 19,305.0£
$ 115,830.00
a. Overtime Allowance - Salary Related Costs (Limiting Amount)
*Sr. Inspectors: 990.00 manhrs x 0.150 x
Sub-total:
b. Lump Sum Expenses:
Sub-total:
c. Subconsultant:
Forge Engineering, Inc.
$ 60.00 per hr =
$ 8~910.00
$ 124,740
$ 507
$ 125,247
$ -
TOTAL MAXIMUM LIMITING FEES**
$ 125,247
Estimate prepared by: Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp.
'Hourly billing rates include all vehicles and field equipment not specifically itemized.
'*Any field survey and all field testing included Jn this cost.
Phone No.:
(813) 871-5331
APR 2 2001
. ............... _J
Date: 3/2/01 14:33
Project Description:
KISINGER CAMPO & ASSOCIATES CORP.
CEh Livingston Road~ Collier County
FIELD OFFICE EXPENSES (CIO ~2):
Amount:
I Film & Film Developinq 6% tax
12 rolls @ $3.78 + $2.72 = $48.08
12 devel @ $5.76 + $4.15 = $73.27
(3 months x 4 rolls per month = 12 rolls) $121.35
2 Postage & Shipping
3 months @ $128.50 mo. = $385.50
TOTAL: $506.85
AGEND_A LTEM
APR'2 ~ 2001
Po. i2
AGEND.,A J,TEM
No.
APR 2 zi 2[101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACCEPT A UTILITY EASEMENT FROM LONG BAY PARTNERS LLC, A FLORIDA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, REQUIRED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIVINGSTON
ROAD FROM STATION 373+75 TO THE LEE/COLLIER COUNTY LINE, CIE PROJECT
NO. 21 (ULTIMATE SIX LANE ROADWAY).
OBJECTIVE: To accept a Utility Easement from Long Bay Partners LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, required as part of the construction of Livingston Road.
CONSIDERATION: A Utility Easement is required from Long Bay Partners LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, which will enable Collier County to install the necessary utility
facilities during the construction of Livingston Road.
An independent appraisal prepared by Kenneth R. Devos, MAI, SRA, valued the Utility
Easement at Six Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($6,600.00). Long Bay Partners LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, has agreed to accept compensation at the appraised value.
The required documents have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney as to
their legal form and sufficiency in preparation for acceptance by the Board of County
Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost to the County is $6,615.00; $6,600.00 for the land and
$15.00 for recording the transaction documents. Funds are available in the Gas Tax Road
Construction Fund for Livingston Road Project Number 65041.
GROVVTH MANAGEMENT: As a Capital Improvement Element Project,
recommendation is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan for CIE #21.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners:
1.
the
Approve and accept the Utility Easement granted by Long Bay Partners LLC, a
Florida limited liability company;
2. Approve compensation to Long Bay Partners LLC, a Florida limited liability company
in the amount of $6,553.80 ($6,600.00 less cost of documentary stamps);
3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Easement Agreement;
4. Authorize staff to prepare related vouchers and warrants for payment; and
5. Authorize staff to proceed with the related real estate closing transaction and to
record with the Clerk of Court the easement and appropriate documents to clear title
in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
APR 2 2001
I
SUBMITTE ~
TtS-ni A. Mo{t, S'~pervisor '~
REVIEWED BY:
Re'al Property Management Department
Ch~rle~ E. Carrington, J~, 'Director
Real Property Management Department
DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
iley, P.E., Senior ProJ~-l~anager
Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Stephen L. Miller, P.E., Director
Transp/~tation E~ngineering and Construction Management Department
Norr~an Feder, A[CP, Administrator
Tra~portation Division
APR 2 ~ 2001
Pg.
Project: Livingston Road - NNMSTU
Parcel: 917
Folio: 00147600004
Prepared byt
Ellen T. Chadwell, Esquire
Off~ce of the County Attorne~
3301 East Tamiaml Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
¢941) 774-8400
UTILITY EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT, made and entered into this<:~':~~'''''-' day of-~A,~~ ,2001, by
LONG BAY PARTNERS LLC, a Florida limited liability company, by its undersigned Managing
Member, whose mailing address is 345t Bonita Bay Boulevard SW, Suite 202, Bonita Springs,
FL 34134 as Grantor, to the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, 3301 East
Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, its successors and assigns, as Grantee.
(Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this
instrument and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors or assigns.)
WITNESSETH:
Grantor, for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable consideration
paid by the Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby
conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual,
non-exclusive easement, license, and privilege for utility purposes, on the following described
lands located in Collier County, Florida, to wit:
See attached Exhibit "A" which is
incorporated herein by reference.
Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record.
THIS IS NOT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee together with the right to er~ter upon
said land, excavate, and place or remove materials including, but not limited to, sewer lines and
pipes, service and pump stations, and other equipment or improvements appurtenant thereto or
thereunder for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining utility facilities thereon.
Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as the context requires. The easement
granted herein shall constitute an easement running with the land and shall burden the lands
described above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day
and year first above wdtten.
Witness (Signature)
Name:
(Print)
nature)
Name
(Print)
LONG BAY PARTNERS LLC,
a Florida limited liability company
BY: BONITA BAY PROPERTIES,
INC., a Florida corporation
~-{Wes'~grrfJVice President
Address: 3451 Bonita Bay Blvd,
Suite 202
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
APR 2 200l
STATE OF ~
COUNTY OF ~
_The foregoing Utility Easement .~/~s .ackpow. ledged before me this c~~'~' .day of
--~-z4.~ , 2001, by~_~/t,//'/~/ ~ (name), la~le~t/Vice President on
behalf of Bonita Bay Propeffdes, Inc., a Florida corporation, as Managing Member of Long Bay
Partners LLC, a Florida limited liability company, who is ~ersonall¥. known to me./or who has
produced as identification.
(affix notarial seal)
(Signature of Notary Public)
( Pdnt name of Notary Public)
NOJ[RY PUBLIC
Serial/Commission #: if any C~. ~,?/,~'~'
My Commission Expires: I I -/~-~/
APR 2 2001
~g._ .~
/SEC. 12-48-25
~E, LINE S.E.1/4
SEC. 12-48-25
Z
AGEIgD.aj~ITEM
No. ~tO
APR 2
PO-,,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR TIlE
DISADVANTAGED (PARATRANSIT).
OBJECTIVE: To provide staff with direction regarding transportation services for the Disadvantaged
(Paratransit).
CONSIDERATION: On September 12, 2000 the BCC approved the Public Transportation Development Plan
(PTDP) for FY 2001. The 2001 budget for Paratransit is part of this document. The BCC agreed to provide $527,000
(approximately $44,000 per month) for Paratransit operations for FY01. County funds are combined with State
funds ($358,000 per year) to purchase trips at an average per trip cost of approximately $14.00.
Trip volume and cost increased during the second quarter of the year. Actual and projected expenses for the YTD
periods of Oct - Feb, Oct - March and Oct - April exceed the YTD budget by 2.21%, 3.57% and 4.94 %
respectively. Using the February trip volume for the remainder of the Fiscal Year staff estimates a shortfall of
$62,000 (11.75%).
On February 21, 2001 staff notified the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) of the shortfall. The LCB recommended
that limited trip priorities be used to reduce trip volume and stay within budget. Based on February 2001 trip data
limited use of trip priorities has proved insufficient to stay within budget. During a February 2000 LCB meeting,
staffwas directed to notify the BCC in the event of any furore funding shortfalls. Based on the two LCB directives,
staff offers two alternatives for the Boards consideration and direction:
1) That the Board increase funds for the Transportation Disadvantaged program (Paratransit)
2) That the Board direct staff to limit Paratransit trips to stay within the original budget by using the trip
prioritization policy.
FISCAL IMPACT: Increase FY2001 Paratransit funds by $62,000 from the General Fund.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the County adopted Growth Management
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board increase County funds for the Paratransit program by $62,000 for the
remainder of FY2001 and direct staff to notify intelitran, the Paratransit management entity, to limit each month's
County expenses to an amount not to exceed $51,091 for the remainder of the year (May-September) and approve
any budget amendr~_ entp~ecessalry to use these funds.
Prepared by: ' .Date: 04/05/01
David lic Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Date: 04/05/01 Dawn Wolfe, Transportation Planning Director
Approved by: Date: 04/05/01
Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator
APR 2 2001
Pg.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SHIRLEY CONROY
RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT APPLICATION
WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED (CTD).
OBJECTIVE: To approve the attached Shirley Conroy Grant application and resolution authorizing the
Chairman of the BCC to file and execute the application and to sign any and all agreements or contracts
which are required in connection with the application.
CONSIDERATION: Transportation Staff received the Shirley Conroy Application and Policy Manual
during the latter part of January 2001. Staff completed and hand delivered the grant application prior to the
January 31, 2001 submission deadline. (There was insufficient time to seek BCC approval prior to the
deadline) The attached Resolution authorizes the Chairman of the BCC to file and execute the application
and to sign any and all agreements or contracts which are required in connection with the application.
In February, the CTD notified Staffthat Collier County would receive $113,400 in State Funds from this
grant for the purchase ora vehicle to be used for public transportation in the rural area. Funds from this
grant will be made available after July 1,2001. The application must be accompanied by the attached
Resolution.
.,-~ FISCAI=_ IMPACT;. This is a reimbursement grant. The $126,000 purchase price for the vehicle will be
,. supplied from General Fund pooled cash and will be reimbursed upon receipt of the grant Commission
for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) will reimburse 90% ($113,400) of the Capital cost and two
Marco resorts have tentatively agreed to provide the 10% cash match ($12,600).
If the resorts do not provide the 10% match, the vehicle will be used in the Immokalee area only and the
cash match would be required from the General Fund.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the County adopted Growth
Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the application and grant
agreement, authorize the Public Transportation Manager to sign any agreements, contracts, assurances,
reimbursements invoices, warranties and certifications which may be required in connection with this
application, and approve any budget amendments necessary to receive and use these funds.
Date: 03/30/01
ager
3ortation Services Administrator
Date: 03130101
Date:03/30/01
APR 2 2001
Pg.
EXHIBIT A
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM
FOR THE SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL
EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
1. DATE SUBMITTED:January 28~ 2001
2. LEGAL NAME OF APPLICANT: Collier County BCC
3. FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 59-6000558
4. REMITTANCE ADDRESS: 3301 East Tamiami Trail
5. CITY AND STATE: Naples, F1
6. CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS GRANT: David P. Hope
7. PHONE NUMBER: (941) 592-9768
8. (REQUIRED) E-MAIL ADDRESS:
9. PROJECT LOCATION (County(les)):
10. PROPOSED START DATE: JuN 1, 2001
11 a. ESTIMATED PROJECT FUNDING:
ZIP CODE: 34112
State $ 446,400.00
Local $ 49~600.00
TOTAL $ 496.000.00
FAX NUMBER: (941) 592-5763
davidhope~colliergov.net
Collier
ENDING DATE: September 30, 2002
Shirley Con_roy Grant Application
Rev. 01/09/01
12. I hereby certify that this document has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant,
and the applicant intends to complete the project, and to comply with any attached assurances if the
assistance is awarded.
DULY PASSED ~a24D ADOPTED THIS
__.DAY OF ,2001
AT'I~ST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
COIJJER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COM2~flSSIONERS
By:.
JAMES D. C.MRTER, CHAIRM,M,4
.&PPROVED AS TO FO1CM .~ND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
I~IDI A~[-tT'ON, ASSIST_-LNT COUNTY ATTOtL~EY
13. Local Coordinating Board Approval (must be prior to grant execution)
I hereby certify, that this grant has been reviewed in its entirety by the Collier County Local Coordinating
Board.
COO BOARD CHAIRPERSONS SIGNATURJ~
02/21/01
DATE
Shirley Conrov Grant Application
Rev. 01/09/0~
AG M
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED PROJECT FUNDING
Proiect Description and Cost
Capiml equipment 1. Two medium size buses & equipment
2. One modified van & equipment
3. Five 14 passenger vans and capital maintenance
252,000.00
44,000.00
200,000.00
II. Funding Participation
Ao
Total Project Cost
Transportation Disadvantaged
Trust Funds
Cash Local Match
Total Project Cost
(9o%) $ 446.400.00
(10%) $ 49,600.00
$ 496.000.00
$ 496~000.00
III. Estimated cash-flow of STATE ~rant funds only ( $ x 1000)
Only complete this section if desired cash flow is different than one twelfth of state funds per month.
2001 2002
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001
$266,400.00 $180,000
2002
fir. ley Con.roy Grant Application
Kev. 01/09/01
APR 2 J~ 200!
EXHIBIT C
SCOPE
Who:
The town of Immokalee is located in the North East comer of Collier County and is approximately 30 miles
from Ft Myers to the North West and 40 miles to Naples to the South West.
In large part, Immokalee is a migrant worker town at peak season (Oct-May) the esrirn-ted population is
35,547; non peak population 19,9771. The dty is diversified with several ethmc groups including Mexican,
Haitian, Guatemalan, Central American and Anglo.
The majority of the jobs held by the people of Immokalee are in agriculture (oranges, tomatoes, peppers,
watermelon) and a small percentage are in the hotels in Naples and Marco Island. The scales are beginning
to tip away from agriculture as crop types change and technology breaks into grove picking. Much of the
transportation provided to the grove workers is from private entrepreneurs or the employers themselves.
Transportation to the groves is provided in a number of ways ranging from the back of a pickup truck to
old school buses.
Many residents of Immokalee walk or ride their bicycles to services, appointments and shopping. There is
very limited shopping available to Immokalee residents. Several residents report that the only full-scale
grocery store sells sub-standard food at inflated prices. Small "mom and pop" stores make up the rest of the
food sales businesses.
What:
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners is requesting funds in the amount of $446,400.00. This
will be matched with local funds in the amount of $49,600.00. Funds from this grant will be used to
purchase two (2) medium buses, one (1) modified van and five (5) 14-passenger vans. The medium size
buses and the modified van will .replace vehicles currently in service and will allow service to continue at
the existing level. The vehicles scheduled for replacement have exceeded their useful life and must be
replaced if normal service is to continue. The five 14 passenger vans will be used for the vanpool program
scheduled to start m October.
Shirley Con_roy Grant Application
Rev. (51/09/01
APR 2 200!
Where:
Recently, a five year Public Transportation Development Plan was produced by Center for Urban
Transportation Research (CUTR) under contract with the Collier County Metropolitan Planning
Organization. The plan analyzed Collier County communities to determine public transportation needs in
order to develop options for meeting those needs. Several points from the report should be noted here:
The plan identified Irnmokalee's community as being made up of individuals with high and very
high propensity to use transit.
Three hotels in Marco Island are currently leasing vans, from a company called VlaSI, Inc., to
transport employees from Immokalee to hotel locations on Marco Island. These vanpools are being
driven by volunteers who are employees of the hotel and participants in the vanpool~.
Recently the Immokalee Transportation Committee, CTAA and Collie-z County Planning Depaxtment surveyed
approximately 1000 residents and workers in Immokalee to detenmine the need for transportation services in
Immokalee. The number of surveys returned totaled 392 or almost 40%. Considerable information was learned
from the survey and highlights are listed below.
80% (312) of those surveyed are year round residents; 20% (80) are not.
· 57% (223) do not have a vehicle to use; 41% (162) do have a vehicle to use.
62% (243) of those surveyed have a job and 37% (146) do not.
IfImmokalee public transportation were awil,ble 83%(324) would use it for food shopping, 73%(288)
for medical appointments and 73%(285) for employment. 25%(98) for personal reasons, 17%(66) for
recreation, and 11%(45) to take their child to daycare.
· If public transportation were available 59%(231) would take between one and five trips a week.
33%(131) between six and ten, and 8%01) between 11-20 trips a week.
A second survey was conducted on coastal employers to detem'dne their need for hiring Immokalee residents.
The survey was sent to 125 companies in the hospitality, landscaping, golf and country club and general
contractor industries. Respondents totaled 25 companies with several adding comruents expressing the extreme
need for reliable transportation. Of the companies replying, three stated that they were providing transportation
service for their employees. The three combined to transport over 100 employees to the job site.
Skirley Con_roy Grant Application
Rev. 01/09/01
Ft.
When:
The vehicles wil] be ordered through the Florida Vehicle Procurement Program (FVPP) as soon as the grant
agreement is executed. If the grant is executed on July 1, 2001, the two Larger vehicles should be delivered and
placed in service by January 1, 2002. The smaller modified van should be available and in service by October 1
2001. ,
The five 14 passenger vans vd. ll be in service by November 2001.
Funding for these vehicles is essential if service is to continue. Collier County ctmrenfly provides over
$500,000 each year to provide transit service. The current fleet of vehicles is inadequate due to their age and
condition. If this grant is not approved, Collier County may be forced to use some of the Local Operating
funds to purchase replacement vehicles. If this happens, trips will be reduced and many passengers may not
have access to medical, shopping and other life sustaining transportation.
Shirley Conzoy Grant Application
Rev. 01/09/01
~~M
APR 2 2001
How:
Transportation services will be provided to Rural passengers traveling within Immokalee on the Circulator, and
to those requiring transportation to Naples and Marco Island.
Service on the Circulator within lmmokalee started on May 1, 2000. Operating assistance for this service is
provided by FTA Section 5311 funds. One of r_he two medium size buses (i/awarded) will be used on this route.
Service has been interrupted on several occasions due the condition of the current vehicle. The modified van (i/
awarded) will be used to replace a vehicle currently providing door-to-door service in Immokalee.
The second medium size bus Cffawarded) will be used to provide service between Immokalee and Marco Islan&
As mentioned above, many of the hotels on the Island have jobs to offer Immokalee residents. However,
transportation from Immokalee to Marco is not available.
The five 14 passenger vans will be used for the vanpool program. Collier County will leverage funds through a
pubhc-private partnership program. Hotels and other employers willing to rnaximize the use of the vehicles by
providing drivers and scheduling "multi-trip" vanpool routes will be offered a vehicle and maintenance program.
The employers will be responsible for driver costs, fuel and insurance. These routes will provide a unique
opportunity for Rural Collier County residents to obtain employment in the urban areas of ColLier and Lee
Counties.
Collier County will provide the 10% match for the grant.
Why:
Collier County, currendy provides over $500,000 in local funds to supplement transportation services within the
County,. If this grant is awarded, service will not only continue, it will improve and trips will increase. Without
the two medium size buses and one modified van, service may be reduced as current funds are used to purchase
replacement vehicles.
The five 14 passenger vans will be used for a umque vanpool program that incorporates a pubhc-private
parmership. Various employers (hotels) have expressed a desperate need for some sort of transportation
assistance. Some have described the economic infeasibility of current methods of providing transportation to
Immokalee residents. This program (if the grant is awarded) may be a model for other rural areas of the State.
Finally, the vanpool program will fill the "gaps" that will exist in transit services during off hours and in areas
not service by transit.
Shirley Conroy Grant Applicadon
Rev. 01/09/01
'APR 2 6 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SHIRLEY CONROY
RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT APPLICATION
WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners has the
authority to file this Grant Application and to undertake a transportation disadvantaged
service project as authorized by Section 427.0159, Florida Statutes, and Rule 41-2,
Florida Administrative Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD THAT:
The BOARD has the authority to file this grant application.
The BOARD authorizes James D. Carter, Chairman to file and execute the
application on behalf of the Collier County BCC with the Florida Commission
for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
The BOARD authorizes James D. Caner, Chairman, to sign any and all
agreements or contracts which are required in connection with the application.
The BOARD authorizes David P. Hope, Public Transportation Manager, to
sign any and all assurances, reimbursement invoices, warranties, and
certifications which may be required in connection with the application or
subsequent agreements.
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS
ATTEST:
COUNTY
DW'iGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
~DAY OF ,2001
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
CO~.frSSIONERS
By:
JAMES D. CARTER,
CHAIRMAN
APP~RO/VED AS TO FORM &ND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
EIDI )~SHtI=ON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A SHIRLEY CONROY
RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT APPLICATION
WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners has the
authority to file this Grant Application and to undertake a transportation disadvantaged
service project as authorized by Section 427.0159, Florida Statutes, and Rule 41-2,
Florida Administrative Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD THAT:
The BOARD has the authority to file this grant application.
The BOARD authorizes James D. Carter, Chairman to file and execute the
application on behalf of the Collier County BCC with the Florida Commission
for the Transportation Disadvantaged. .
The BOARD authorizes James D. Carter, Chairman, to sign any and all
agreements or contracts which are required in connection with the application.
The BOARD authorizes David P. Hope, Public Transportation Manager, to
sign any and all assurances, reimbursement invoices, warranties, and
certifications which may be required in connection with the application or
subsequent agreements.
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS
DAY OF ,2001
ATTEST:
COUNTY
DX~'iGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
CONEMISSIONERS
By:
APPROVED AS TO, FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
P~EIDI )~SiqTON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
By:
JAMES D. CARTER,
CHAIRMAN
AG M
APR 2 11 2001
EXHIBIT E
STANDARD ASSURANCES
The recipient hereby assures and certifies that:
(1) The recipient will comply with the federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, executive orders,
and administrative requirements which relate to discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion, sex, age, and handicap with respect to employment, service provision, and procurement.
(2) Public and private for-profit, transit and paratransit operators have been or will be afforded a fair
and timely opportunity by the local recipient to participate to the maximum extent feasible in the
planning and provision of the proposed transportation planning services.
(3) The recipient has the requisite fiscal, managerial, and legal capacity to carry out the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program and to receive and disburse State funds.
(4) The recipient intends to accomplish all tasks as identified in this grant application.
(5) Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Funds will not be used to supplant or replace existing
federal, state, or local government funds.
(6) Capita/equipment purchased through this grant meets or exceeds the criteria set forth in the
Florida Department of Transportation's equipment specifications "Guidelines for Acquiring
Vehicles" dated October 1993 (or as updated), "Part 1, Bid Documents," dated July 1995 (or as
updated), and "part 2, Specification Guidelines for Specialized Vehicles," dated July 1993 (or as
updated), or criter/a set forth by any other federal, state, or local government agency.
(7) Capital equipment or consultant services purchased through this grant comply with the
competitive procurement requirements of Chapter 287 and Chapter 427, Florida Statutes.
(8) If capital equipment is purchased through this grant, the demand responsive service offered to
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, is equivalent to the level
and quality of service offered to individuals without disabilities. Such service, when viewed in
its entirety, is provided in the most integrated setting feasible and is equivalent with respect to:
(a)
response time,
fares,
geographic service area,
hours and days of service,
restrictions on trip purpose,
availability of information and reservation capability, and
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Shirley Corn:or Grant Apphcation
Rev. (51/09/0~I
contracts on capacity or service availability.
APR 2 2001
Pg. [/
In accordance with 49 CFR Part 37, public entities operating demand responsive systems for the
general public which receive financial assistance under Sections 5310 or 5311 of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) have filed a certification with the appropriate state program office
before procuring any inaccessible vehicle. Such public entities not receiving FTA funds have
also filed a certification with the appropriate program office. Such public entities receiving FTA
funds under any other section of the FTA have filed a certification with the appropriate FTA
regional office.
This certification is valid for no longer than the contract period for which the grant application is
filed.
Date:
Signature:
Name: David P. Hope
Tide: Public Transportation Manager
Shirley Con.roy Grant Application
Rev. 01/09/01
AGEN ,Id
APR 2 J! 2001
_
EXHIBIT F
CURRENT VEHICLE AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
INVENTORY FORM
Name of CTC: Collier County BCC
1997
Vehicle Make
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
STAR TRAN
SUPREME
STAR TRAN
STAR TRAN
SUPREME
STAR TRAN
INTERNATIONAL
STAR TRAN
YIN #
181048
FY2001
92114 1FDKE30FSHB19761 F'Y2001
181049 t FY2001
181047 1FDLE40FXTHB62052 y
181042~ FY2001
181051 ~
181035 ~ 1HVDBABKXSH664404 FY2001
181061 I 1FDLE405'r'HB62086
95154 1FDLE40F6VHB8871
181041 1FDKE30FLSHB17327 FY2001
181050 1FDLE40F56THB620!
18103.__.~6 _IHVBDABN 1SH664365
92153 ~ FY2001
KNAFB1213Y5907112
_.._JKNAFB 1212Y5907246
IKNAFB1210Y5912171
_KNAFB1210Y5905883
__ KNAFB1219Y5882345
2FMDA5147VVBA302
~FMDA5145WBB84!
2FMDA5143WBB77979
~ 1LNLM83F________SLY620
_ I LNCM81WXMY75
1LCM81WgMY665
2FACP74W6NX171365
FORD
THOMAS
FORD
FORD
STAR TRAN
FORD
SUPREME
FORD
THOMAS
FORD
STAR TRAN
INTERNATIONAL
KiaSofia
KiaSofla
KiaSofia
KiaSofia
KiaSofla
FordVan
FordVan
Fo rdVa.____._~n
Ford Crown Vic l
STAR TRAN
Note: All vehicles marked with (*) need to be replaced.
FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
F-Y2001
Source
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
FDOT
'firley Conroy Grant Appl/cafion
..er. 01/09/01
AGEN~DA I,.~EM
APR 2 2001
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
GRANT AGREEMENT CHECKLIST
Please use this checldist on all Grant Agreements, Supplemental Grant Agreements, and
Agreement Terminations to insure validity of the Agreement.
Original signatures must appear on at least one copy of the agreement.
Be sure authorized parties type or neatly print rifles and names on all copies to
insure clarity.
Be sure to include a resolution or certified minutes from the agency authorizing
signing of the agreement by an individual. The resolution must have original
signatures; the minutes must be certified copies. The current grant
application includes a sample resolution (Exhibit C of the application).
Signatures on the agreements must be attested to by one affirming official and
sealed (corporate or notary seal). Resolutions or certified minutes should also
be sealed and attested to.
Do not f'fll in any dates on the agreements.
Return the four signed copies for further processing to:
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 49
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
1/24/95
We will mail you a copy of the agreement after the Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged has executed it.
Do not incur costs against this project until the Commission for the
Transportation has executed this agreement and you have the notice to proceed
from the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
APR 2 JI 2001
SAMAS Approp: 088846 Fund: TDTF FM/Job No(s).:
SAMAS Obj.' 790056 Function: 035 CSFA No.: 55001
Org Code: 55 12 00 00 952 Contract No.: Vendor No.: 596-000-558--107
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , by and
between the STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED, created
pursuant to Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, hereina/~er called the Commission and
Collier County Board of County Commissioners, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112
hereinafter called the Grantee.
WITNE S SETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantee has the authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake the Project hereinafter
described, and the Commission has been granted the authority to use Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund
moneys to subsidize a portion ora transportation disadvantaged person's transportation costs which is not sponsored
by an agency, and/or capital equipment purchased for the provision of transportation services and other
responsibilities identified in Chapter 427, Florida Statutes or rules thereof,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and representations herein, the patti
agree as follows:
1.00 Purpose of Agreement: The purpose of this Agreement is to:
Provide financial assistance to Community Transportation Coordinators in rural areas for the purchase of
capital equipment. These grant funds are to be expended and utilized in accordance with the Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund in Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code,
Commission policies, the Application and Policy Manual for the Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment
Support Grant as revised on January 9, 2001
and as further described in Exhibit(s) A, B, C attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, hereinat~er
called the Project; and, to provide financial assistance to the Grantee and state the terms and conditions upon which
such financial assistance will be provided and the understandings as to the manner in which the Project will be
undertaken and completed.
APR 2 2001
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agr~ment 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
Page 1 of 18 pages
~-~00 Accomplishment of the Project:
2.10 General Requirements: The Grantee shall commence, and complete the Project as described in
Exhibit "C" with all practical dispatch, in a sound, economical, and efficient manner, and in accordance with
the provisions herein, and all applicable laws.
2.20 Pursuant to Federal, State, and Local Law: In the event that any election, referendum, approval,
permit, notice, or other proceeding or authorization is requisite under applicable law to enable the Grantee to
enter into this Agreement or to undertake the Project hereunder, or to observe, assume or carry out any of the
provisions of the Agreement, the Grantee will initiate and consummate, as provided by law, all actions
necessary with respect to any such matters so requisite.
2.30 Funds of the Grantee: The Grantee shall initiate and prosecute to completion all proceedings
necessary to enable the Grantee to provide the necessary funds for completion of the Project.
2.40 Submission of Proceedings, Contracts and Other Documents and Products: The Grantee shall
submit to the Commission such data, reports, records, contracts, certifications and other financial or
operational documents or products relating to the Project as the Commission may require under this
agreement including those listed in Exhibit "C". Failure by the Grantee to provide such documents, or
provide other documents or products required by previous agreements between the Commission and the
Grantee, may, at the Commission's discretion, result in refusal to reimburse project funds.
2.50 Incorporation by Reference: The Grantee and Commission agree that by entering into this
Agreement, the parties explicitly incorporate by reference into this Agreement the law and provisions of
Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the Application and Policy
Manual for the Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant as revised on January 9, 2001.
3.00 Total Project Cost: The total estimated cost of the Project is $ 126,000.00. This amount is based upon the
estimate summarized in Exhibit "B" and by this reference made a part hereof. The Grantee agrees to bear all
expenses in excess of the total estimated cost of the Project and any deficits involved, including any deficits revealed
by an audit performed in accordance with Article 11.00 hereof after completion of the project.
4.00 Commission Participation: The Commission agrees to maximum participation, including contingencies, in
the Project in the amount ors 113,400.00 as detailed in Exhibit "B", or in an amount equal to the percentage(s) of
total actual project cost shown in Exhibit "B", whichever is less.
4.10 Eligible Costs: Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Funds, derived
exclusively from the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund, may only be used by the Commission and the
Grantee to subsidize a portion of the purchase of capital equipment, and then only ifa match, as specified in
the Application and Policy Manual for the Shirley Com'oy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant is
provided by the Grantee.
4.20 Eligible Project Expenditures: Project costs eligible for State participation will be allowed only from
the date of this Agreement. It is understood that State participation in eligible project costs is subject to:
APR 2 2001
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Crmnt Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
Page ~ page3
a) The understanding that disbursement of funds will be made in accordance with the Commission'=-
cash forecast;
b) Availability of funds as stated in Article 17.00 of this Agreement;
c) Commission approval of the project scope and budget (Exhibits A, B & C) at the time
appropriation authority becomes available.
d) Submission of all certifications, invoices, detailed supporting documentation, or other obligating
documents and all other terms of this agreement;
4.30 Front End Funding: Front end funding is not applicable.
5.00 Retainage: Retainage is not applicable.
6.00 Project Budget and Disbursement Schedule:
6.10 The Project Budget: The Grantee shall maintain the Commission approved Project Budget, as set
forth in Exhibit "B", carry out the Project, and shall incur obligations against and make disbursements of
Project funds only in conformity with the latest approved budget for the Project. The budget may be revised
periodically, but no budget revision shall be effective unless it complies with fund participation requirements
established in Article 4.00 of this Agreement and is approved in writing by the Commission. Any budget
revision which changes the fund participation requirements established in Article 4.00 of this agreement shall
not be effective unless approved in writing by the Commission and the Florida Department of Transportation
Comptroller.
6.20 Schedule of Disbursements: The Grantee shall abide by the Commission approved disbursemen.
schedule, contained in Exhibit "B". This schedule shall show estimated disbursement of Commission funds
for the entire term of the Project by month or quarter of the fiscal year in accordance with Commission fiscal
policy. The schedule may be divided by Project phase where such division is determined to be appropriate by
the Commission. Any significant deviation from the approved schedule in Exhibit "B" requires advance
submission of a supplemental schedule by the agency and advance approval by the Commission.
Reimbursement for the Commission's share of the project shall not be made for an amount greater than the
cumulative total up to any given month as indicated in the disbursement schedule in Exhibit "B".
7.00 Accounting Records, Audits and Insurance:
7.10 Establishment and Maintenance of Accounting Records: The Grantee shall establish for the
Project, in conformity with the latest current uniform requirements established by the Commission to facilitate
the administration of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Funds financing program, either separate
accounts to be maintained within its existing accounting system, or establish independent accounts. Such
financing accounts are referred to herein collectively as the "Project Account". The Project Account, and
detailed documentation supporting the Project Account, must be made available upon request, without cost,
to the Commission any time during the period of the Agreement and for five years after final payment is made
or if any audit has been initiated and audit findings have not been resolved at the end of five years, the records
shall be retained until resolution of the audit findings. ABENg~ ~}/i
No.
APR 2
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
Page 3 of 18 pages
Shid~y Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
7.20 Funds Received Or Made Available for The Project: The Grantee shall appropriately record in the
Project Account, and deposit in a bank or trust company which is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, all non-sponsored transportation payments received by it from the Commission pursuant to this
Agreement and all other funds provided for, accruing to, or otherwise received on account of the Project,
which Commission payments and other funds are herein collectively referred to as "Project Funds". The
Grantee shall require depositories of Project Funds to secure continuously and fully all Project Funds in excess
of the amounts insured under Federal plans, or under State plans which have been approved for the deposit of
Project funds by the Commission, by the deposit or setting aside of collateral of the types and in the manner as
prescribed by State law for the security of public funds, or as approved by the Commission.
7.30 Costs Incurred fOr the Project: The Grantee shall charge to the Project Account only eligible costs of
the Project. Costs in excess of the latest approved budget, costs which are not within the statutory criteria for
the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund, or attributable to actions which have not met the other
requirements of this Agreement, shall not be considered eligible costs.
7.40 Documentation of Project Costs: All costs charged to the Project, including any approved services
contributed by the Grantee or others, shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices,
contracts, driver's manifests, vouchers, vehicle titles, and detailed supporting documentation evidencing in
proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. Records must be kept to show how the value placed on
third party transactions was derived.
7.50 Checks, Orders, and Vouchers: Any check or order drawn by the Grantee with respect to any
item which is or will be chargeable against the Project Account will be drawn only in accordance with a
properly signed voucher then on file in the office of the Grantee stating in proper detail the purpose for
which such check or order is drawn. All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders, or other
accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to the Project shall be clearly identified, readily
accessible, within the Grantee's existing accounting system, and, to the extent feasible, kept separate and
apart from all other such documents.
7.60 Audit Reports: The Grantee shall provide for each of its fiscal years for which the Project Account
remains open, an audit report prepared either by its official auditor or audit agency or an independent certified
public accountant, reflecting the use of the non-sponsored transportation funds of the Commission, the
Grantee, and those from any other source with respect to the Project. Audits shall be conducted under the
guidelines of the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Section 216.349,
Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10.600, Rules of the Auditor General. For Grantee fiscal years beginning
on or before June 30, 1998, the reporting packages and data collection forms shall be submitted to the CTD
regional manager by the Grantee within the earlier of 30 days after the receipt of the auditor's report, or 13
months after the end of the subrecipient's fiscal year. For fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1998, the
reporting packages and data collection forms are to be submitted within the earlier of 30 days after the receipt
of the auditor's report, or 9 months after the end of the Grantee's fiscal year. For audits conducted only under
Section 216.349, Florida Statutes, the report is to be submitted within the earlier of 30 days after the receipt
of the auditor's report, or 12 months after the end of the Grantee's fiscal year. The date the audit report was
delivered to the Grantee must be indicated by the Grantee in correspondence accompanying the audit report,
or reporting package, and data collection form. The Grantee shall follow up and take corrective action on
audit findings. OMB Circular A-133 further requires the preparation ofa summ: .',,
findings and a corrective action plan for current year audit findings-The Grantee sl lill{~.~~f~orst~
APR 2 2001
~ge 4 of 1 ~J~es
determine compliance with Article 12.00 and Paragraph 8.26, and Exhibit "A", "Special Considerations by
Grantee".
7.70 Insurance: The Grantee shall carry insurance on Project vehicles and equipment, and guarantee liability
for minimum coverage as follows:
7.71 Liability: Liability coverage in an amount orS100,000 for any one (1) person, $200,000 per
occurrence at all times in which Project vehicles or equipment are engaged in approved project
activities. The Grantee shall insure that contracting Transportation Operators also maintain the same
minimum liability insurance, or an equal governmental insurance program.
7.72 Collision: Collision, fire, their, and comprehensive coverage in any amount required to pay for
any damages to the Project vehicle(s) and equipment including restoring to its then market value or
replacement.
7.73 Property Insurance: The Grantee shall carry fire, theft, and comprehensive coverage property
insurance, with replacement cost value, on equipment, other than vehicles, purchased with
Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Funds.
7.74 Other Insurance: The above required insurance will be primary to any other insurance coverage
that may be applicable.
8.00 Requisitions and Payments:
8.10 Preliminary Action by the Grantee: In order to obtain any Transportation Disadvantaged Trust
Funds, the Grantee shall:
8.11 File with the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, 605 Suwannee Street, Mail
Station 49, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0450, its requisition on form or forms prescribed by the
Commission, and such other detailed supporting documentation pertaining to the Project Account and the
Project (as listed in Exhibit "C" hereof') as the Commission may require, to justify and support the
payment requisitions, invoices, and vouchers, including, at a minimum:
(1)the date the Grantee incurred project costs and equipment, vehicles or other property or services
associated with the Project;
(2)a statement by the Grantee certifying that the Grantee has acquired the property or services;
(3)the actual consideration paid for the property; and
(4)an attestation, on the form or forms prescribed l/y the Commission, from the head of the
Grantee, under the penalties of perjury, that the Grantee has complied with the provisions of the
Grant Agreement. The designated signatory of the Grantee must sign the following attestation
which appears on all Commission form invoices and requisitions:
8.12
I certify, under penalty of perjury, that the aforesaid listing is tr
Agency has complied with the provisions of the Agreement.
Comply with all applicable provisions of this Agreement.
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
and e~rreet and
AGENDA i~'EM
.o.
APR 2 2001 !
l
Po.
age 5 of l'-~Pa--ges
8.20 The Commission's Obligations: Subject to other provisions hereof, the Commission will honor such
requisitions in amounts and at times deemed by the Commission to be proper and in accordance with this
Agreement to ensure the completion of the Project and payment of the eligible costs. However,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Commission may give written notice to the
Grantee that it will refuse to make a payment to the Grantee on the Project Account if:
8.21 Misrepresentation: The Grantee has made misrepresentations of a material nature in its
application, or any supplement thereto or amendment thereof, with respect to any document or record
of data or certification furnished therewith or pursuant hereto;
8.22 Litigation: There is pending litigation with respect to the performance by the Grantee of any of
its duties or obligations which may jeopardize or adversely affect the Project, the Agreement, or
payments to the Project;
8.23 Required Submittals/Certifications: The Grantee has failed or refused to provide to the
Commission detailed documentation of requisitions or certifications of actions taken;
8.24 Conflict of Interests: There has been any violation of the conflict of interest provisions,
prohibited interests, or lobbying restrictions, contained herein;
8.25 Default: The Grantee has been determined by the Commission to be in default under any of the
provisions of this or any other Agreement which the Grantee has with the Commission; or
8.26 Supplanting of Funds: The Grantee has used Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Funds to
replace or supplant available and appropriate funds for the same purposes, in violation of Chapter 427,
Florida Statutes.
8.30 Disallowed Costs: In determining the amount ofthe Grantee's payment, the Commission will exclude
all costs incurred by the Grantee prior to the effective date of this Agreement, costs which are not provided
for in the latest approved budget for the Project, costs which are not within the statutory criteria for the
Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund, and costs attributable to goods, equipment, vehicles or services
received under a contract or other arrangements which have not been approved in writing by the Commission
or certified by the Grantee, pursuant to Exhibit "C".
8.40 Invoices for Goods or Services: Invoices for goods or services or expenses provided or incurred
pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted in detail sufficient for a proper preaudit and postaudit
thereof. Failure to submit to the Commission detailed supporting documentation with the invoice or
request for project funds will be cause for the Commission to refuse to pay the amount claimed by the
Grantee until the Commission is satisfied that the criteria set out in Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, Rule
41-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the Application and Policy Manual for the Shirley Conroy Rural
Area Capital Equipment Support Grant as revised on January 9, 2001 is met.
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
8.50 Commission Claims: If, after project completion, any claim is made by the Commission resulting
from an audit o:- for work or services performed pursuant to this agreement, the Commission ma~/offset_
such amount from payments due for work or services done under any grant agrTm~o.q.~g;l~.. )~iMwith
APR 2 2001
Pa e 6 of 18...~l~es
the Grantee owing such amount if, upon demand, payment of the amount is not made within (60) days to
the Commission. Offsetting any amount pursuant to this section shall not be considered a breach e
contract by the Commission.
9.00 Termination or Suspension of Project:
9.10 Termination or Suspension Generally: If the Grantee abandons or, before completion, finally
discontinues the Project; or if, by reason of any of the events or conditions set forth in Section 8.20, or for any
other reason, the commencement, prosecution, or timely completion of the Project by the Grantee is rendered
improbable, infeasible, impossible, or illegal, the Commission may, by written notice to the Grantee, suspend
any or all of its obligations under this Agreement until such time as the event or condition resulting in such
suspension has ceased or been corrected, or the Commission may terminate any or all of its obligations under
this Agreement.
9.20 Action Subsequent to Notice of Termination or Suspension. Upon receipt of any final termination
or suspension notice under this Paragraph, the Grantee shall proceed promptly to carry out the actions
required therein which may include any or all of the following: (1) necessary action to terminate or suspend,
as the case may be, Project activities and contracts and such other action as may be required or desirable to
keep to the minimum the costs upon the basis of which the financing is to be computed; (2) furnish a
statement of the project activities and contracts, and other undertakings the cost of which are othe~vise
includable as Project costs; and (3) remit to the Commission such portion of the financing and any advance
payment previously received as is determined by the Commission to be due under the provisions of the
Agreement. The termination or suspension shall be carried out in conformity with the latest schedule, plan_
and budget as approved by the Commission or upon the basis of terms and conditions imposed by th~
Commission upon the failure of the Grantee to furnish the schedule, plan, and budget within a reasonable
time. The acceptance of' a remittance by the Grantee shall not constitute a waiver of any claim which the
Commission may otherwise have arising out of this Agreement.
9.30 Public Access to Records: The Commission reserves the fight to unilaterally cancel this agreement for
refusal by the Grantee or its contractors to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, records or
other materials subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received in
conjunction with this agreement.
10.00 Remission of Project Account Upon Completion of Project: Upon completion and a~er financial audit of
the Project, and after payment, provision for payment, or reimbursement of all Project costs payable fi.om the
Project Account is made, the Grantee shall remit to the Commission its share of any unexpended balance in the
Project Account.
11.00 Audit and Inspection: The Grantee shall permit, and shall require its contractors to permit, the
Commission's authorized representatives to inspect all work, materials, payrolls, records; and to audit the books,
records and accounts pertaining to the financing and development of the Project at all reasonable times including
upon completion of the Project, and without notice.
12.00 Contracts of the Grantee:
12.10 Third Party Agreements: The Grantee shall not execute any contract
requiring the disbursement of Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund mone
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
Pl~g~~/p ases
Let
3n
operator and consultant contracts or amendments thereto, with any third party with respect to the Project
without being able to provide a written certification by the Grantee that the contract or obligation was~
executed in accordance with the competitive procurement requirements of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes,
Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated by the Department of Management Services. Failure
to provide such certification, upon the Commission's request, shall be sufficient cause for nonpayment by the
Commission as provided in Paragraph 8.23. The Grantee agrees, that by entering into this Agreement, it
explicitly certifies that all of its third party contacts will be executed in compliance with this section.
12.20 Compliance with Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act: It is understood and agreed by the
parties hereto that participation by the Commission in a project with ~ Grantee, where the project involves a
consultant contract for any service, is contingent on the Grantee complying in full with provisions of Section
287.055, Florida Statutes, Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act. The Grantee shall certify compliance
with this law to the Commission for each consultant contract it enters.
12.30 Competitive Procurement: Procurement of all services, vehicles, equipment or other commodities
shall comply with the provisions of Section 287.057, Florida Statutes. Upon the Commission's request, the
Grantee shall certify compliance with this law.
13.00 Restrictions, Prohibitions, Controls, and Labor Provisions:
13.10 Equal Employment Opportunity: In connection with the carrying out of this Agreement, the
Grantee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, age,
disability, creed, color, sex or national origin. The Grantee will take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, age,
disability, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
Employment upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment adve~;:?~ g; layoff or termination;
rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, includinl~ ~;::.: mticeship. The Grantee
shall insert the foregoing provision modified only to show the particular contrac;ual relationship in all its
contracts in connection with the development of operation of the Project, except contracts for the standard
commercial supplies or raw materials, and shall require all such contractors to insert a similar provision in all
subcontracts, except subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. The Grantee shall post,
in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment for Project work, notices setting
forth the provisions of the nondiscrimination clause.
13.20 Title VI - Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Grantee must comply with all the requirements imposed by
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Statute 252), the Regulations of the Federal Department of
Transportation, the Regulations of the Federal Department of Justice and the assurance by the Grantee
pursuant thereto.
13.30 Prohibited Interests:
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
13.31 Contracts or Purchases: Unless authorized in writing by the Commission, no officer of the
Grantee, or employee acting in his or her official capacity as a purchasing agent, shall either directly or
indirectly purchase, rent, or lease any realty, goods, or services for the Grantee from any business entity
of which the officer or employee or the officer's or employee's business as: ::'~:*.: :.- :-:'-':* or child is an
wU h
APR 2 Ji 2001
P~ge lil~D8 pages
employee's spouse or child, or any combination of them, has a material interest.
13.32 Business Conflicts: Un/ess authorized in writing by the Commission, it is unlawful for an officer
or employee of the Grantee, or for any company, corporation, or firm in which an officer or employee of
the Grantee has a financial interest, to bid on, enter into, or be personally interested in the purchase or
the furnishing of any materials, services or supplies to be used in the work of this agreement or in the
performance of any other work for which the Grantee is responsible.
13.33 Solicitations: No officer or employee of the Grantee shall directly or indirectly solicit or accept
funds from any person who has, maintains, or seeks business relations with the Grantee.
13.34 Former Employees - Contractual Services: Unless authorized in writing by the Commission,
no employee of the Grantee shall, within 1 year after retirement or termination, have or hold any
employment or contractual relationship with any business entity in connection with any contract for
contractual services which was within his or her responsibility while an employee.
13.35 Former Employees - Consulting Services: The sum of money paid to a former employee of
the Grantee during the first year after the cessation of his or her responsibilities, by the Grantee, for
contractual services provided to the Grantee, shall not exceed the annual salary received on the date of
cessation of his or her responsibilities. The provisions of this section may be waived by the Grantee for a
particular contract if the Grantee determines, and the Commission approves, that such waiver will result
in significant time or cost savings for the Grantee and the project.
The Grantee shall insert in all contracts entered into in connection with this Agreement and shall require
its contractors to insert in each of their subcontracts, the following provision:
"No member, officer, or employee of the Grantee during his tenure or for one year thereafter shall
have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof."
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any agreement between the Grantee and its fiscal
depositories, or to any agreement for utility services the rates for which are fixed or controlled by a
Governmental agency.
13.40 Non-discrimination of Persons With Disabilities: The Grantee and any of its contractors or their
sub-contractors shall not discriminate against anyone on the basis of a handicap or disability (physical, mental
or emotional impairment). The Grantee agrees that no funds shall be used to rent, lease or barter any real
property that is not accessible to persons with disabilities nor shall any meeting be held in any facility unless
the facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. The Grantee shall also assure compliance with The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as it may be amended fi-om time to time.
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
13.50 Lobbying Prohibition:' No Grantee may use any funds received pursuant to this Agreement for the
purpose of lobbying the Legislature, the judicial branch, or a state agency. No Grantee may employ any
person or organization with funds received pursuant to this Agreement for the purpose of lobbying the
Legislature, the judicial branch, or a state agency. The "purpose of lobbying" includes, but is not limited to,
salaries, travel expenses and per diem, the cost for publication and distribution ot
lobbying; other printing; media; advertising, including production costs; postage; en e, ~ /de t$ // .
APR 2 2001
and telegraph; and association dues.
13.60 Public Entity Crimes: No Grantee shall accept any bid from, award any contract to, or transact any
business with any person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list for a period of 36 months from the date that
person or affiliate was placed on the convicted vendor list unless that person or affiliate has been removed
fi.om the list pursuant to section 287.133, Florida Statutes. The Grantee may not allow such a person or
affiliate to perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with the
Grantee. If the Grantee was transacting business with a person at the time of the commission of a public entity
crime which resulted in that person being placed on the convicted vendor list, the Grantee may also not accept
any bid fi.om, award any contract to, or transact any business with any other person who is under the same, or
substantially the same, control as the person whose name appears on the convicted vendor list so long as that
person's name appears on the convicted vendor list.
14.00 Miscellaneous Provisions:
14.10 Environmental Pollution: All Proposals, Plans, and Specifications for the acquisition, reconstruction,
or improvement of vehicles or equipment, shall show that such vehicles or equipment are equipped to prevent
and control environmental pollution.
14.20 Commission Not Obligated to Third Parties: The Commission shall not be obligated or liable
hereunder to any party other than the Grantee.
14.30 When Rights and Remedies Not Waived: In no event shall the making by the Commission of any
payment to the Grantee constitute or be construed as a waiver by the Commission of any breach of covenant
or any default which may then exist, on the part of the Grantee, and the making of such payment by the
Commission while any such breach or default shall exist shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or
remedy available to the Commission for such breach or default.
14.40 How Contract Affected by Provisions Being Held Invalid: If any provision of this Agreement is
held invalid, the provision shall be severable and the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. In such
an instance the remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law.
14.50 Bonus and Commissions: By execution of the Agreement the Grantee represents that it has not paid
and, also, agrees not to pay, any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining an approval of its
application for the financing hereunder.
14.60 State or Territorial Law: Nothing in the Agreement shall require the Grantee to observe or enforce
compliance with any provision thereof, perform any other act or do any other thing in contravention of any
applicable State or federal law: Provided, that if any of the provisions of the Agreement violate any applicable
State or federal law, the Grantee will at once notify the Commission in writing in order that appropriate
changes and modifications may be made by the Commission and the Grantee to the end that the Grantee may
proceed as soon as possible with the Project. , .....
14.70 Purchased Vehicles or Equipment:
14.71 Maintenance of Purchased Vehicles or Equipment:
Shid~2' Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipmmt Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form R~v. 1/09/01
APR 2 2 J]
The Gran' ,'e agrees to maintain tk
Page 10 of 18 pages
vehicles and equipment purchased or financed in whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement in gooO
working order for the useful life of the vehicles and equipment. The Grantee agrees not to mak,
alterations or modifications to the equipment or vehicles without the consent of the Commissi°n. Any
lease or assignment of operational responsibility of project vehicles and equipment is not allowed unless
approved in writing by the Commission.
14.72 Utilization: The Grantee agrees to assure that all Project equipment and vehicles, whether
leased or purchased, are used to meet the identified transportation needs of the transportation
disadvantaged and in support of the service plan established under the provisions of Rule 41-2, Florida
Administrative Code, to serve the transportation needs of the transportation disadvantaged of the area.
Leased and purchased Project equipment and vehicles shall be operated to their maximum possible
efficiency. Purchased vehicles and equipment will be used for the period of their useful lives in
accordance with the most current Commission policies. The Commission may, a.~er consultation with
the Grantee, transfer purchased equipment and vehicles that it deems to be underutilized or that is not
being operated for its intended purpose. This underutilized equipment and vehicles will be returned to
the Commission at a specified location at a mutually agreeable time. Reimbursement of any equity or
interest of the Grantee will be made a~er another party has assumed the obligations under the terms and
conditions of this Agreement or disposal of said items by sale has occurred. The Commission shall
make the sole determination of the Grantee's interest and reimbursement. As determined by the
Commission, failure to satisfactorily utilize vehicles and equipment which are leased with Project funds
shall be sufficient cause for non-payment by the Commission as provided in Paragraph 8.25.
14.73 Disposal of Purchased Project Equipment: Useful life of capital equipment is defined in the '~
Commission's Capital Equipment Procedure as incorporated herein by reference. The followin~
applicable process must be used prior to disposition of any capital equipment purchased with these grant
funds:
a) While the Grantee is still under contract with the Commission and the capital equipment still has
useful life, the Grantee must request written approval from the Commission prior to disposing of
any equipment purchased or financed in whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement, including
vehicles, during its useful life, for any purpose. Proceeds from the sale of purchased project
equipment and vehicles shall be documented in the project file(s) by the Grantee. With the approval
of the Commission, these proceeds may be re-invested for any purpose which expands
transportation disadvantaged services. If the Grantee does not elect to re-invest for purposes
which expand transportation disadvantaged services, the gross proceeds from sale shall be refunded
to the Commission in the same participation percentage ratios as were used to fund the original
purchase.
b) The purchase of all vehicles and equipment financed in whole or in part pursuant to this
Agreement shall be undertaken by the Grantee on behalf of the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged in accordance with State regulations and statutes. Title to any
vehicle purchased with Project funds shall be in the name of the Grantee, subject to lien in favor of
the Commission. The Commission will relinquish all interest in the vehicles and equipment when it
has reached the end of its useful life and at this time the Commission will satisfy its lien of record.
c) When a Grantee is no longer an eligible recipient of trip and equip
P
Shirley Conroy Rural A~a Capital Equipment Support Grant Agr~-m~nt 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
APR 2 200l
ge 1_
longer a Commission approved Community Transportation Coordinator, the capital equipment
with useful life purchased with these grant funds must be transferred to an eligible recipient in
accordance with the Commission's Capital Equipment Procedure or the Commission.
14.80 Accidents: Any accident involving leased or purchased vehicles, or vehicles under contract between
the community transportation coordinator and a transportation operator or coordination contractor paid in
whole or in part with trust fund money, must be reported to the Commission.
Accidents involving a fatality or fatalities must be reported to the Commission not more than 24 hours after
the community transportation coordinator becomes aware of the fatal accident. Any other accident, those not
involving a fatality or fatalities, with over $1,000 in property damages, must be reported to the Commission
not more than 72 hours after the community transportation coordinator becomes aware of the accident.
Copies of any accident reports prepared or received by the community transportation coordinator as a result
of any accident must be sent to the Commission upon receipt or preparation of the report.
15.00 Plans and Specifications: In the event that this agreement involves the purchasing of capital equipment or
major components thereof, upon the Commission's request the Grantee shall submit to the Commission, certification
that all such equipment meets or exceeds the requirements as identified in Exhibit "A". Failure to abide by this
requirement shall be sufficient cause for nonpayment by the Commission as provided in Paragraph 8.23.
16.00 Contractual Indemnity: To the extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, save, and
--~hold harmless the Commission and all their officers, agents or employees fi.om all suits, actions, claims, demands,
lid liability of any nature whatsoever arising out of, because o~, or due to breach of the agreement by the Grantee
or its subcontractors, agents or employees or due to any negligent act, or occurrence of omission or commission of
the Grantee, its subcontractors, agents or employees. Neither the Grantee nor any of its agents will be liable under
this article for damages arising out of injury or damage to persons or property directly caused or resulting fi.om the
sole negligence of the Commission or any of their officers, agents or employees. The parties agree that this clause
shall not waive the benefits or provisions of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes or any similar provision of law.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, no agency or subdivision of the state
shall be required to indemnify, insure, or assume any liability for the Commission's negligence.
17.00 Appropriation of Funds:
17.10 The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this agreement is contingent upon an
annual appropriation by the Legislature.
17.20 Multi-Year Commitment: Whereas the Commission is created in the Florida Department of
Transportation (Department) and assigned to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation for
administrative and fiscal accountability purposes; in the event this agreement is in excess of $25,000 and has a
term for a period of more than one year, the provisions of Section 339.135 (7)(a) and Section 287.058, Florida
Statutes, are hereby incorporated:
The Department, during any fiscal year, shall not expend money, incur am
contract which, by its terms, involves the expenditure of money in excess
available for expenditure during such fiscal year. Any contract, verbal or'
Shirley Conroy Rural Ama Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
liability, or enter into any
fth~'~l~,.~)geted ~s
APR 2 2001
this subsection shall be null and void, and no money may be paid on such contract. The Department
shall require a statement from the comptroller of the Department that funds are available prior to
entering into any such contract or other binding commitment of funds. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent the making of contracts for periods exceeding one year, but any contract so made shall be
executory only for the value of the services to be rendered or agreed to be paid for in succeeding
fiscal years; and this paragraph shall be incorporated verbatim in all contracts of the Department
which are for an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars and having a term for a period of
more than one year."
In the event that this Agreement is for more than one year, this Agreement may be renewed on a yearly basis
for a period of up to 2 years after the initial Agreement or for a period no longer than the term of the original
Agreement, whichever period is longer, on the condition that renewals shall be contingent upon satisfactory
performance evaluations by the Grantee and is subject to the availability of funds. The Commission's
performance and obligation to pay under any multi-year Agreement is explicitly contingent upon an annual
appropriation by the Legislature.
18.00 Expiration of Agreement: The Grantee agrees to complete the Project on or before September 30, 2001.
If the Grantee does not complete the Project within this time period, this agreement will expire unless an extension
of the time period is granted to the Grantee in writing by the Chairperson of the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged or designee. Expiration of this agreement will be considered termination of the Project and the
procedure established in Article 9.00 of this agreement shall be initiated. For the purpose of this Article, completion
of project is defined as the latest date by which services may have been provided or equipment funds may have been
expended or obligated under a purchase order, as provided in the project description (Exhibit "C"). Unless
otherwise extended by the Commission, all reimbursement invoices must be received by the Commission no later
than 90 days ai~er the expiration date of this agreement.
19.00 Agreement Format: All words used herein in the singular form shall extend to and include the plural. Ail
words used in the plural form shall extend to and include the singular. All words used in any gender shall extend to
and include all genders.
20.00 Execution of Agreement: This agreement may be simultaneously executed in a minimum of two
counterparts, each of which so executed shah be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall
constitute one in the same instrument.
21.00 Vendors Rights: Vendors (in this document identified as Grantee) providing goods and services to the
Commission will receive payments in accordance with section 215.422, Florida Statutes. The parties hereto
acknowledge Section 215.422, Florida Statutes, and hereby agree that the time in which the Commission is required
to approve and inspect goods and services shall be changed from a period not to exceed five (5) working days to a
period not to exceed eleven (11) working days. The Florida Department of Transportation has 20 days to deliver a
request for payment (voucher) to the Department of Banking and Finance. The 20 days are measured from the
latter of the date the invoice is received or the goods or services are received, inspected, and approved. The
Grantee shall promptly pay all subcontractors their proportionate share of payments received fi.om the Commission.
If a payment is not available within 40 days ai2er receipt of the invoice and receipt, ins section and approval of
goods and services, a separate interest penalty per day (as defined by Rule) will be due
the invoice amount to the Grantee. The interest penalty provision applies after a 35 day
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Asreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
nd navahl~ in addition t~
providers, as defined by rule. Interest penalties of less than one (1) dollar will not be enforced unless the Grantee
'--' '-,quests payment. Invoices which have to be returned to a Grantee because of vendor preparation errors will result
.a a delay in the payment. The invoice payment requirements do not start until a properly completed invoice is
provided to the Commission.
A Vendor Ombudsman has been established within the Commission of Banking and Finance. The duties of this
individual include acting as an advocate for vendors who may be experiencing problems in obtaining timely
payment(s) from the Commission. The Vendor Ombudsman may be contacted at (850) 488-2924 or by calling the
State Comptroller's Hotline, 1-800-848-2924.
21.20 Payment to Subcontractors: Payment by the Grantee to all subcontractors with approved third party
contracts shall be in compliance with Section 287.0585, Florida Statutes. Each third party contract from the
Grantee to a subcontractors for goods or services to be performed in whole or in part with Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund moneys, must contain the following statement:
When a contractor receives from a state agency any payment for contractual services, commodities,
supplies, or construction contracts, except those construction contracts subject to the provisions of
chapter 33 9, the contractor shall pay such moneys received to each subcontractor and supplier in
proportion to the percentage of work completed by each subcontractor and supplier at the time of
receipt of the payment. If'the contractor receives less than full payment, then the contractor shall be
required to disburse only the funds received on a pro rata basis with the contractor, subcontractors,
and suppliers, each receiving a prorated portion based on the amount due on the payment. If the
contractor without reasonable cause fails to make payments required by this section to
subcontractors and suppliers within 7 working days after the receipt by the contractor of full or
partial payment, the contractor shall pay to the subcontractors and suppliers a penalty in the amount
of one-half of 1 percent of the amount due, per day, from the expiration of the period allowed herein
for payment. Such penalty shall be in addition to actual payments owed and shall not exceed 15
percent of the outstanding balance due. In addition to other fines or penalties, a person found not in
compliance with any provision of this subsection may be ordered by the court to make restitution for
attorney's fees and all related costs to the aggrieved party or the Department of Legal Affairs when
it provides legal assistance pursuant to this section. The Department of Legal Affairs may provide
legal assistance to subcontractors or vendors in proceedings brought against contractors under the
provisions of this section.
22.00 Modification: This Agreement may not be changed or modified unless authorized in writing by the
Commission.
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
APR 2 200I
Page 14 of 18 pages
FM/$OB NO(S).
CONTRACT NO.
AGREEMENT DATE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents be executed, the day and year first above
written.
Collier County Board of
GRANTEE: County Commissioners
BY:
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
TITLE: Chairman
COMMISSION FOR ~ TRANSPORTATION ......
DISADVANTAGED . ~' ~-~' ~' ~' ~q' i'
BY:
TITLE: Executive Director (Commission DesiRnee)
ATTEST:
NOTARY or TITLE
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
NOTARY or TITLE
(SEAL)
DATE FUNDING APPROVED BY COMPTROLLER
(SEE ATTACHED ENCUMBRANCE FORM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION)
Shidey Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agreement 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
AGENDA I~T~,,M
No.
APR 2 Ji 2001
Page 15 of 18 pages
FM/$OB NO(S).
CONTRACT NO.
AGREEMENT DATE
EXIIIBIT "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
S1A-I-RLEY CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
This exhibit forms an integral part of that Grant Agreement, between the State of Florida, Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged andCollier CounW Board of County Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiami Trail,
Naples, FL 34112
PROJECT LOCATION: Collier CountY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To purchase capital equipment so that transportation can be provided to the non-
sponsored transportation disadvantaged in accordance with Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, Rule 41-2, Florida
Administrative Code, the most current Commission policies and the Application and Policy Manual for the Shirley
~-C2onroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant as revised on January 9, 2001. Services shall be provided and
,uipment, including vehicles, will be utilized through a coordinated transportation system which has a
Memorandum of Agreement in effect, as set forth in Chapter 427, Florida Statutes and Rule 41-2, Florida
Administrative Code. Trips shall be purchased at the rates indicated in the approved service plan pursuant to Rule
41-2, Florida Administrative Code. Capital equipment will consist of:
One Medium Bus and equipment
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS BY GRANTEE:
1. All project equipment or vehicles shall meet or exceed the applicable criteria set forth in the FlofidaDepartment
o£Transportation's Guidelines for Acquiring Vehicles on file with the Commission on July 1, 2000 or criteria set
forth by any other federal, state, or local government agency.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS BY COMMISSION:
APR 211 200;
Shirley Convoy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant Agr~ment 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
Page 16 of 18 pages
FM/JOB NO(S).
CONTRACT NO.
AGREEMENT DATE
EXHIBIT "B"
PROJECT BUDGET AND CASH FLOW
SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
This exhibit forms an integral part of that certain Grant Agreement between the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged and Collier County Board of County Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiam;
Trail, Naples, FL 34112 - -
PROJECT COST:
Estimated Project Cost shall conform to those eligible Costs as indicated by Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, Rule
41-2, Florida Administrative Code, the most current Commission policies and the Application and Policy
Manual for the Shirley Com'oy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant as revised on January 9, 2001.
Trips shall be purchased at the rates indicated in the approved service plan pursuant to Rule 41-2, Florida
Administrative Code.
Capital Equipment:
One Medium size Bus and Equipment
$126,000.00
TOTAL
$126,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged State Funds (no more
than 90%)
$113,400.00
Local Cash Funds
12.600.00
Total Project Cost
$126,000.00
Ill. DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE OF COMMISSION (State) FUNDS ( $ divided by 1000)
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
FY 01/02 113.4
FY 02/03
Shidcy Conroy Rural Ar~a Capital Equipment Support Grant ~mcnt 2001
Form Rev. 1/09/01
APR 2 2001
Page 17 of 18 pages
Fm/Io NO(S).
CONTRACT NO.
AGREEMENT DATE
EXHIBIT "C"
DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS
SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
This exhibit forms an integral pan of that certain Grant Agreement between the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged and
Collier County Board ofCoun _ty Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112
THE GRANTEE SHALL RETAIN AND/OR SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND
CERTIFICATIONS:
DOCUMENTS'
Submit an audit report, based on the agency's records, in accordance with Section 7.60 of this Agreement.
Submit invoices for goods and services, with detailed supporting documentation, in detail sufficient for a
proper pre-audit and post-audit thereof.
Retain, and upon request, submit drivers' manifests, with supporting detailed documentation, in detail
sufficient for a proper pre-audit and post-audit thereof.
CERTIFICATIONS:
Certification of Equivalent Service in accordance with the Commissioffs policy on the acquisition of vehicles
as it pertains to the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. Said certification shall accompany any
reimbursement request for vehicles and shall use the Commission approved format.
THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS: The Grantee must certify to all third party contracts pursuant to Section 12.10
except that written approval is hereby granted for:
Contracts furnishing contractual services or commodities from a valid State or inter-governmental
contract including the Memorandum of Agreement and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan as
set forth in section 287.042(2), Florida Statutes.
Contracts furnishing contractual services or commodities for an amount less than Category II as set
forth in section 287.017(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Contracts for consultant services for an amount less than Category I as set forth in section
287.017(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant A~reement 2001 ~
ro,,~ R~. ~/09/0~ Pageil p~. _ ,.~2..,._.~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO FORM A MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXiNG UNIT
(MSTU) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDiNG MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL
FUNDiNG FOR THE EXISTiNG LANDSCAPiNG IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE WEST
SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE FROM VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO 111 th AVENUE
AND FOR FUTURE AREAWIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
OBJECTIVE: To present information and background to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the installation of landscaping improvements along the west side of Vanderbilt Drive
from Vanderbilt Beach Road north to Bluebill Avenue and to request the formation of an MSTU
for the purpose of funding the operations and maintenance of those improvements.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Vanderbilt Drive Improvement Project dates back to late 1996. At
that time, the Collier County Wastewater Department had to replace a force main along that
roadway. The Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association (VBPOA) requested that pathway
and landscaping upgrades along the west side of Vanderbilt Drive be performed in concert with
that utility work. On January 7, 1997 the Board authorized funding for the enhanced pathway
and landscaping (Agenda Item 16B(10)). In March, 1997, a VBPOA representative, Mr. Kim
Kobza, informed the county that a separate entity, the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Trust
(VBBT), had been formed to fund the maintenance of the improvements and that the VBBT
desired an agreement with the county for long-term maintenance and cost-sharing.
The construction work for the pathway and the landscaping took place in the summer of 1997.
Since that time, both the county and the VBBT have attempted to finalize a maintenance
agreement. The most recent meeting between VBBT representatives and county staff took place
on Tuesday, March 6 with members of the VBBT Board of Directors. Mr. Kobza is no longer
associated with the VBBT and, based on discussions with their Board at the referenced meeting,
it does not appear that funding the maintenance of the project via the VBBT will be a viable
alternative to the formation of an MSTU. At that meeting staff committed to performing an
inspection and audit of the entire project to assess the current state of landscaping. Staff also
committed to bringing this issue before the Board of County Commissioners with a request that
an MSTU be formed.
The VBPOA is requesting that the boundaries of the proposed MSTU be coincident with the
boundaries of the VBPOA (Attachment No. 1). It is the intent of the VBPOA that the MSTU be
used for a variety of neighborhood improvements as well as a funding mechanism for existing
improvements.
One of the expense items not currently funded is the irrigation water bill. A stable re-use effluent
supply for this area was not available at the time the project was designed. This fact led to the
design decision to use potable water as an irrigation source.
Executive Summary
Formation of an MSTU for Vanderbilt Drive Landscaping Improvements
Page 2 of 3
The invoices had originally been running about $1800- $2000 per month, but recent bills have
been under $1000 per month. The VBBT has been providing plant maintenance services;
however, those services have not been sufficiently funded to provide adequate service to
maintain plant health and to maintain the irrigation system. The county has, thus far, been paying
the water bill (Board Agenda Item 16E(1), Oct. 9, 1999, originally Fund 103, now Fund 111).
At the request of the VBPOA, staff performed an audit of the existing improvements and
provided the VBPOA with its findings (Attachment No. 2). Based on that audit, staff believes
that it will cost about $65,000 to bring the existing landscaping and irrigation back to the
condition it was in when originally accepted for maintenance under the construction contract.
Ordinance 98-45, the Collier County Capital Assessment Ordinance, Section II, provides that the
Board of County Commissioners may create a funding entity for the benefit of property owners
for a Capital Improvement.
Since the landscaping improvements are in place and since they must be consistently and
professionally maintained, staff recommends the formation of an MSTU to fund the operations
and maintenance of the improvements. Since any newly formed MSTU will not be able to fund
the maintenance for the existing landscaping until fiscal year 2003, staff is also recommending
that the Board provide interim funding to the proposed MSTU in the amount of $135,000 to
continue maintenance for the balance of the current fiscal year and fiscal year 2002. This funding
would be paid back in tow installments by the MSTU in the FY 2003 and FY 2004 budgets.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is an existing MST/BU Liaison position in the Transportation
Operations Department along with clerical support. The existing staff is sufficient to manage this
entity.
The total assessed value within the proposed MSTU, per the Tax Assessor's Office is about $636
million. Staff estimates the annual costs for maintenance and administrative fees will be between
$60,000 and $80,000. Based on the estimated assessed value and the estimated annual
maintenance and operating costs, staff estimates that a 0.5 mil cap will be sufficient to fund the
annual operations and maintenance costs of the proposed MSTU while allowing for normal cost
escalation in the future. If the Board concurs with staff recommendation for the interim loan, the
first two year's assessments for the district will be about 0.275 mils each. Subsequent year's
assessments for the maintenance of the existing improvements will be about 0.12 mils. This mil
rate would mean an assessment of about $27.50 per $100,000 of assessed value the first two
years and about $12.00 per $100,000 of assessed value each subsequent year.
Staff recommends interim funding to the MSTU for the balance of this fiscal year's maintenance
needs, in the form of a loan to the MSTU, in the amount of $100,000 from MSTD General Fund
111 Carry Forward Funds with repayment to be made from the first year's operating budget for
the MSTU. For FY 02, staff recommends a further loan to the MSTU in an amount not to exceed
$100,000, based on performance during FY 01, in the Landscaping Cost Center (163646) of the
MSTD General Fund (111). The total amount, not to exceed $200,000, would be repaid to Fund
APR 2 2001
Executive Summary
Formation of an MSTU for Vanderbilt Drive Landscaping Improvements
Page 3 of 3
111 out of tax proceeds from the MSTU commencing in FY 03 and will be paid back over a 2
year period.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board direct staff to proceed with the formation of the
MSTU; authorize the transfer of up to $100,000, from fiscal year 2000 landscape carry-forward
fimds to the newly formed MSTU, budget $100,000 in the FY 02 MSTD General Fund budget;
authorize all necessary documentation and budget amendments; and, return with a final
Assessment Roll and Tentative Budget for FY 02.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edv3~J(~ant, PE,/~ransportation Ol~ration s Director
Norm? E. Feder, AICPj Transportation Administrator DATE:
/
No. [1 - Location Map of Proposed MSTU Boundaries
No. 2 - Transmittal of Landscape Audit and Landscape Audit Findings
APPROVED BY:
Attachments:
j ", No.AOESO,
· /¢
APR 2 1t 2001
pg.
· ,,,-,,.,q,,,,u,UnUBn,, ..-..'--"-7 //- /_ /"~L_
1 ~&_ ~......" ~-~-,---_,- .- ~.,, /-/-;-~' ~~,,, I ........
, ,:..,
i~- \ :~P-:~.,,:' .~ , '~ Boundary
....
~ ~,~qt?/,.- · .
% .4/'1 . Z-~.
%~~ ~~ w--~
N / %':~:'~":' ~ ~ ..... '
cr ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERN1VIENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
TtLkNSPORTATION OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
March 14, 2001
2705 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
(941) 774-8494
FAX (941) 659-5787
transportation@ colliergov, net
Mr. Richard Lydon
450 Tradewinds Avenue
Naples, Florida 34108
Re: Vanderbilt. Drive Audit of Landscape Mairitenance
Dear M~. L~yd~:~t~
Thank you and the other Board members for the Vanderbilt Trust for taking the time to
meet with Bob Petersen and me on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. As promised at that meeting,
staff oft he Landscape Operations Section did an irrigation and-landscaping audit r>fthe
-current conditions. Through our inspections, we found the irrigation system to be
malfunctioning and the plant material and sod to be stressed or in decline in many areas.
These conditions are troubling fi.om a maintenance perspective and indicate that the
maintenance had not been performed correctly.
The irrigati, on system was nr>t functioning properly, if at all, in some locations. As
-indicated in the report, the controller was in an "Error 2 mode", which prevents it fi:om
operating at all. The majority of the sprinkler heads were not functioning properly, and
many were either clogged or missing the spray heads. Many of these spr/nkler heads had
been replaced w/th the wrong type of nozzle, creating spray patterns that extend into the
path of traffic, or onto the sidewalk. Therefore, many of these heads fail to irrigate the
intended plant material. There were some lateral supply lines that were broken and had
not been repaired. The valve boxes showed no sign of being in~ected or maintained, and
in some areas where new construction has taken place after the original installation, these
areas have no water at all.
According to your conversation with Bob Petersen Monday, March 12, 2001, the
landscape contractor advised you that he was using the specifications established for the
Trust. These specifications are quite specific about weekly and monthly irrigation
checks, weekly, monthly and annual landscape tasks and require regular meetings with
the contract administrator along with immediate notification of loss of plant material.
These specifications also require weekly work logs, which are to be turned in monthly to
the Trust. It is our understanding that none of these requirements have been met.
IATTACHMENT NO.
PAGE / OF
APRmq 2001
Mr. R/chard Lyden
March 14, 2001
Page 2 of 4
Much of the plant material was found to be poorly maintained, improper pruning methods
or not pruned at all and there are many plants that have d/ed and need replacement.
Again~ this contrary to the specifications, which your contractor advised he has been
following.
The cost to fix the deficiencies found in the irrigation system is est/mated to be $20,000;
however; we recommend that bids be secured so that we may be more confident of this
budget estimate figure. Additionally, to replace the missing or dead plant material, apply
mulch, and clean and prune the plant material that still exists is estimated to cost about
$6,000.00. Mulch for the entire length of the project is estimated at about $38,000.00.
Overall, we believe that it will take about $65,000 to bring the existing landscaping back
up to the level that is expected by the residents. I suggest that we approach the Board of
County Commissioners with a recommendation to form an MSTU at its next available
meeting. There is a meeting on Match 27 and one on April 10. Although it will take
considerable time to form the MSTU, I further suggest that at the same time as we
recommend the formation, we also request a budget transfer to prqvide funds for the
immed/ate repairs necessary. These funds would be a loan to the MSTU and would be
paid back during the first year of operation of the MSTU. · .
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Very ly yours,
Edward I. Kant, ~
Transportation/~ / !ations Director'
cc: Norm~ E. Feder, A_ICP, Transportation Adr~iuistrator
John Dunnick, Assistant to the County Manager
Bob Petersen, Landscape MSTU Liaison
Val Prince, Landscape Operations Engineer
Pamela J. Lulich, ASLA, Landscape Operations Manager
File: Vanderbilt Drive
AITACHgENI NO. ~
PAGE ~ . OF z~
APR 2001
Mr. R/chard Lyden
March 14, 2001
Page 3 of 4
Vanderbilt Drive 1.3 Mile Visual Review of 12/March/01
Prepared by: Val Prince, Maintenance Operations
As requested, a v/sual and irrigation operational check of Vanderbilt Drive 1.3 rrfile landscape
segment from Vanderbilt Beach Road to 111n Ave. was preformed on March 12, 2001. The
observations and comments are not intended to be all-reclusive. The information and costs
indicated below are for est/mating purposes. Labor for traffic control, clean-up costs and tipping
fees are not included.
Observations and Comments:
Irrigation System
1. The irrigation controller read "Error 2". This code places the controller in an inoperable
phase with no zones running. Controller to valve operation could not be checked.
2. From date of original installation w/th all Hardie sprinkler heads there have been
numerous heads replaced with either Rain bird or Toro products.
3. The heads vary in size from 6" to 12" in areas that are not necessary~ ......
4. Some heads are without nozzles, some nozzles that have been replaced provide the
incorrect coverage, and some nozzles are restricted.
5. There are vahous problems with the imgation heads such as; heads completely missing,
heads that do not pop-up, heads that have come out of adjustment an are not providing
proper coverage, heads that are buried and are restricted by the plant's current condition.
Irrigation supply lines which are broken.
Valve boxes that are not being properly inspected and maintained.
M_{ssing valve boxes.
As a result of new construction after the original installation, there are r/w areas that have
no irrigation coverage.
Landscape Materials
1. Plants have not been properly maintained.
2. Plants are missing, either improperly pruned or in need of pruning.
3. ' Chemical applications are needed on the plants.
4. The turf appears to be too closely cut and dollar weed along w/th other weeds ex/st in the
tuff areas.
5. Trees/Palms canopy over the sidewalk need to be maintained at a height of 10'.
6. Trees/Palms dead branching needs to be removed.
Mulch
t. There is little to no mulch to control the weeds and retain the moisture.
ATTACHMENT NO._
PACE OF
APR 2001
Pg- 7
Mr. Richard Lyden
March 14, 2001
Page 4 of 4
Recommendations and Costs
Irrigation System
Based on the March 12, 2001 status of the ex/sting system /m_mediate nozzle adjustment or
change out, head replacement and repair all the systems leaks are recommended. This should be
done on a time and materials cost basis.
· 6" pop-up sprinkler heads cost approx/mately $10.00 per head.
· t2" pop-up sprinkler heads cost approxLmately $15.00 per head.
· Labor to install the heads cost approx_/mately $35.00 per hour
· Based on approx. 88 heads times 14 blocks plus the south segment equals about 1,300
heads requiring excavating and adjustment (either total replacement, nozzle adjustment or
change out)
1300 heads x $12.00 per head = $15,600
130 hours x $35.00 labor cost= $ 4,550
Sub-total: $20,150
Landscape Materials , .....
'Based on the March 12, 2001 below is the approximate list of estimated plant materials missing.
An exact plant material quautity count will be required pending confn'mation of available funds
and any approved alternate plant material selected to be installed.
Quantity Plant Type, Unit Cost Amount
1Z~ ea -Liriope $ 5.00 $600.00
12 ea Red Fountain GraSs $13.00 $156.00
12 ea White Fountain Grass $13.00 $156.00
120 ea Juniper $13.00 $1,560.00
120 ea Aztec Grass $ 5.00 $600.00
6 ea Iud/an Hawthorne $13.00 $ 78.00
40 ea Ixora $13.00 $520.00
60 ea Purple Queen $ 5.00 $300.00
3200 sq. t~ $ .50 $1.600.00
Sub-total: $5,570.00
Mulch
9,500 - 2-cu.ft. bags at $3.00/bag plus $1.00 installation
Totals approx. $38,000.00
Cost Estimate Recap:
Irrigation $21,150
Plant Mater/als $ 5,570
Mulch $38,000
Total Estimate: $64,720
I/~TTAC, HiViENT NO.
OF
APRoiL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EXTEND THE TERMS OF THE FOUR ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS OF THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WHICH EXPIRED
OB~IECTIVE: To extend the terms of the four Advisory Board Members of the Pelican Bay
Services Division which expired.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Four members of the Advisory Board terms expired as of January 29, 2001 and the Board is
currently advertising for those four positions. The four Advisory Board members whose
terms have expired are: Mr. Herbert Hasson, Mr. Edward Griffith, Dr. Alan Varley and Mr.
George Werner. It is recommended that those four member's terms be extended until the
Board of County Commissioners has an opportunity to consider the replacement members to
the Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners extend the terms of the
four Advisory Board members of the Pelican Bay Services DiVision until the new
appointments or reappointments are approved by the Board.
PREPARED BY: ~,~4,~,',2.-~.1~:'~,/~ DATE:
Thomas W.-Olli~, Countyt~a~i-ger for
James P. Ward
Department Director
REVIEWED BY:
David Weigel, C~o~nty/~t,~rney
DATE: 4//~/t~,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REMED1ATION TASKS
WITH EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF $25,000 ON STATE NEGOTIATED
AGREEMENT PRICE SCHEDULE (SNAPS).
OBJECTIVE:
1) To approve the environmental and geo-technical assessment and remediation services
with the expenditure in excess of $25,000 on a State negotiated SNAPS Agreement,
and
2) To authorize the Solid Waste Director to make necessary task assignments for the site
characterization and materials testing study including remediation of Cells 1 and 2 and
the gun range at the Naples Landfill pursuant to the Board's direction received on
December 20th, 2000 at the Solid Waste Workshop and at the January 9th, 2001 and
March 27th, 2001 regular meetings.
CONSIDERATION:
1. For the County to be able to assess the environmental risk and to identify the extent of
restoration, the site characterization and evaluation of Cells 1 and 2 including the gun
range is necessary. The assessment will include test borings and materials testing and
cost estimates of the restoration and remediation of this potential environmental risk to
the local and regional community.
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an environmental and geo-technical
engineering firm, is available to provide the required services uhder SNAPS II
Agreement #9731779-2. PSI has provided turn-key restoration and remediation
services to the County under a County Agreement for a number of contaminated sites
with an outstanding and responsive service with high quality deliverables.
3. Services from PSI have been quoted for the following tasks which include Cells I and
2 area site investigations and evaluation for site restoration:
TASK 1: Test pits and Project Preparation $ 23,653 (negotiated)
TASK 2: Perform Soil Borings $ 24,995 (negotiated)
TASK 3: Analytical & Soil Lab Testing $ 24,965 (negotiated)
TASK 4: Perform Deep Soil Borings/Reporting $ 24,965 (negotiated)
TASK 5: Assessment of Gun Range $ 24, 500 (negotiated)
TASK 6: Remediation of Gun Range $ cost + fee
TASK 7: Restoration of Cells 1 and 2 Area $ cost + fee
TASK 8: Mulch Materials Testing and Process QA/QC $ cost + fee
TASK 9: Processed C&D Testing and Process QA/QC $ cost + fee
TASK 10: Geo-technical/Environmental Support $ cost + fee
FISCAL IMPACT: The necessary funds at the estimated amount of $2,500,000 plus
25% project contingencies for the tasks are available in the Solid Waste Fund Reserves,
Reserves for Capital Outlay and Reserves for Contingencies.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The restoration of Cells 1 and 2 as well as the
clean up of the gun range is the pre-requisite work to bring the County in compliance with
the concurrency requirement with the Growth Management Plan including two years of
lined cell capacity requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve PSI as the Solid Waste Department's
environmental assessment and remediation/restoration turn-key contractor under the State
Negotiated Agreement Price Schedule (SNAPS) and approve the task assignments with
expenditures in excess of $25,000 and that the Board:
1)
Authorize the Solid Waste Director to make necessary task assignments for the site
assessment and the restoration of Cells 1 and 2 including the remediation of the gun
range at the Naples Landfill pursuant to the Board's direction received at December
20*, 2000 Solid Waste Workshop and the January 9th, 2001 and March 27th, 2001
BCC regular meetings.
2)
Authorize the Solid Waste Director to make task assignments for materials testing and
analytical services as needed to continuously monitor the mulch production quality and
the processed C&D materials to be effectively marketed and recycled.
3)
Authorize Solid Waste Director to make task assignments up to $2,500,000.00 under
state negotiated SNAPS Contract and authorize staff to do necessary bu.dget
amendments to reflect the final negotiated amounts for the Tasks 1 through 10 using
funds available in Solid Waste Fund Reserves, Reserves for Capital Outlay' and
Reserves for Contingencies, not to exceed a total of $2,500,000 plus 25% for project
contingency.
G. George Yilmaz, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., REP.
Solid Waste Management Director
Date:
Stephe~"'~. Carnelt, Purchasing/GS Director
APPROVED By: /_.,.~~ 5~.~_~ Date:
Jame's V. Mudd, P.E., Public Utilities Administrator
.o.~1
APR ') 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AMEND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE MONTES FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES TO EXPAND THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY, RFP 93-2121, PROJECT 73949
OBJECTIVE: To provide design services necessary to increase capacity of the South
County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) to 16-million-gallons-per-day (mgd)
Maximum Month Average Day Flow (MMADF) and to meet increasing peak season
demand.
CONSIDERATIONS: On September 26, 2000, Agenda Item 8(C)(1) the Board of County
Commissioners approved Amendment 10 to the existing March 15, 1994 Agreement with
Hole Montes, to expand the existing treatment capacity at the SCWRF to 12-mgd MMADF.
To facilitate a consent order currently under negotiation with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, it is required that the SCWRF capacity be increased to 16-mgd
MMADF.
Staff has negotiated the proposed scope and compensation as provided in Amendment 11 to
the Professional Services Agreement (copy attached). Consultant fees to design and obtain
permits associated with this Amendment total $640,000. A summary of total fees previously
approved and proposed are as follows:
Fees
Original Agreement 247,000
Amendment 1 322,700
Amendment 2 582,000
Amendment 3 218,000
Amendment 4 2,016,000
Amendment 5 62,308
Amendment 6 41,388
Amendment 7 116,000
Amendment 8 82,000
Amendment 9 99,500
Amendment 10 995,000
Amenchuent 11 (proposed) 640,000
Total $5,421,896
Scope of Services
Preliminary Report, Conditional Use
Design Report, Disinfection Design
Deep Injection Well
Reuse Master Plan, Lakewood Design
WWTF design, permits, bid and construct
SRF Coordination and Administration
Post-construction SRF Administration
Re-Rate Permitted Capacity
Tank Assessment, Additional Support Services
Royal Palm Irrigation PS, Weather Delays
Expand to 12 mgd MMADF
Expand to 16-mgd MMADF
FISCAL IMPACT: A budget amendment is needed to transfer funds in the amount of
$640,000 from Wastewater Capital Reserves to project 73949. Source of funds is Impact
Fees.
APR 2 4 200
Executive Summary
Approve Amendment to Professional Services Agreement, RFP 93-2121
Page 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This increase in capacity to treat wastewater in
the South Sewer Service Area is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, CIE 916, and
also, the 201 Facilities Plan Update as 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 the Ex-Officio
governing Board of the Collier CountY Water-Sewer District, approve and authorize
Chairman to execute Amendment 11 to the Professional Services Agreement with Hole,
Montes, and approve the necessary budget amendment.
SLrBMITTED BY: ~-~'x ~' Date:
Alicia Abbott, Public Utilities Engineering Project Manager
REVIEWED BY: ~_~~~ Date:
Karl W. Boyer, P.E., Interim Public Utilities Engineering Director
REVIEWED BY: x~o x,,~ ' tor
Date:
Joseph B. Che~am, ~astcwater Direc
APPROVED BY: Date:
James V. Mudd,e~.E., Public Utilities Administrator
Attachments: SCWRF Expansion Amendment 11 (5 originals for signature)
r~o../l~CL
APR 2
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 11 to the Agreement dated March 15, I994 (hereinafter
"AGREEMENT") is made and entered into this day of , 2001, by and
between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida and Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District
(hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER") and Hole Montes, Inc., a Florida corporation,
authorized to do business in the State of Florida whose business address is 950 Encore Way,
Naples, Florida 34110 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT currently have a valid professional services
agreement for the provision of professional services for the South County Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"), said services more fully
described in said AGREEMENT; and
WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications to the services
being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessary; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that he has the expertise and the type of
professional services that will be required for completion of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions contained
herein, parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
1.1 CONSULTANT shall provide to OWNER professional engineering services in all phases of
the project to which this Amendment applies.
1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide professional services in addition to those as outlined in said
AGREEMENT as noted in Schedule A of this Amendment, as attached hereto.
ARTICLE TWO
2.1 OWNER agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder as
prescribed in Schedule B, entitled "Basis of Compensation", as outlined in said AGREEMENT
with the modifications to Attachments A and C to said AGREEMENT which are attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
AMENDMENT NO. 11
page 1 of 2
NO.
APR 2
Pc.
Revised 4/5/2001 (9:31 A/VI)
ARTICLE THREE
3.1 The schedule for said Project, shall be as shown in said agreement with modifications as
shown in the revised Schedule C as attached hereto.
ARTICLE FOUR
4.1 All articles of said AGREEMENT, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, and
shall not be modified by this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Professional Services Agreement for professional engineering services for the South County
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion the day and year first written above.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E.
BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING
BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT.
By:
Deputy Clerk
By:
JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Assistant County Attorney
)~qitneTg~ ~,/ -
HOLE MONTES, INC.
Ronald E. Benson, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Vice President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
AMENDMENT NO. 11
page2 of 2 Revised
N0. __~.~~
APR 2 q 2001
SUPPLEMENT NO. 11 TO
SCHEDULE A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
HMA FILE NO. 2000055
This serves as a supplement and clarification of Schedule A, Scope of Services as provided in the
Professional Services Agreement dated March 15, 1994.
This project amendment consists of that work that is necessary to increase the capacity of the
South County Regional Water Reclamation Facility from 12 million gallons per day to 16
million gallons per day (maximum month average daily flow). The plans and specifications for
expansion to 12 million gallons per day have reached the 60 percent complete stage. A portion
of the additional facilities necessary for expansion to 16 million gallons per day will be included
with the 90 percent complete plans and specifications, while the remainder will be included as a
supplemental submittal following the 100 percent complete design documents. The
CONSULTANT will work with the County's Construction Manager to provide them with
sufficient information with the 90 percent plans and specifications for them to prepare the
Guaranteed Maximum Price for construction of all facilities for expansion to 16 million gallons
per day.
The scope of services is described as follows:
Phase IV Expansion to 16 MGD
A.3 Preliminary Design
Three additional aeration basin passes will be added to the existing six passes and
currently designed three new passes for a total of twelve aeration passes.
A new blower and electrical building will be designed to provide process air to the new
aeration basins and to provide electrical service to new equipment associated with the
expansion project. A new emergency stand-by generator will be added to the project.
Two new secondary clarifiers along with a new Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Station will be added. Additional pipelines will be provided from the proposed Mixed
Liquor Splitting Structure (part of expansion to 12 MGD) to the clarifiers and from the
clarifiers to the existing pipeline that will transport flow to the existing and proposed
effluent filters.
A new mixed liquor pipeline will be provided from the Aeration Basins to the Mixed
Liquor Flow Splitting Structure. A new return activated sludge pipeline will be provided
from the new PAS Pumping Station to the Aeration Basins.
SCHEDULE A
page 1 of 3
! APR 2 4 2001
Revised: 04/01/0 ?fi.a,~ o-~a ~,,D
A.4
A.6
A.7
A new bleach storage tank, bleach feed pumps, and associated facilities will be added for
disinfection of flows to 16 MGD.
A new pump will be added to the existing Reclaimed Water Pump Station to allow water
to be sent either to the reuse system, to the existing deep injection well, or to a furore
deep injection well.
A new Aerated Sludge Holding Tank will be added along with associated pumps and
piping.
A new Belt Filter Press will be installed in the existing Sludge Dewatering Building
along with associated pumps and piping.
A new process monitoring system for the activated sludge process will be designed. This
system will include pumps and' piping for collection of mixed liquor samples from
various locations within the activated sludge process and analytical equipment to
determine the nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate) concentrations.
This Scope of Services does not include the addition of a second deep injection well.
CONSULTANT will update the Design Report to reflect these changes in project scope.
CONSULTANT will provide OWNER with five copies of preliminary Contract
Documents (90 percent) for review and approval by the OWNER. OWNER will
schedule a meeting with CONSULTANT to provide review comments. CONSULTANT
will prepare a preliminary opinion of probable project costs for review and approval by
the OWNER.
Final Design
Following review of the preliminary Contract Documents w/th the OWNER, the
CONSULTANT will complete the design to incorporate the OWNER'S review
conunents.
CONSULTANT will provide OWNER with five copies of final Contract Documents
(11" x 17" and full-size).
Contract Administration - to be determined later
Detailed Observation - to be determined later
SCHEDULE A
page 2 of 3
API 2 2001
PG,.., 6
Revised: 04/06/01 (9:23 AM)
Additional Services
Geotechnical Site Investigation
CONSULTANT will obtain the services of a Geotechnical Consultant for the purposes of
performing subsurface exploration and providing foundation recommendations for the
new structures that are being added with this Contract Amendment. OWNER will
reimburse the CONSULTANT for costs associated with coordination with the
Geotechnical Consultant in addition to reimbursement of the cost of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
Permitting and Approvals
CONSULTANT will assist OWNER in obtaining permits and approvals necessary for
construction of the project. This will require modification and resubmittal of applications
already submitted for the expansion to 12 MGD as well as some new permits that may be
required due to further expansion to 16 MGD.
Surveying
CONSULTANT will update site survey as needed for design of the identified
improvements to be designed. In addition, CONSULTANT will perform any survey
activities specifically requested by the OWNER.
SCHEDULE A
page 3 of 3
NO.~
APR 2 q 2001
Revised: 04/05/01 (10:19 AM)
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT A
Amendment No. 11
SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR BASIC SERVICES
PHASE II-A WWTP Disinfection System
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
Design Report
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Bidding Services
Contract Administration
PHASE II-A Royal Palm Irrigation Pump System
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
Design Report
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Bidding Services
Contract Administration
PHASE II-A WWTP Design
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
Design Report
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Bidding Services
A.5.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg
- Equipment
A.5.2 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg
- Construction
A.5.3 Phase I Improvements
Contract Administration
A.6.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg
- Equipment
A.6.2 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec Bldg
- Construction
A.6.3 Phase I Improvements
Current
Budget
$2,800
$10,300
$3,900
$1,600
$9,7OO
$5OO
$5,600
$1,600
By Owner
By Owner
$290,000
$750,000
$150,000
$10,000
$15,000
$30,000
$20,000
$120,000
$355,000
Amendment
No. 11
$2,800
$10,300
$3,90O
$1,600
$9,700
$5O0
$5,6O0
$1,600
By Owner
By Owner
$290,000
$750,000
$150,000
$10,000
$15,000
$30,0O0
$20,000
$120,000
$355,000
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT A
page 1 of 2
Revised 4/5/2 1 (~d.
APR 2 4 2001
PHASE II-C RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM UPGRADES TO SERVE LAKEWOOD
A.2 Design Report $9,000 $9,000
A.3 Preliminary Design $52,000 $52,000
A.4 Final Design $29,000 $29,000
A.5 Bidding Services $6,000 $6,000
A.6 Contract Administration $44,000 $44,000
PHASE II-D EFFLUENT STORAGE EXPANSION
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
Design Report
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Bidding Services
Contract Administration
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
PHASE III EXPANSION TO 12 MGD
A.3
A.4
A.6
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Contract Administration
$600,000
$20O,O00
To Be Determined
$600,000
$200,OOO
To Be D~ermined
PHASE IV EXPANSION TO 16 MGD
A.3
A.4
A.6
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Contract Administration
$0 $300,000
$0 $3O0,0O0
$0 To Be Determined
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT A
page 2 of 2
Revised 4/5/t0 0 ~9 :~, a/~vll x.,t"
! APR 2 2001
, SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT B
CONSULTANT'S EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Principal Engineer VI ........................................................................................... $135,00
Environmental Engineer V ................................................................................... $125.00
Environmental Engineer IV .................................................................................. $105,00
Environmental Engineer III .................................................................................. $ 90.00
Environmental Engineer II .................................................................................... $ 75.00
Environmental Engineer I ..................................................................................... $ 60.00
Environmental Operations Specialist .................................................................... $ 70.00
Engineer Tech V ...................................... : ............................................................ $ 70.00
Engtneer Tech IV .................................................................................................. $ 65.00
Engineer Tech III .................................................................................................. $ 60.00
Engineer Tech II .................................................................................................... $ 55.00
Engineer Tech I ..................................................................................................... $ 45.00
Contract Administrator (P.E.) ............................................................................... $ 85.00
Contract Administrator ......................................................................................... $ 70.00
Construction Field Representative IV ................................................................... $ 65.00
Construction Field Representative III ................................................................... $ 55.00
Construction Field Representative II .................................................................... $ 45,00
Construction Field Representative I ...................................................................... $ 35.00
Senior Planner ....................................................................................................... $105.00
Planner .................................................................................................................. $ 70.00
Surveyor V ............................................................................................................ $100.00
Surveyor IV ........................................................................................................... $ 85.00
Surveyor III ........................................................................................................... $ 65.00
Survey Tech IV ..................................................................................................... $ 55.00
Survey Tech III ..................................................................................................... $ 50.00
Survey Tech II ....................................................................................................... $ 45.00
Survey Tech ! ........................................................................................................ $ 40.00
2 Man Survey Crew .............................................................................................. $ 85.00
3 Man Survey Crew ................................. : ............................................................ $100.00
GPS Operator ........................................................................................................ $ 65.00
Technician IV ........................................................................................................ $ 45.00
Technician III ........................................................................................................ $ 40.00
Technician II ......................................................................................................... $ 35.00
Technician I .......................................................................................................... $ 30.00
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
This Fee Schedule is effective for one year from date of the LETTER AGREEMENT.
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT B
page 1 of 1
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C
Amendment No. 11
CONSULTANT'S ESTIMATE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
(INCLUDING DETAILED OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION)
Phase I
A. 1
Preliminary Services
A. 1.1 Preliminary Engineering Report
A. 1.2 Review of Odor Control
A. 1.3 Review of Effi. Disinfection
A. 1.4 Capacity Analysis Report
A. 1.5 Conditional Use Applic.
A. 1.6 Odor Control Committee
Current Amendment
Budget No. 11
$172,000 $172,000
Incl. Above Incl. Above
Incl. Above Incl. Above
$25,000 $25,000
$33,000 $33,000
$35,000 $35,000
Phase II-A WWTP Disinfection System
A.7 Detailed Observation
$3,700 $3,700
Phase II-A Royal Palm Irrigation Pump Station
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.10
A. 11
A. 12
A.13
Detailed Observation
Investigation/Evaluation
Design/Permitting - Pump Station
Desiga/Permitting - Building
Bidding Services
Cont. Admin/Detailed Observation- Pump Station
Cont. Admin/Detailed Observation - Building
By Owner By Owner
$6,500 $6,500
$22,000 $22,000
$25,000 $25,000
$4,000 $4,000
$18,000 $18,000
$16,000 $16,000
Phase II-A WWTP Design
A.7 Detailed Observation
A.7.1 Reclaimed Water PS/Elec. Bldg.
- Construction
A.7.2 Phase I Improvements
Phase II-B Deep Injection Well
$90,000 $90,000
$265,000 $265,000
A.8 Data Review and System
A.9 Design and Construction Permit Applications
A.9a Add 2nd Deep Well Design & Permitting
A. 10 Well Construction Observation and Testing
A.11 Report
A. 12 Operating Permit Application
$43,000 $43,000
$90,000 $90,000
$25,000 $25,000
$370,000 $370,000
$36,000 $36,000
$18,000 $18,000
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C
page 1 of 3
Phase II-C Reclaimed Water System Upgrades to Serve Lakewood
A. 13 Detailed Observation $10,900 $10,900
A. 14 Surveying/Easements $23,100 $23,100
A. 15 Permitting $6,000 $6,000
A. 16 Startup Assistance $5,000 $5,000
Phase II-D Effluent Storage Expansion
A. 17 Detailed Observation
A. 18 Surveying/Easements
A. 19 Permitting
A.20 Startup Assistance
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
Phase II Additional Services
Surveying
Permitting/Approvals
Reuse Master Plan
Reimbursable Expenses
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Progress Photos
Startup Assistance
O&M Manual
Operational Support Services
Warranty Inspection
FDEP Operation Permit
FDEP SRF Management
Structural Analysis of Reuse Tank
$30,000
$40,000
$100,000
$10,000
$2,000
$10,000
$40,0O0
$50,0O0
$55,000
$18,000
$10,000
$103,696
$60,0O0
Phase III Expansion to 12 MGD
A.7 Detailed Observation
To Be Determined
Phase III Additional Services
Citizen Advisory Committee
Surveying
Permitting/Approvals
Reimbursable Expenses
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Support Services
Coordination with C/M
$15,000
$15,000
$25,000
$15,000
$20,000
$45,000
$60,O00
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
$30,000
$40,000
$100,000
$10,000
$2,OOO
$10,000
$40,000
$50,000
$55,000
$18,000
$10,000
$103,696
$60,000
To Be Determined
$15,000
$15,000
$25,000
$15,000
$20,000
$45,000
$60,000
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C
page 2 of 3
Revised 4/5/2(~1 (I~R A~vI~ 200'~ t
Phase IV Expansion to 16 MGD
A.7 Detailed Observation
$0 To Be Determined
Phase IV Additional Services
Surveying
Permitting/Approvals
Geotechnical Site Investigation
$0 $10,000
$0 $20,000
$0 $10,000
SCHEDULE B - ATTACHMENT C
page 3 of 3
I Ac~^ ~TE~ ---I
/ APR 74 2001 !
Revised 4/5/2D01 (10:03 3[M) /
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION
AD HOC TASK FORCE THROUGH MAY 7, 2002 AND RE-APPOINT/APPOINT
MEMBERS.
OBJECTIVE: To re-appoint/appoint members to the Lake Trafford Restoration Task
Force and approval from the Board of County Commissioners for the extension of the
committee for one (1) year, expiring on May 7, 2002.
CONSIDERATION: On May 7, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Resolution No. 96-225, establishing the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force for a
period of one (1) year to identify ways in which to adequately restore the lake, as well as
determine the best funding source available for the Lake Trafford restoration effort. On
May 20, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners extended the term for one (1) year,
expiring on May 5, 1998. The Board extended the term for one year in 1999 and again in
2000, with an expiration date of May 5, 2001. The task force has prepared applications
for funding and presented them to State and Federal agencies and to the Board of County
Commissioners. The Lake Trafford Task Force has contributed raising funds and
permitting processes and the restoration is expected to start in the year 2001.
In. order to permit the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force to continue and finalize its
work, it will be necessary to extend the task force through May 7, 2002.
The membership of the task force is as follows:
MEMBERS:
Jim Coletta, Cormnissioner, District #5, Board of County Commissioners
Ed Carlson, South Florida Area Manager, National Audubon Society
Dr. Eric Flaig, Senior Engineer, South Florida Water Management District
Gene Hearn, Pepper Ranch & Preserve
Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental Administrator, Dept. of Environmental Protection
Frank Morello, Biological Administrator, Division of Fisheries, Everglades Region, Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Edward "Ski" Olesky, Lake Trafford Marina, Inc.
Miles "Rocky" Scofield, Scofield Marine Consulting
Nicole Ryan, Environmental Policy Specialist, The Conservancy
Jackie Smith, Regional Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection
Clarence N. Tears, Jr., Director, Big Cypress basin, South Florida Water Management
District
Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Greater Immokalee Chamber of Commerce
Pam Brown, Immokalee, Florida
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact
associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached resolution for re-appointment/appointment of members to the Lake Trafford
Restoration Task Force and extend the task for one (1) year with an expiration date of
May 7, 2002.
SUBMITTED BY: ~~ -~[,-'=-=_ 3 Date:
G. George Yilmaz, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., R.E.P.
Director, Solid Waste Management Department
APPROVED BY:
Public Utilities Administrator
Date:
APR 2 q 2 t3!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE LAKE
TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE, AND APPOINTING
AND EXTENDING THE TERMS OF MEMBERS TO THE LAKE
TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida adopted
10 Resolution No. 96-225 which established the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force, and
I 1 Resolutions Nos. 97-250, 98-118, 99-118 and 2000-127 which extended the terms of the Task
12 Force; and
13 WHEREAS, the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force is established as an ad hoc
14 committee whose term expires one year from the date of adoption of the Resolution by the Board
15 of County Commissioners; and
16 WHEREAS, in order to finalize the work necessary to restore Lake Trafford, it will be
17 necessary to extend the term of this ad hoc committee for an additional year; and
WHEREAS, the Chairman of the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force provided the Board
19 of County Commissioners with a list of suggested members to be appointed and the terms of
2o existing members to be extended to May 7, 2002.
21 NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
22 COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
23 1. The Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force is hereby extended for an additional period of
24 one (1) year, said term to expire May 7, 2002.
25 2. The following members are hereby appointed to, or their terms extended on, the Lake
26 Trafford Restoration Task Force for the aforementioned term:
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36.
37
38
39
40
41
42
District #5 Commissioner, Board of County Commissioners
Ed Carlson, South Florida Area Manager, National Audubon Society
Dr. Eric Flaig, Senior Engineer, South Florida Water Management District
Gene Hearn, Pepper Ranch & Preserve
Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental Administrator, Department of Environmental Protection
Frank Morello, Biological Administrator, Division of Fisheries, Everglades Region,
Game & Freshwater Fish Commission
Edward "Ski" Olesky, Lake Trafford Marina, Inc.
Miles "Rocky" Scofield, Scofield Marine Consulting
Nieole Ryan, Environmental Policy Specialist, The Conservancy
Jackie Smith, Regional Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection
Clarence N. Tears, Jr., Director, Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management Dist.
Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Greater Immokalee Chamber of Commeme
Para Brown, Immokalee, Florida
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
JAMES D. CAKTER, Ph.D., Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Assistant County Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~-~PPROVE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT FOR IMMOKALEE AND NAPLES
Objective: That the Board of County Commissioners accept a State of Florida reimbursement grant to
provide lunch to children of the County's Immokalee and Naples area summer recreation program.
Consideration: The summer food service program was established to ensure that various agencies would
provide the same high quality meals during the summer as provided during the school year. The grant offers
free meals to children eighteen years and under in areas that qualify under the National School Lunch and
School Breakfast Program. Immokalee is one hundred percent eligible for the Summer Food Service; the
Naples area varies based on census tract income levels.
Staff has successfully administered the summer food service program for the past seventeen- (17) years through
the summer camp program. Last summer the 2000 grant provided 51,932 breakfasts, 109,046 lunches, and
4,044 snacks for a total reimbursement of $328,926.00. This summer the program will provide an estimated
60,000 breakfasts, 130,000 lunches, and 5,000 snacks. School personnel prepare and deliver the lunches under
the supervision of County staff The County will be reimbursed based on the number of meals served to the
children, and the costs of administering the program.
Fiscal Impact: The program is budgeted under the FY2001 Food Grant Fund in the amount of $466,600.
The State will reimburse the County for 100% of expenses.
~-qrowth Management: None
Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the Florida Summer Food Service Program grant.
~ames R. Thomas, Athletics Supervisor
Department of Parks and Recreation
Approved by}~., ~(mes Fitzek, (Jpe~aatio~ 1V~a~ager
C~Department of Parks and Recreation
Approved by:. Ma~l[t l~m~ey, Director //
Department of Parks and R~crj/ation
Reviewed and ~ !r~-) ~'~/~'
Approved by: ~ ~'c->-c~- ~.f ~'~
~-, Lec~'E~chs, Adm/i~rat~r
Division of Pumices
Date: z'///~/~)!
Date:~A~'
Date:
) ~,PR 2 4 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PRESENTATION OF THE MID FISCAL YEAR 2001 REPORT OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY FILM COMMISSION
OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of Collier County Film Commission operations
and accomplishments for the first six months of the fiscal year 2001.
CONSIDERATION: On October 10, 2000, the Board approved a professional service
contract with Ms. Maggie McCarty for the operation of the Collier County Film
Commission. As requested, a mid-year report shall be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners for review and consideration, including marketing plan and budget for
the FY 2001-2002.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact
associated with this report.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners accept the Mid-Year
2001 Report of the Collier County Film Commissioner.
~/Kathleen K4cL.al~)/-Carp~tjter
Executive Sec?.e(a~ to th~ Public Services Administrator
APPROVED BY:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr. .~
_Public Services Adrm/~strator
APR 2 h 2801
SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the Collier County Film Commission, I am very pleased to submit to you the Mid-
Year Report on the operations and accomplishments of the office.
The Collier County Film Commission is dedicated to creating an awareness of Collier County as a
preferred location for Production and to strengthen the local economy through revenues from the
Film Industry.
From October of 2000 through February of 2001, the film commission can report: · 64 projects wrapped
· 201 hotel rooms filled
· 191 locals employed
· $208,238.00 in production revenue generated
· 100% response to all qualified leads
With a budget of $68,000, actual expenditures incurred to date are $27,132.75 In other
words, for every $1 spent a return of $6.80 can be seen in direct spending in Collier County in
the past five months.
To achieve the goal of enhancing Collier County's share of the $4.6 billion now being spent
annually in the state by the film and entertainment industry, the film commission must be
competitive in its outreach to developing markets. It must continue its efforts to strengthen local
crew and support services in our area and it must remain focused on distinguished client
assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
Collier County Film Commission
Agend,:
APR Z 2001
Pg'
755 8th Avenue South · Naples, FL 34102 · (941) 659-FILM · Fax: (9411 434-3049
Collier County Film Commission
MIDYEAR REPORT
October 2000- February 2001
PROJECTS J
Print ................................................................................................ 24
'" Chadwick's
q' Eddie Bauer
Television
Commercials ...................................................................................... 24
~' Diabetic Supply of America
"Quail West
Television
Series/Segments ................................................................................... 9
'" BBC
q' Discovery Channel
Video ........................, .................................. ; .................................... 5
q' Protocol Agency
q' Eastman Kodak
Documentary /Educational /PS A .............................................................. 17
BBC
Total Number of
Projects .......................................................................................... 64
Locals
Employed ....................................................................................... 191
Agenda' ~ 1:'em
APR Z ~. 2001 !
Collier County Film Commission
MIDYEAR REPORT
October 2000- February 2001
Hotel Room
Nights ......................................................................................... ,210
Production Revenue
Reported .............................................................................. $208,238.00
Annual Budget .................................................................... $68,000.00
Return on investment .............................................................. $1: $ 6.80
Economic Impact ................................................................. $ 728,833.00*
*Office of the Film Commissioner Economic Impact Multiplier
APR
Pg'
Collier County Film Commission
MIDYEAR REPORT
October 2000 - February 2001
REPORTED REVENUE BY MONTH
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
Oct-O0 Nov-O0 Dec-O0 Jan 01 Feb 01
PRODUCTION BY TYPE J
DOCUMENTA
PRINT
SCOUT, POST,ETC.
VIDEO
3
TV SEGMENT
TV SERIES
COMMERCIALS
Collier County Film Commission
MIDYEAR REPORT
October 2000- February 2001
ACTIVITIES
Trade Shows/Conferences/Development
National Association of Television Production Executives
Locations 2001
Sundance Film Festival
Governor's Industry Breakfast
Film Florida Legislative Reception
Film Florida Board Meetings
Film Florida Film Commissioner's Council
SW FL Regional Film Commissioners meeting
Sales Mission
New York City
Production Directory published and on-line
Memberships
Association of Film Commissioners International
Film U.S.
Film Florida (Board Member)
Florida Motion Picture and Television Association,
Southwest Chapter (Board Member)
Marco Island Film Festival (Honorary Board Member)
Operations
Revenue Tracking System
Client Management Database
Client Exit Survey
Website
Location Library
Permitting
Monthly Production/Activity Report
Press
Naples Daily News
Ft. Myers News-Press
Florida Blue Sheet
Location Update
Film Florida Hot Sheet
Locations Magazine
Naples Iljustrated
Collier County Film Commission
MIDYEAR REPORT
October 2000- February 2001
Public Relations Quarterly newsletter
Tax Exemption facilitation
UPCOMING OBJECTIVES
Sales Missions
New York
Chicago
Governor's Film Advisory Council's Film Commissioner's Retreat
~" FAM Trip for FL Screenwriters and Location Scouts
Florida Filmmakers In Los Angeles Event
FSU, UCF, University of Miami, Mainsail-film schools alumni working in L.A.
Regional/State cooperative Advertising
Film Florida Conference
APR 2 z~ 2'001
Marketing Plan
2000- 2001
positioning Statement
Collier County has been able to retain its native charm while still offering the attributes
of a sophisticated locale. From The Gulf to The Everglades, this area is comprised of a wide
variety of backdrops for print and film production. Unparalleled white sand beaches, the
rich harvests of Immokalee, the rustic character of Everglades City, and the smart elegance
of the Fifth Avenue/Third Street S. shopping districts in Naples, all paint a picture of the
variety of looks that can be found in our community.
Vision Statement
The Collier County Film Commission is to be a source of service for the entertainment
industry in Collier County. Our vision is to ensure that Collier County is and will remain a
film production destination.
Mission Statement
The Collier County Film Commission was established to achieve a proportionate
share of production business in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The role of the
commission is to market Collier County to motion picture, TV, commercial, documentary, new
media, video, still photography and fashion industry producers.
The overall goal of the commission is to enhance the local economy through an increased
awareness of Collier County as an advantageous destination for production.
Target Audience
The following audience/industries are proposed as the focus of this marketing plan with
an emphasis on still and commercial work based on first year revenue reporting:
1. Print Advertising
a. Ad agencies
b. Photographers
2. Fashion Photography
a. Retailers
b. Photo studios
3. Feature Film Industry
o. Location Managers
b. Producers
c. Screenwriters
Col!~er County Film Commission
APR 2 4_ 01
P~ -~
4. TV Commercials
a. Producers
b. Ad Agencies/creative directors
c. Production company executives/producers
5. New Media
a. Production companies
b. Producers
6. Educational Programming
a. Producers
b. Institutions
7. Videos
a. Production companies
b. Industrial/educational producers
8. TV Series/MOW
a. Location Managers
b. Producers
c. $creenwriters
9. Local Market
a. Local production community
Objectives
I. To solicit industry production to the area
2. To provide pro-active client support services for all film, TV and print projects
3. To maintain the rapid response time for lead/inquiry responses
4. To work with local business in developing an atmosphere
advantageous to production
5. To work with local crew and production sources in an effort to remain competitive
6. To maintain an effective partnership with the Office of the Film Commissioner (OFC)
7. To develop and foster a good relationship with all city/county/state
entities for film production support and cooperation
8. To work with state/local production associations in pursuit of common goals
Collier Count~/Fitm Commission
APR 2 2001
9. To educate the local community about the Film Commission's purpose and
benefit to Collier County's economy
10. Legislative advocate relating to production issues
P
rogram of Action
1. Solicit industry production lo the area
· Attend industry trade shows
· Booth exhibitor
· Lead follow-ups
· Make sales calls in target markets
· Potential clients
· Established clients
· Participate in Florida Industry Receptions in target markets
· Location web page development
· Work with OFC
· Overall marketing strategies
· Production coordinator
· Work with regional film commissions (St. Pete/Clearwater/Tompa/Sarasoto/Polk Co.)
· Marketing strategies
· Work with Film Florida Los Angeles liaison
· Client leads
· AAoilings to producers in pre-production
· AAailings to prospective clients
· Tax incentive applications/information
· Create sales missions
2. Provide efficient and professional assistance to all film, TV and print projects
· Rapid response to all leads
· Establish and maintain location library
· Update production guide according to budget
· Update location guide according to budget
· Deliver 24-hour accessibility via cellular phone/e-mail
· Maintain film commission website
· Maintain commission status from Association of Film Commissioners International
3. Provide rapid responses to inquiries
· Develop catalog system to inventory locations
· Create a location library that exemplifies the unique look of the area
· Outreach to all Collier areas for locations
Cottier Count, Fi~m Comm:ssion
No '7
APR 2001
· Continually update and expand the location library
· Maintain relationships with local professional photographers for services
· Rotation of website images
4. Work with local business in developing an atmosphere advantageous to
production
· Retain working knowledge local production companies
· Publish/update local production guide
· Attend Tourism Alliance Marketing Committee meetings
· Retain working knowledge of local accommodations
· Public speaking to local organizations and associations
· Board member of Florida Motion Picture and Television Association, Southwest Chapter
(FMPTA)
· Facilitate tax exemption applications/information
· Exit survey for production clients
5. To work with local crew and production sources in an effort to remain competitive
· Annual production of local production guide
· Maintain on-line production guide
· Maintain crew database
· Knowledge of production facilities
· Membership in FMPTA
6. To maintain an effective partnership with the Office of the Film Commissioner
· Dovetail marketing strategies
· Co-op to implement media purchases, trade missions and media relations events
· Coordinate legislative agenda
· Leads
· Revenue reporting
· Tax exemption applications
· Permit facilitation
7. Develop and foster a good relationship with all city/county/state entities
· Maintain relationship with Public Services Administrator for supervision
· Include in press releases
· Inclusion of cities and county in revenue tracking
· Facilitate permitting
· Public relations
· Work with Collier County and City of Naples law enforcement and fire officials
· Crowd control
· Intermittent traffic control
· Noise control
· Parking
· Permitting
Coi!ier County Film Commission
·
·
·
·
Work
·
Work
·
·
Pyrotechnics
Security
Street closures
Street lighting
with FDOT
Road closures
Roadwork schedules
with The Conservancy and the DEP
Adherence to local ordinances (Sea Turtle regulations, etc.)
with Tourism Alliance of Collier County Business referral and cross promotion
Attend TACC Marketing Committee meetings
8. To work with state/local production associations in pursuit of common goals
· Membership in Film Florida
· Board member
· Network with other commissioners
· Annual conference
· Quarterly meetings
· Film Florida Labor Council Affiliations
· Teamsters
· Screen Actor's Guild
· International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
· Director's Guild of America
· American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
· Honorary board member of Marco Island Film Festival
· Board member FMPTA, Southwest Chapter
9. Educate the local market about the Film Commission's activities and
benefits to the local economy
· Story placement in local media
· Press releases to media
· Contribute to FMPTA newsletter
· Name recognition/information
· Public relations with local industry
· Statewide membership
· Contribute to Film Florida newsletter
· Name recognition/information
· Statewide membership
· Industry distribution
· Quarterly newsletter to TDC and BCC (Focus)
· Include Film Commission news in "Florida Blue Sheet"
· Public speaking
· Name recognition/information
· Public relations with local community
· Serve as a community resource for information about the production industry
Col!ier County Film Commission
Agend. ~t~
A 'R 2 2001
· Participation in the Marco Island Film Festival
· Attend Tourism Alliance Marketing Committee meetings
· Quarterly reports to the Collier Tourist Development Council
I0. Legislative advocacy relating to production issues
· Maintain working relationship with local/state legislators
· Lobby for industry issues that would increase production locally
· Prepare legislative agenda
program of Action
To maintain excellent and efficient support services to all film, television and print
projects.
· Continually expand a location library by at least 20 files per year
· To participate in a comprehensive annual Florida state production guide
· Publication of local film production guide
· To produce individualized client maps and scouting itineraries
· To assist local and visiting location scouts
· To provide 24-hour availability to clients via cell phone/e-mail
· Facilitate permitting
· Provide timely, comprehensive responses to all leads
To concentrate on primary target industries
· Include local production/location guides in all packages
· Provide comprehensive location files
· Require all location files meet industry standards
· Place ad in production guide for film office
· Timely comprehensive response to leads
· Timely follow-up with clients
· Targeted sales meetings/missions
· Participation in select film industry trade shows · Collateral distribution
· Lead generation and publicity
· Evaluation of exhibition efficiency/explore new avenues of promotion
· Participate in Florida industry receptions in conjunction with trade shows and missions
· Press releases and story placement in media
· Cost-free advertising in trade directories
· Kemps (U.K.)
· 411
· The Industry Flip Book
· AFCI Global Directory
· Production Guide on-line
· Maintain good working relationship with other local film commissioners
· Maintain good working relationship with aFC and staff
Collier County Film Commission
To maintain an average response time for lead/inquiry at 3 days or less
· Expand the location library by a minimum of 20 new files each year
· Develop a management system for the location library
· Maintain industry standards for all location files
· Timely response to e-mail inquiries [Collier Film~aol.com]
· Maintain website and linkage
C
ollateral Materials
1. Existing Materials to be Maintained
· Location file library
· Customized maps/itineraries
· Stationery/business cards
· Florida's Gulfcoast Production Guide
· On-line
· Location Guide
· Crew lists
· Website
· Location files
· Custom location maps
· Stationery/business cards
2. Materials to be Created
· Digital location images
· Local crew rate sheets
· Local historical film data
Collier Cou'nty Fi!m Comm;sslon
APR.p 2001
COLLIER COUNTY FILM COMMISSION
ANNUAL BUDGET
FY 01.,02
Association of Film Commissioners International
Film Florida
Florida Motion Picture & Television Association
TOTAL
500
500
60
Sales Mission - New York
Sales Mission - Chicago
Sales Mission - Los Angeles
AFCI Cineposium
Annual FL Film Commissioners Conference
Quarterly FL Film Commissioners Meetings
TOTAL
3,000
1,500
3,000
2,000
800
! ,000
1 1,300
Advertising
Website
Location Guides
Production Guides
TOTAL
500
1,000
4,000
!,500
7,000
TOTAL
Printing/copying 300
FedEx 800
Telephone/Cell 750
Intemet access 300
Mileage 800
Postage 600
Film Processing 1,500
Office Space 2,400
Reference Materials 150
Office supplies - general 700
Permanent Salary 42,000
TOTAL 50,300
Membership Dues !,060
Professional Development I ! ,300
Marketing 7,000
Subscriptions 290
Operating Expenses 50,300
TOTAL 69,9so
I APR2~2001
000000 0
APE ;~ ~! 2~1 !
E
APR 2 42001
oo o ooo
882
qqqqqa
000000
E EE
E EE E
E EE ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MATCHING GRANT
REQUEST
OBJECTIVE: Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners to enter into a
50 percent (50%) Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant.
CONSIDERATION: The Isles of Capri Fire Control District provides wild land fire
control for our district and mutual aid for surrounding districts. The grant will enable the
District to purchase wild land fire gear and provide a higher level of protection and
.productivity durin, g.wild land f~re fightin~ o, pero~tiol~s ~t a cost rtot to exceed $4772. 6e~r con-
sists of pants, jackets, fiead gear, gi~6~es and fire shelters specialized for
fighting Brush Fires.
FISCAL IMPACT: The grant will require budget amendments, if approved, in an
amount up to $4772 through a 50/50 Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant from the Division
of Forestry for the purchase of wild land fire gear. The Isle of Capri Fire District will be
reimbursed for half of the total expenditure. New revenue must be recognized and
appropriated and funds will be transferred from the Isle of Capri Fire District's Reserve
for Contingencies via budget amendments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Chairman to sign the Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant to enter into a 50/50 grant and
approve the necessary budget amendments as stated above.
SUBMITTED BY:
Emilio Rodriguez, C'ffief, Isle~f Capri Fire C-~nt-~ol l~i~ct
APPROVED BY: ~,~"J';,~'/"/~ Date: ~7/'/~'
Thomas Storrar, Emergency Services Administrator
APR 2 2001
.APPL~CA~ON FOR
F~DE'RAL ASSISTANCE
:-
L~-~' ~:. Collier cou~ Bo~d of C~ssioners
175 Capri BDd
Naples, FL 34113
o~s Ap:a,-oval I~m ~3-44~-~0a:3
£m~]io Roch-i~uez~ Fire C~e£ (~4J)
'1t. DE~JRIPT:IVE TffLE'~lfi A~Ptl~ r"~ ;~O,;ECT:
Isles of Capri Fire Department wild land gear purchase
N/A
2386
N/A .oo
,a TOT;% i 4772
"
....
FOR TH~ $ F d~24
8. State ~ O.~iy (Ra~l~hLe),
number, Ifbr ~new peaj~t, ~ea,~ blank. 15.
5_ Legal name Of applicant, nam'e of primary
a ppi
fi. Enl~r Employer' tdantt'iqcat[~n
as;~d by ~h~ in.~e.rna~ Re venue Service.
7_ Em~r the npp. r~prfa[a letter i.a the space
g. Cheek.appropria~e box ~nd ~nt. er al).pro, priate I6.
I ct~erfs] in the space(s) pro¥i.ded~
-- New meansa new &eels,ante ewer,.!
num:~r, ami 6~[e of the program u~,der
append an expta~ati.an on = ~-p~ra~e sh.e-et. !f
For preappl. Jention~, use a
provide a ~um mary.d~;,ip.t.ion of ~hi~ p~oi'ect.
(e.g., State:.,
Sel£-exTAanatory,
any D [stric:[~} afftwL~fl by the prc~gi'~m
Amotir;~ r~.~tuesb~l.or to be contributed during
tk~: f]r.sL .~ndi~g/budget perlod bY each
;:o~d'.ributor. Valu~ .o.t- [a-k. iad: contrlbwti0ns
should 'he included on appeapri.ate lines
app~[,:ab~e,. Ii'the .action will ~e~ul~ ~n a
~upp~amental am,ounCe are i. nc[uded'.,
breakdo~, a,n an at~.ckud ske'm~ For mt~l,i~te
prngra'm ftmdins, use Cotal~ a'nd :show.b~akd~w'
of Oont~c~ (SPOt} roe F~:~de:ral DXecuti've Order
ant hori~ed re~res.en tat4 v e, C a te~or.[as o:t' d cbt:
intrude aei[nquent a~dtt d~sa3bWances, l. aan~
and taxes:.
authortzat~on.r~r you go ~fgn this appLication.as
or~qal repr~sentat~.,..a tuu~;b be ~a file in the
AGENDA I~
No. i
APR 2 k2001
,!
'i
APR i~i 200~
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF-424~
fo~ ~und~ ~r~m one o~ ~e~ ~t p~v~m~, ~n
~ction~ A,.B. C~ an~ D shau. M p:ro,dde Lh~ budget
shouM present.-~he' n~ed for F~er~l a~c~ i~
rtum~t~ ~n~-ao~ req~r~n¢ a t'unctlon~[ or ac~vL~y
calal~g'program al.fie and the c.~tel'og number
C61~mn (b],
~c~h. itie~', enter [~e name' c:~ ,e~ch a,c~iv~y or fumcti,~
~n each'Line :ri. Column (al a~ enter the:~tog num.
bet m C~l.u~ (h~. F~w a~pHeet.ion~ pertai~.mg ~' mu]-
~re~dow'n by {~ac~.i, on or aedvity e~te, r the
Frn~m.m title on. emck ~[n;~ m Co~u~:~. (a)' arid the
r ,s~ct;,re -:atm~ n u m~.r ~;r, .em' h I~ n~ ir,. Co!u m
function c.r aetiviLy, ~ep~re · ~e'paratc $heet for each
pro.mm re~'uiri~g the i,rea~io~'n Additional sheets
should be-ased wh~n one form does not pro'vide
However. w-kc~ :note than one ~hent [s used, the
Ll~e~ t-4. Colum'nt lc3 ~ro.u,gb
F,>e ea~h lee entry ~ Cotumns ~a}- a~.~ <h]. end. et' .in
Coiumn~. J~J. (fl~ ~d (gl' t~e .a~prop:r!ate amounts
[undS :~e~ed t~ su~pa.rt the pro,.eot for the rkf~t
L'~n,e~ 1-4, Cai:amine (.=~ througb {g.) (
t~ese ~m~ ~fo,re the c~d of each fu~in~ ~ri~ as
remain uno~li~ate~ a~ the e~ of the ~an~ F~nding
fu.~-neee~ for the u~ming ~,ri~., The a~u'ne~i
in Cotumn (g).shouid be the sum cf mmoun~
For a',u.pp.¢em~a~t grmn.ta. ~d ¢.~ange.~ to ~xi~iflg
F¢~erat f~md~ ~d enter t~ COlumn (fi lhe a~'nount of
prev~ au~horize~ b~getefl .a,mn~fits plus or ~uinus,
a~ appro,pria~, the a~rt~ shown in 'fJofum~ (el
~u.m ofa'moun~ i'u C~tu mn~'(e) and '{fl,
Set,on B.Bud~et C~t~ories
[niLe ~u m n ~eadi~s (.1)~rou:gh; ~.4.], e~ter .the
of'~.s~mm.pro~am~, funetloms, m;~d.
on Lines 1-4 CoLumn (a], ~on. A. When additLonal
shee:s &~ prepared for Se~'t~on A, provide ~imi~ar
cnlumn ben.dings' an ca~ ~e'eL For each program.,
column.
Line 6j'~ Show ~e a m~un t ot"iudirecL oust
[,im,e 6k- ~:n~,r ~he Losa~ ,~f amo,jn~ on Line~ 6i
6[. For aH applications for new ~nts
in ~etL'a~ A, Coke.mn (gL Line $ F~r' supplemental
gr~n~S an~ oranges :a gran:$, the total amnu~P,
increase or decrez:~ ~s ~h~twn-['n'C~tunan~ ( {}-(~t, Line
I~ISTRUCTION~ FORt THE
~n~
~re [nC~:~ provide a brie'~ explana~[~ o~.~ separate
by .Lhe
cash and [n-~nd cont~bu~i~ 'L~ ~ app~ican~ is
co~ u~ btank.
Column (d) - ~n~ar the amou~ ~ and in-
.artec.
~e 12 ~ Enter Lhe ~.l. for ~ach of Columns
~e ~.mo~: in Caiu'mn (c) should ~e equal ~ the
~e 13 ~ E~Ler [he amoun~ o~ca~h ~e~ed hy.qua~r
Fro~ Lhe ~an~r agenc~ d uri~ g ':~e ~ year,
~u~es nee~ by ~r~r ~urin g
~n.e 1 ~ - E n~r 'Lh~ io~[~ o/a ~'un~
14.
~kdow~ ~y'func[[on or activity i~ ~ n~e~ary..For
enter in ~he Freer co]um~ ~mou='~s
whic;k w{[[ ~ needed ~ compile.the program
p~ject'ovet ~he suCce~g fi~d[ng
ye~L ~ s~Lio~ n~ not ~
/amendme~ts, :~anges, or su~leme-n~t ~ ~un~
~t]es, submit addltio'na] sche~ule~ nee~ry.
~ne ~ -Enter the'~o~at t'0r each.
~ctLom a~notate zcecrd, mgiy nad ~'hmw t~s over~
to~ls an this Line.
Section F. O[h~r ~u~get
Line 21 - Use th~ ,pane ~o explain, amounts
spear ~ ~ ertl of the o~i~ary
~etai~s as :requir~ by the Federal ~an~r
~ne ~ gn'~r ~e t3~ of indirec[ ta~e-~pro~'[sianal,
~ne ~- Provide any or-her e-=planaL;ons
No.
APR 2 4 2001
Pg.-- 7
A~S:~URANCE6 ~ NON-CONS? RUCTIOH PROGRAMS
2. Wltl give ~,e award~g agency, the
5. Wikt e'o'mpfy wfth the
rel a~iag m pre~gri~c't ~tandards for me~t
sta~utgs of re~a~tL0rt~ ~[fied ~n.Appm-.l~ A
Adm~nistratioa (5 C.F.'R,.SOn, Subpart F~,.
6. WBI ~mp~y ~th all F~',~eal ~tamutes'
n,rmdiucc'i.min~fioa. These }nc['ude bmm~ ace not
fO: ~c.tio~ 50~ of the R4~.habi~itation A~L or '1. g72, aa
amen&,t [29 U.$:C.'~ T'g4), which: '~rokihi~s .dis,-
U.S.C.5~ tilOl-~t0?], which pr,ohit~[t~
1.972 (P:L. 92-25.5], a~ amended, relating
the CompvehensLve Almho! Ah,o~e and A
Pmven'tion, T~a'tment and R.ehabilttati~
1970 {P.L. 9t--616). ~ ~mended~ rei~Ling
aond[s~ri:m [~a6on nm the ~is o't' a[coh.~l
Sac'ica 'Act of 1912 (4g t.I.S:C. 2~ dd-8 and 290
3), a~ amended, ~]a~ing D c~nfido-r'~tiatity
atcr3hol and drug abuse ~a'tiu,[ records; (h) Title
3Gr~I et S~:~q.t, aa ~ma~ded, r¢tati, ng
d~v~rimina~ion in' thc sate, r. enmtat or ffn&ne.ing
kousi.ag; {.i') any other
~he app[i~l;i~n
Wi'ti com?ly, of has already complied, re. th
require'men~ og Titles 1'1 and'ttl of the rJnffor~n
which p;rnv'~e 'Eot fair ~:nd equi:mble-t~atm~
pr,apCr;~' acquired :k~r pr~j~L p~ir'~ea
(5'g :SC. '~ 15n:'t4508 a~ '~32~732~)'which tim;~
prmc[p,M emph~yment act]viLie:a~ ~,,'e
~'[][ ¢ompJy, ~ applLcabte, wi~h the pro visi:un~
the Dav~s, Ba~rt ,~:ct (-tg U.~.C. '~' '2Tga m 276a-
7), the. Clo~[~n~ Act, i40 U,$.C. { 2'/6c and
U. S,CJ [~' g'?~), u r,d the C~ntract Wm'k
8~[Ciy Stnr, dard~ .Act {4'0 U.~.C,, [~ 327.333q.
reg~r~i~.g labor stnnd~rd:$ lyf h~d~rattg
.A~lt~r[~'ed:-for L~ca~ iq~eprod .ut;Lior~
AGENDA J,~l~
No. /~ ~'? I
APR'2 \2061
'pureh~e req~iremen~ o.f See~.n 102{aI ~f
c~ns~¢tion an~'-a~ui~on is $ I0,0~ or m~re.
O~d~r (EO) 1151'4:(b3 ~oti~eadon cf violating
~he approve~-S'La~e managemer, C pro,ram
tmpi.~men~n P{~s =der 5ec:iou ! 7'igc3 of the-
C}ear Air Act oC t~55. ~ amended (a2 U=S,C. ~
740q et ~,k {~'~ ~ot~cfian of under:~ound ~nucees
~f'dri~ing wsiur under th~ S~e D~nki=g Wa~r
gndaug~'S~cies ,~t of 1 ~a, ~ amended, '(P.L~
preying com~rt~ or ~te'rttia] :~,>m~;nen~ of
pro, t~,etion of historic propertie~.3, a~d ~he
1974 <18 U,5,O-
'pro~ec~i.e~ of human ~u,bj~c~s [nvo [ve~ in. re~e~ch,
development, ~d retat,~ acti~ties ~up~ad 'by
~{s awed of assNtance.
15. Will comply wi~ ~e
Act ~f 1966 (P.L. ~9,544,
2] 3~ et s~.) ~sEning to.~e c~e, h~diing, ~nd
treatment o.f warm
1~.. Will eom~.y ~i~ ~he L~ad;~xs~d
constru~ti.~n or r'~habilitatlon ~f reMdenee
~d compliance audi,ts in ac'eor~a'nc~ wi~h th~
iS. WiU c~,mp[y wit~ ~I'I-applicabLe requirement, of alt
a~d ~tici~$ go~erning:i.h:ia pr~a~
{. James D Carter Ph.D.
Collier County Board of Commissioners
Chairman
OA.lr~ gUI~,~tITTI~D
AGENDAdTEM
No. 1(o1,~1 / I
APF 2 iOO'
~la 'cer'cifi=a~lon i~ r~quired by. ~ft~e r~.~m~ion~ i~plsm~in~
bad ~ or: ~ p~ltc ~r~ac~'i~nm
CoUier Coun~ Bo~d of Co~smoners Isl~ of Capri
Jmes D. Cruet, Ph.D, C~ CoMber Co~ Board of
i0
au'thoriz~d ~ ~e ~'~en~ or ag~ 9nterin~ in'~, ~is
cercific~tio~ is' m':'.~'~e~, m participant ~' deci~ t~e ~ ~ f.r.e~e~ ~'
~m~,cmir.,:~ ~h~ .~,ig~'ba~i~y ~f .i:a p.rincipalL ~ch p~rticip~t ~y, ~t ia
r~:ir~d to, check ~ha No~r~:ra~: Li..~,
for csume o~' del'auk:,
//'
Collier County Board of Commissioners
James D Caner, Ph.D., Chairman Collier County Board of Commissioners
Isies of Capri Fire Control District
C~IFICA3qON FOR CONTR~CI'S,. G~, LO~$
AND
COOPERATIYE :AGREEMEN.TE,
~e u~n~ ca~t~ies, t~ the~ o~ his or ~ knewtedge aha be~ief,.lhat:
ff any :fun~ ~h~r Ihan ;Federal appmpri~.ed .f-Lmcls hm~e beet3 paid at, ~iII ~e paid ~ an~ pea. son
lot ~nflu~r~c~.or ~l'empting {o.:~nce'ar~ o~Cer ¢~ ymployee ~ ar~ agency, aMember ~t Cangr~.~s~ an
· ~ic.a~ ~ en~plt3yee~·Congmss, at an 'empiofae.:el~ ~ Memb~ ~ Co~ ~ ac~nr~ectk3n w~'~ It~ Feclemt
c~ract, gra-~L ~ or ~operat-ive agrs, ernem, ~he tmdm'sl~ shatl compile a~ submit ~and~cl
~;~,LLL, 'D~u~a :F~ m- Repor~ [~=~ing'~. ~ accord~_a witll ~
3'~, unde~gnad shell: req~re that ~, i~age ,of ~ eaftifiCatlon ~e l~luded in :~he award
· loat~ and~ coop~a~i~e agt:ee-reen~sl· ~ that a~ sub~recl~ shelt ce~ an~l diSctose acc~climj~.
This, c~r~tCation is a m~..rep~esent~on ~ lact upon w.hiCh rel~an~ wa~ p~ ~n ~.~~.
was ~e
James D Carter, Ph.D., Chairman Collier County Board of Commissioners
'Name and ~itle
E DA 17EM
December 9; 1~
VFA
R~LIIES:T FO~ COROT SNARE APPROVAL
TO': Director, L. Ear~ :pet~efsr~
The lsl~ of Capri F~e Comro[ Distfim ........... ~ues~ your
approval f~r ~e co~-Sha~ pur~heSe.~ ~he ~ll~ng items of ~ui~t a~ar ~i~i~, or suct~ ~o~s
Bulled helm~ w/shroud l 0 $50.00 $5~.00 Isles of Capri Fke
ESS go~es 10 $20.00 $200_00 Isles of Capri Fire
Elke ~l~d ~oves 10 $18.00 $180.00 Isl~ of Capri Fire
Hot.eld face s~eld 10 $72.~ $720.00 Isles of Capri Fire
West~ Shelt~ p~ts ~d j~ket 10 $227.18 $2271.80 Isles of Capri Fire
Fire ~elter w/c~ 10 $90.~ $900.~ Isles of C~fi Fire
Tot~ $4771.80
We::hereby ,3c~n~C!g~ ~at [he...ix}put~lion or::~"~e :%o e na~d .~d[vidual
F'u~h~ate~ w~ unde~:'~t [h~: ls a~ ~¢~ni maximum ~t-sham
ASs~s~n~ A~m of 1978. PL 9~313); and ~at funds. on deport uP.~O 50 ~nt ~ ~e ac~al put. asa
p:~e-of th~ items ~pmve~ wii~ be ~mi~*~ :~.-ou~ :pmj'e~, We fU~er undem~n~ 'tha~ ~undS: ~r alt
ferns '[°be Puf:~ased .~.e~ ~:e~m~bexad: by JULY 1:, 2~0~,
~ wiil be.wl~d~ ~f the :Divi~
A[Ithori:z~ $ign',a~L~re
James 9 Carter, ?h.D., Chairman Collier County Board of Commissioners
Title
E, i. ! T E
t
t
!
t
APR 2~ 2obl
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FUND TRANSFER FROM RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES
FOR PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT THE MERRITT
BOULEVARD FIRE FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 8TM THROUGH
APRIL 10TM, 2000.
OBJECTIVE: To gain Board of County Commissioners approval for the transfer of
$79,399.20 from Reserves for Contingencies into the General Fund, Merritt Boulevard
fire. Funds will be used to pay for labor, equipment and rented costs incurred by Fire and
Support Personnel resulting from the Merritt Boulevard fire from April 8-10, 2000.
CONSIDERATION: The wildfire that was accidentally started on Saturday, April 8th,
2000 was finally brought under control with the help of hundreds of firefighters from
Central and South Florida on April 14, 2000. The Board approved a transfer from
Reserves for Contingencies to pay commercial vendors for fuel, lodging, ice, vehicle
maintenance on May 9, 2000. The sum of $100,000 was transferred and $28,571.31 was
paid out to vendors.
At the time of the fire,' Collier County and the Division of Forestry were responsible for all
costs up to $1,500,132.00 according to federal regulations. FEMA would pay for all costs
above that figure.
During the final budget heating in September, the staff advised the Board that
$373,000.00 was needed to be moved into the Fiscal Year 00-01 budget in order to pay for
mutual aid. The Board acknowledged and agreed to this proposal.
In November 2000, the Emergency Management Department was advised that the State of
Florida would pay for all costs beginning on April 11, 2000 to the end of the disaster
period. Collier County would be responsible for all costs from April 8 through
April 10, 2000. Emergency Management has captured these costs and has invoices from
Lee County fire districts for $18,608.19. The Collier County Fire and Support Agencies
have submitted invoices for $60,791.01 for the same period.
Since Collier County paid for all vendor costs from April 8 through April 15, 2000, we
have submitted an invoice to the Florida Division of Emergency Management for payment
of costs from April 11, 2000. The request for $ 26,434.25 was sent on March 2, 2001 and
we are awaiting payment. We are also requesting payment for labor and equipment costs
incurred by Collier County Agencies for the same period.
FISCAL IMPACT: Transfer $79,399.20 from General Fund Reserves for
Contingencies into General Fund, Merritt Blvd. Fire, .~. ·
APR 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Budget Amendment transferring the sum of $79,399.20 from the General Fund
Reserves for Contingencies into the General Fund, Merritt Blvd. Fire to pay for
mutual aid labor and equipment costs.
SUBMITTED B~ Date:
Ke')meth F. Pineau, Emergency Management Director
APPROVED BY: ~,~'t4-~ Date:/,~
Thomas Storrar, Emergency Services Administrator
AGENDA I~l'~J~ J-, I
No.
APR 2 q ~2001
...... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVAL OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS 90/10% GRANT APPLICATION
OBJECTIVE: Approval of the Board of County Commissioners to enter into a 90/10%
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Fire fighters Grant, and
approve the necessary budget amendments.
CONSIDERATION: The Isles of Capri Fire Control District has selected two of the
categories allotted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency - Vehicles and
Personal Protective Equipment. FEMA has set a high priority on the safety of fire
personnel and first-line vehicles. Therefore, the Isles of Capri Fire Control District
wishes to obtain a new fire truck, 20 sets of complete protective (bunker) gear including
hoods, boots, gloves, helmets and a breathing apparatus fill station through this 90/10%
grant. FEMA will reimburse 90% of the total costs with the remaining 10% to be paid by
the Isles of Capri Fire Control District.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the application is approved by FEMA, the grant will require
budget amendments in the amount of $406,207 of which the Isles of Capri Fire Control
will be reimbursed 90%. New revenue must be recognized and appropriated, and funds
will be transferred from the Isles of Capri Fire Districts Impact Fees via budget
amendments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Chairman to sign the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to Firefighters
Grant application to enter into a 90/10% grant to purchase a new fire truck and firefighter
protective gear, and approve the necessary budget amendments
SUBMITTED BY: Date: q ~1'7~(5!
ief, Isles of Capri Fire Control District
APPROVED BY:
~dT,..~ ~zp/,/~/...~ Date: ¢? ? '~/~
Thomas Storrar, CEM, Emergency Services Administrator
APR 2 2001
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
Application Checklist
Fire Department:
Isles of Capri Fire Department
To Complete the Application, Have You: r-l'
Completed the Standard Form-424, Request for Federal Assistance x
(Ali fields identified in the application's instructions)?
Signed the Standard Form-424? X
Completed FEMA Form 20-20, Budget Information -'N0n-constru'ction x
Program, for each category applied for, one category per column?
Signed FEMA Form 20-20 (Budget Information)? x
Completed and signed FEMA Form 20-16, Summary Sheet for
Assurances and Certifications? x
Completed and signed Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying'
Activities if applicable? . . .
COmpleted the General 'Question~ for all applicants? x
Completed the Category Specific Questions for all categories for which ×
applying (no more than 2)?
Completed a project narrative that gives detailed information fOr all x
categories for which applyi.ng? (Five page limit for each narrative.)
Limited your application to two categories? x
Sent an original and two Copies' of the completed application pack~ge? x
Mailed the application package'for delivery t0 FEMA by the May 2, 2001
x
Deadline? ......
NO LATE OR INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED.
~PR 2-h 2001
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL A$81STANCE
PmappticaBon
Isles of Capd Fire Control District
Addrea~ (give c.A~y, murgy, Stale, end 2~p co~):
175 Capri Blvd.
Naples, FL 34113
TYPE OF A.aPUCAT~ON:
A. Incras== Award B. Dec, anne Awarcl
O. Dec:ma~e DumUo~ ~
C. ]ncmaae Duratkm
TITLE: FImf~htem Asalstance Gran~
Collier county
PROP _ _m-~.~ P IL~_uE C T: t 4. CO/¢~N~u Di&~-m~T~ OF:
14
Federat
/
15. ~UI~ATED FUNDINQ:
365,587,00
365,587
$'
40,620
Stale
Local
406,207
IDAT~ 8U~ui' rl=u
4/13/01.
OMa Apl:x'r,ml No. 03480043
fe ll~t Identifier
I IdeS'd~er
;TOTAL
Name and lelephOne number of pemon Io be c~nt~ on mettem Involving
is amllmt~n (g/~ ,me ma)
ames D. Carter. Ph.D.. Chairman Collier County Board of Commiss[onem
(941) 774-8391
A. S/ate H. Independent Sci'tool Dist.
a. County I. Slam Contmfled InsUtulton of H~gt'~' Learning
C. Munlct~ J. Prlvatn University
D. Township K. Indla~ Tn'be
E. Inmmmte L lndIV~d
F. Intemmnictpal M. Profit Organtz:aUon
G. sp~,~ o~ N, C~ue.,~} Fire Department
NAME 0 F F--~.q::~,AL AGENCY:
Federal Emergen=X Ma~nt Agentv
Collier CoUnty (14)
IL m A.°~LICATION ~(JB.m~T ~ ~ BY &TATE EXE~UTi',q~
ORDER t~
'rillS PREAP~UCATION/APF~.JCATION WAR MADE AVAILABLE
TO THE ,.~'ATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCEB~ FOR
REVIEW ON:
DATE:
ROGRAM BY E.O. 12~72
NOT
COVERED
R PROGRAM HA8 NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE
FOR REVIEW
E]Yes If "Ymr," -tt~ m~ e,~l~maflom ~'~No
1~. TO THE ~____-~ QF MY KNOWI..E'I~GE AND ~ m_=, ALL DATA IN ~ A,-"~LIC, ATIQ~APPUCATION AR~ TRUE AND CORRECT, THE
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHOKJ~:U BY THE ~OI~RNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLy ~ THE
ATTACHED AS~JRANCE~ IF THE AS~J6TANCE L~ AWARDED.
a. Type N=.Tm of Audrey,.ed ~.~:~i,,~enlalJ~ ~b.. T~le '
,J. ames O. Carter, Ph.D.
d. Signature of Auth~,.~,~
(941) 77¢-8391
I
- ~1~1 -'
o. ~ ' ~ · > ~
~ --.
_. ~ ~ ~
~ Z
~ II~=z '
~ ~ No.
I j j . APR Z ~ 2001
Suggested Format for the
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's
Project Narrative
Instructions: Please be sure that your narrative addresses each of the following areas
to the best of your ability. Your narrative should be concise, but brief. If you need more
room than has been allotted for your answer, please use the back of the suggested form
or feel free to attach more sheets. Your narrative may n, ot exceed a maximum of five
pages including this form. The project narrative must be double spaced.
Applicant Name: [ Category:
isles of Capri Fire/Rescue t Vehicle
Please describe in full the project that you are requesting to be funded.
See attached
Please provide a detailed description of your planned uses of the grant funds for
each major budget category as listed on the budget form (SF 20-20).
See attached
PleaSe explain why this program would be beneficial to your community and/or t°
your department.
See attached
Please explain why this project cannot be funded solely through local funding.
See attached
PleaSe provide any additional relevant information that you would like us to
consider when evaluating your application.
See attached
AGENDA~'~M~
No. J ~'/'~"~,'~
APR'2 t-
2001
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's
Project Narrative for New Fire Engine
We are requesting funding for the purchase of a new Fire Engine. Our current first response fire
engine is a 1985 GMC with over 77,312 tm'les. A used vehicle purchased in 1996 flora a
n~ighboring Fir, D~a~tment. W'~ the add/tion of the new Eug/ne the Ckizens of our
commun/ty will benefit by having an apparatus that will increase the level of servic, e and be
capable of effectively and safely serving. The new engine wilt also allow the re-calculation of
our curm~ 150 rating of 6 to a lower _rating or 4 to 5 providing a benefit to the citizens by the
lowering ofinsmance rates. Our Depm~mient would also benefit by having a first respons=
Engine that is able to provide ma~,;,,,um safety and reliability to our flout line personnel. Growth
of our community and the significant increase in ~ volume of approximately 30% over last year
no~s~_tes the pttmhase of a new and updated front line Engine. The millage rate that is
canrenfly charged to our citizens is at our cap and our Fire Advisow Board has d,t~,,ined that an
increase is not prudent at this time and du~ to the size of our Depns/ment and given our budg~n'y
constraints we are unable to purchase a ne~ vehicle of this class. Our Department is comprised of
a paid/volonteer staff with one (I) paid personnel on duty for a 24 hour shifl to provide full
coverag, of om' District While volvzt~ staff ~omprise most of our p~rsonnel the r~'ponse time
can vary greatly which pm depe~rlahility and r~liability at the foremost concera given the age of
our apparatus.
2001
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS
CA FOR (Name of Applicant)
Isles of Capd
O.M.B. No. 3067-0206
Expires February 29, 2004
sheet includes Assurances and Certifications that must be read, signed, and submitted as a part of the
)plicafion for Federal Assistance.
applicant must check each item that they are certifying to:
Part
Part
Part
FEMA Form 20-16A, Assurances-Nonconstruction Programs
FEMA Form 20-16B, Assurances-Construction Programs
FEMA Form 20-16C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying;
Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility
Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (If applicable)
Part IV D
the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the applicant will comply with the identified
assurances and certifications.
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Typed Name of Authorized Representative
Chairma,n, Collier Coun~ Board of Commissioners
Title
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date Signed
By signing the certification regarding debarmem, suspension, and other responsibility matters for primary covered
, the applicant agrees that, should the proposed covered transaction he entered into, it shall not knowingly enter
; lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debar-red, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by FEMA entering into this transaction.
The applicant further agrees by submitting this application that it will include the clause tiffed "Certification
Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction," provided by
FEMA Regional Office entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions
ali solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (Refer to 44 CFR Part 17.)
Paperwork Burden Disclosure Notice
reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.7 hours per response. Burden means the time, effort and
resoumas expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or to provide information to us. You may
the burden estimate or any aspect of the form, including suggestions for reducing the burden
Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472,
Reduction Project (3067-0206). You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid
control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Please do not send your completed form,to the above
^C, -i
'=E qtPOi'm APR,'72 q 2001 J
Pg. / I
General Questions for Ail Applicants
- - ' ' FOr FEMA Use
Questions, page 2 of 2 Only
6. What is the permanent resident population of your
primary/first-response area or jurisdiction served7
2500 = Population of response area.
7. What category (or categories) of assistance are you
applying for with this application and how much is
the total Federal share of the cost of the project that
you are seeking in each category?
Category #1' Vehicles $ 353,742.00
Category #2: PPE ~ 5Z,466.00 ,,
8. If the population you protect is 50,000 or less, you
are required to provide a non-Federal cost-share
equal to 10 percent of the total project cost. if the
population you protect is over 50,000, you are
required to provide a non-Federal cost-share equal
to 30 percent of the total project cost. Are you willing
to comply with this requir~nent? (circle one)
b) No.
9. It is also a requirement that departments receiving
funding under this grant program agree to provide
information to the national fire incident reporting
system (NFIRS). If you receive an award, do you agree
to provide information to this national system? (circle one)
b) No.
General Questions for All A s
For FEMA Use
Questions, page 1 of 2 Only
1. Are you a Fire Department or the authorized
representative of a fire department? (circle one)
b) No.
2. Are you a Federal Fire Department or contracted
by the Federal government and solely responsible
for suppression of fires on Federal property?
a) Yes.
3. Is your active firefighting staff(circle one):
a) all paid/career?
QI] volunteer or combination volunteer
and career?
4. Is your department located in (circle one):
a) an urban community
(population over 250,000)?
b) a suburban community
(population between 20,000 and 250,000)?
(~ rural community
(population under 20,000)?
5. How many active firefighters are in the operations/-
EMS divisions of you department?
20 = Number of active firefighters.
No. I(o/,~) ~,
APR 2 Ji 2001
QUestions for Personal Protective Equil
Questions
What percentage of your active firefighting staff has
personal protective equipment that meets current
NFPA and OSHA standards?
100 = Percentage with PPE.
What percentage of your active firefighting staff will
have personal protective equipment that meets
current NFPA and OSHA standards if this grant
is awarded?
100
= Percentage that will have PPE.
The purpose of this grant is to (circle one):
a) Equip firefighting staff for the first time.
(~ Replace obsolete or sub-standard
equipment.
c) Equip staff for a new mission.
~ment Category
For FEMA Use
Only
Questions for Vehicle Categor,
For FEMA Use
Questions, page 1 of 2 Qnly
~1. What type of vehicle will you use the grant funds
to purchase (circle one):
(~) Engine (includes Pumpers)
b) Tanker
c) Heavy Rescue Vehicle
d) Brash Track
e) Ambulance
f) Aerial Apparatus (includes Ladders)
g) Other, specify =
2. The purpose for this grant is to (circle one):
(~ Obtain an additional vehicle for firefighting fleet.
b) Replace/retire an old firefighting vehicle.
c) Refurbish an old firefighting vehicle.
d) Purchase a new vehicle to fulfill a
new mission.
!3. How many vehicles of the type or class you are
planning to purchase, does your department own?
~ = Number of vehicles.
4. What is the age of your newest first-response
vehicle in this class that you currently own?
10_as = Age of newest vehicle.
Questions for Vehicle Categor, T
' ' ' For FEMA Use
Questions, page 2 of 2 Only,
5. What is the age of the oldest first-response vehicle
in this class that you currently own?
198s = Age of oldest vehicle.
6. What is the mileage on the first-response
vehicle you are replacing/refurbishing?
77,~12 = Mileage of vehicle.
7. What is the average number of annual responses
for the first-response vehicle you are
replacing/refurbishing?
~,,2 = Average annual responses.
Suggested Format for the
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's
Project Narrative
Instructions: Please be sure that your narrative addresses each of the following areas
to the best of your ability. Your narrative should be concise, but brief. If you need more
room than has been allotted for your answer, please use the back of the suggested form
or feel free to attach more sheets. Your narrative may not exceed a maximum of five
pages including this form. The project narrative must be double spaced.
Applicant Name: I Category:
isles of Capri Fire/Rescue J PPE
'Please describe in full the project that you are requesting to be funded.
See attached
Please provide a detailed description of your planned uses of the grant funds for
each major budget category as listed on the budget form ($F 20-20).
See attached
Please explain why this program would be beneficial to your community andlor to
your department.
See attached
'Pleas'e explain why this project cannot be funded solely through local funding.
See attached
Please provide any additional relevant information that you would like us to
consider when evaluating your application.
See attached
2 ,¥ 2001
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's
Project Narrative for New Personal Protective Equipment
We are requesting funding for outfkiiag our paifl/volunt~*r staffwith updated personal protective
equipment. (95% of ou~ f~ont-Iine gear is 5-10 years old), and to provide our fire department
with the capability of refilling our self c~a~ined breathing al)pm-ams bottles with the purchase of
a compressed breathing air fill station We are currently relying on other fire departments to put
our SCBA bottles in service, an unsatisfactory arnmgemmt. This necessity puts one of our
emergency vehicles out of service for one to two hours each time we have to fill the bottles,
The funds allotted for this category will go exclusively towards the purchase of:
1. Compressed Breathing Air Fill Station
2. Twenty (20) complete sets of Personal Protectivo Equipment to include
a. Breaker Pants
b. Coats
c. Fire Gloves
d, Boots
e. Hoods and Helmets
The pumhase of these items will provide our line personnel with updated and technologically
advanced protective equipment.
These purchases would also directly benefit the citizens of our distriot by increasing the safety
and productivity of ou~ ftrefighting parson,,el.
The millage rate ourrently charged our citizens has reached its cap. Given the size of our
deparlment and our budgetary constraints, we are unable to fund th~ purchas~ of the
aforementioned equipment.
The ability to safely and c-ffectively do our job hinges dLrectly on the reliability and serviceability
of our equipment, and with the addition of the rr~cluosteA PPE and SCBA fill simon, we can
accomphsh this.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MATCHING GRANT
REQUEST
OBJECTIVE: Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners to enter into
a 50 percent (50%) Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant, and approve the necessary budget
amendments for the purpose of purchasing an 18 HP portable pump.
CONSIDERATION: The Ochopee Fire Control District for the past 23 years has been
awarded a Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant from the Division of Forestry. This year the
Division of Forestry has set a high priority on portable pumps, therefore, the District
wishes to obtain an 18 HP portable pump to be placed on a truck through a 50/50 grant.
FISCAL IMPACT: The grant will require budget amendments if approved in the
amount of $4200.00 through a 50/50 Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant from the Division
of Forestry for the purchase of an 18HP portable pump which the District will be
reimbursed for half of the total expenditure. The money will be transferred from the
Ochopee Fire Control District's Reserve for Contingencies to Miscellaneous Grant
Funds.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Chairman to sign the Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant to enter into a 50 percent (50%)
grant to purchase an 18 HP portable pump for the Ochopee Fire Control District at a cost
not to exceed $4200.00~nd approve the necessary budget amendments as stated above.
SUBMITTEDBY:~V~' ~ ~Q ~ DATE:q-~-tg~
Paul Wilson, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District
REVIEWED BY:
Chris Dublis, Budget Analyst I
DATE: ~J///O /
APPROVED BY:
Thomas Storrar, Emergency Services Administrator
APR 2 200!
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
TYPE OF SUBMISSION:
[~ Construction
[~] Consltuction
OMB Approval No. 0348-0043
2. OATE SUBMtTS'EO Aooficant tdenFlia~
4-3-01 NA
3. DATE RECEIVED DY STATE Slate AtoDlicelion Identifier
4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Fedetlll Identifier
A~dles$ (give city. county, state, and zit) code):
P.O. Box 25
Ochopee, Fl. 34141
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER {EIN):
I. TYPE OF APPLtCATION:
[] New rs Continuation [] Revision
Il Revision. paler epp, oD, iate let,et(s) In boA(es): [] []
A bsc,easa Awa,d B Decrease Awa,d C Increase Duration
O Decrease Duration Giber (Specify):
ASSISTANCE NUMBER: ·
TITLE: VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
ARE.AS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (citieS. COUnties. states, ell ):
Collier County
I~3. PROPOSEO PROJECT:
Sla,t Dale Ending Dele
10/01/2000 09/30/2001
ESTSMAIEO FUtlOING:
Fade,al
Applicant
Slate
Local
Other
Program Income
TOTAL
Or(sanizetlonel Unit'
Name and lalephone numbe~ Gl the person IO be contacted on mailers involving
Ihis aDpllcation (give area code}
Paul Wilson,. Fica Chief (941) 695-4114
7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (en;e~' aDp,Dp,iota Ipfte~' in box) []
A State H Independent ,~¢.hoot GiSt.
B. CounW I. Slale ~nlfolled Inslilutlon of Higher Learning
C Municipal J PHvaI~ Univarji~
O. Township K. Indian Td~
E. late, slate L. Individual
F Inletmunicipal M Ptofil Organizalion
G aD,iai DistilL[ N Other (Specie):
HAME OF FEOERAL AOENCY~
~ t. OESCRIP[IVE flTLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT:
Ocho~e F±ce Contcol District.
4. CONGR_.~E$SIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
AoDlicanl
NA
b P,oject
NA
APPLICATION SUBJECI TO REVlEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE OROER 12372 PROCESS'/
$ 2'~ 100. O0 .oo
~ 2,~ 100. O0 .0o
.oo
$ NA
.00
$ NA
$ NA
$ NA .oo.
s4,,200. O0
.00
YES THIS PREAPPLICATION~APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
STATE EXECUTIVE OROER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON
b NO
DATE
[] PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.O 12372
[] OR PRO~RAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REV1EW
I1. IS THE APPLICAN1 DELINQUENt* ON ANY FEOERAL OEBT1
] Yes If 'Yes.' allach an explanalion
r'-i No
THIS APPLICATION pflEARPLICATION ARE TRUE AH0 CORRECT· THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN OULY
TO THE IDES1' OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANO BELIEF. ALL DA~'A IN AppLicaNT WILL cOMPLY WITH /'HE ATTACHED
Treed Name or Authorized Reorasentahve b T,tle -Ch ~ irma n, Co 1 1 i e r T
.~,Laj~.~_.D · C a r..l~e.:_~-~z~-*
d S*gnalur! of Aulhorized Representative
Eo,,,on. No, I APR 2801
Authorized for Local Reproduction
pg.
Note:
OMB Approval No. 0348-0040
ASSURANCES -- NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If ~,ou have questio
please contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants
to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant
I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and
financial capability (including funds sut'ficient to
pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to
ensure proper planning, management and com-
pletion of the project described in this application.
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller
General of the United States, and 'if appropriate,
the State, through any authorized representative,
access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the award;
and will establish a proper accounting system in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
standards or agency directives.
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees
from. using their positions for a purpose that
constitutes or presents the appearance of personal
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal
gain.
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the
applicable time frame alter receipt of approval o£
the awarding agency.
5. Will comply with the intergovernmental
Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4728-4763)
relating to prescribed standards for merit systems
for programs funded under one of the nineteen
statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of
OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel
Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).
6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to
nondiscrimination. These include but are not
limited Lo: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b)
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as
amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683~ and 168§-1686),
which prohibits discrimination 6n the basis of sex;
(c} Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits dis-
crimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended 442
U.S.C.§§ 6101-6107), which prohibits disc'rim-
ination on the basis ofage;
(e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment 'Act of
1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse;
the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and A]cbholism
Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
alcoholism; (g) §9 523 and 527 of the Public Health
Service,Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ce-
3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of
alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 9
3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to non-
discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of
housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination
provisions in the specific statute(s) under which
application for Federal assistance is being made;
and (j) the requirements of any other
nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to
the application.
Will comply, or has already complied, with
requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646}
which provide for fair and equitable treatment of
persons displaced or whose property is acquired as
a result of Federal or federally assisted programs.
These requirements apply to all interests in real
property acquired for project purposes regardless
of Federal participation in purchases.
Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit
the political activities of employees whose
principal employment activities are funded in
whole or in part with Federal funds.
Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 9§ 276a to 276a-
7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. 9 276c and 18
U.S.C. 99 874), and the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 99 327-333),
regarding labor standards for federally assisted
construction subagreements.
Authorized for Local Reproduction
APR 2 2001
10. Will comply, ii' applicable, with flood insurance
purchase requirements of Section 102Ca) of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 CP. L. 93-234)
which requires recipients in a special flood hazard
area to participate in the program andto purchase
flood insurance if the total cost of insurable
construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more.
11. Will comply with environmental standards which
may be prescribed pursuant to the following: Ca)
institution of environmental quality control
measures under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive
Order CEO) 11514; Cb) notification of violating
facilities pursu, ant to EO 11738; Cc) protection of
wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; Cd) evaluation of
flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO
11988; Ce)assurance of project consistency with
the approved State management program
developed under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); Cf)
conformity of Federal actions to State (Clear. Air)
Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the
Clear Air Act of 195§0 as amended (42 U.S.C. §
7401 et seq.); (g} protection of underground sources
of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and Ch)
protection of endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L.
93-205).
12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.} related to
protecting components or potential components of
the national wild and scenic rivers system.
13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring
compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16
U.S.C. 4?0), EO 11593 (identification and
protection of historic properties), and the
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.).
14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the
protection of human subjects involved in research,
development, and related activities supported by
this award of assistance.
15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare
Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C.
2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and
treatment of warm blooded animals held for
research, teaching, or other activities supported by
'this award of assistance.
16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801 et seq.) which
prohibits the use of lead based paint in
construction or rehabilitation of residence
structures.
17. Will cause to be performed the required financial
and compliance audits in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984.
18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all
other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations
and policies governing this program.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
aP.UCANTORGANIZATION
Ochopee Fire Control Distric~
ITITLE
Collier County Board of Commissioners
Chairman
DATE SUBMITTED
4-3-01
ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
~By: , Deputy Clerk
~pproved as to form
'~J~s is t an t County
Attorney
No~A~EN D~TE M
t "' /
APR 2 6 2001
Ce=tification Regarding D~barmsnt, Suspension, ~nd Other
Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions
This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order
12549, Debarment ~nd Suspension, 7 CFR Part 3017, Section 3017.510,
Participants' responsibilities. The regulations were published as Part IV of
the January 30, 1989, Federal Reqister (pages 4722-4733). Copies of the
regulations may be obtained by contacting the Department of Agriculture agency
offering the proposed covered transaction.
(BgFO~ CONlmL~TINO CERTIFICATION, P. H3%D INSTRUCTIONS ON NHXT PAGE)
(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge
and belief, that it and its principals:
(a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded fro~ covered transactions by any
Federal department or agency;
(b) have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been
convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for
co~iesion of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attem~ting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or Local)
transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of
Federal or State antitrust statutes or ccm~nission of embezzlement,
theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(¢) are not presently indicted for or otherwise crimlnally or civilly
charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with
ccxmnission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of
this certification; and
(d) have not within a.three-year period preceding this application/proposal
had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or Local)
terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of
the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall
attach an explanation to this proposal.
Collier County Board of Co~missioners Ochopee Fire Control District
Orpanization Name
James D. Carter,, Ph.D.,, Chairman
PR/Award Number or Project Name
Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Signature
Attest: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
Date
Form AD-104? (2/89)
10.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR C~RTI~'ICATION
By si~ing ~d s~i~ting this fo~, the prospective pri~ particip~'is providing
the certification s~t out on the revers~ side in accor~ce with th~s~ inst~ction~.
~e in~ility of a person to provide the certification re~ired ~low will not
necessarily result in denial of participation in this cowered tr~saction.
prospective partic{p~t shall s~it ~ e~l~at~on of why it c~ot ~rovfde the
certification set out on this fo~. ~e certification or s~l~atfon will ~
considered in co~ect~on with the department or agent's dete~inatfon whether to
enter into this tr~saction. However, failure of the prosp.ctivm pri~ particip~t
to fu~ish a certification or ~ e~l~ation shall dis~alify su~ person
participation in the trisection.
~e certification in this clause is a ~terfal representation of feat up~
reli~ce was placed when the depar~ent or agen~ datelined to enter into
trisection. If it is later dete~ned that the prospective pri~
~owlngly rendered ~ erroneous certifica~ion, in addition to other remedies
to the Federal ~ve~ent, the.depar~en2 or agen~ ~y resinate thi~ tr~sacti~ for
cause or default.
~e prospective pri~ partic[p~t shall' provid9 i~ed~ate ~it~en notice to the
department or agen~ to wh~ this proposal is s~itted if at ~y ti~ the
pri~ particiD~t lea~s that its certification was erroneous when m~itted or
becks erroneous ~ reason of ch~ged circ~st~ces.
~e te~s 'covered tr~sac=ton," 'debarred,' 'suspended," "ineligible,. "lower tier
covered tr~sacti~, · "partic~p~t,' 'person, · "pr~ covered trisection,.
"princlpal,' "proposal," ~d 'vol~tarily excluded," as used in th~s clause, ~ve the
me~ings set out in the Definitions ~d Coverage sections of the ~les i~l~enting
Executive Order 12549. You ~y contact the depar~nt or agen~ to ~lch
proposal ~s ~ing s~itted for assist~ce in obtaining a c~y of tho~e re.latins.
~e 9rospec=ive pri~ partic[p~t agrees ~ s~itting th~s fo~ that, should the
proposed co~ered tr~saction ~ entered into, it s~ll not ~owingly enter into
lower tier covered tr~saction with a person who is de. fred, suspended, declared
ineligible, or vol~tarily excluded fr~ participation in ~him cowered
~less author[zed ~ the depar~ent or agen~ entering into this trisection.
~e prospective pri~ part~cip~t further agrees ~ s~itting this fo~ t~t
will include the clause title '"Certification Regarding De~nt, Sus~ensi~,
Inellgibility ~d Vol~ta~ Exclusion - ~wer Tier Covered ~smcti~, · Dr~i~d
the depar~nt or agen~ entering into this covered tr~sactio~, wight
in all lower tier covered trisections ~d ~n all solicitati~s for lower tier covere~
trisections.
A particip~t in a covered tr~saction ~y rely upon a cert~ficati~ of a
particip~t in a lower tier ~overed tr~sacti~ t~t it is not ~rred, su~nded,
ineligible, or vol~tarily excluded fr~ the covered tr~saction, ~less ~ ~owe
the certification is erroneous. A particip~t ~y decide the ~th~ ~d fre~en~
whi~ it dete~ines the eligibility of its principals. 2a~ particip~t ~y,
not re~ired to, ~eck the Nonpro~r~nt List.
No=hing contained in the foregoing shall ~ const~ed to re~lre est~lie~nt
system of records in order to render in g~ fa~ the certificat~ re.ired ~ this
clause. ~e ~owledge ~d info~tion of a part[ciDer is not re~ired to exceed tha~
which is noilly posse6sed ~ a p~dent person in the ord[na~ course of business
dealings.
~xcept for trisections authorized ~der paragraph 6 of these inet~ctions, ~f
paz=icip~t in a covered trisection ~owingly enters ioto a lower tier covered
trisection with a person who is suspended, de.fred, ~nel~gible, or vol~tarily
excluded fr~ participation in this trisection, in additi~ to other remedies
avail~le to the Federal Gove~ent, the depar~ent or agen~ ~y resinate
tr~saction for cause or default.
2 Fo~ ~.1047 ¥,'=i)A~NOA~
APR 2 2001
OHB APPROVAL NO.09~l - 000:2
U.S. D~PARTMENT OF A(3R:]:C"UL~
CE~TIFICATION
ALTE~tNATI'V~ I - FOR (~kNTEES OTHER THAN ZNDMDUALS
This certification ie required by the regulations in~lementing Sections
5151-5160 of the Drug-Free #ork~lace Act of 19S8 (Pub L. 100-690, Title
Subtitle D; 41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), 7 CFR Part 3017, Sub, art F, Sectic~
3017.60D, Pur~oee. The regulations were published as Part 11 of r. he January
31, 1989 Federal Resister {pages 4947-4952). Co$)ies of the reguletic~s may be
obtained by contacting the Department of Agriculture agency offering t-he grant.
(B~FOR~ COMPLETiI~ C~RTIFICATI0~, RF~D. ~NSTRUCTI~NS ON SECOND
(A) The grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employe'e~ that the unlawful
ma.nufac=ure, distribution, dispensing, possession or nme of ·
con=rolled substance il prohibited in the grantee's workplace and
specifying =he actions that will be taken against em~lc,/ees for
violation of much prohibition;
{b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform e~ployees about--
(1] The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee
assistance programs; and
(4} The penalties that may. be imposed upon employees for dmug abuse
violations occurring 'in the workplace;
(c) HaJqing it a requirement ~hat each employee to be engaged in the
performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by
paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying 'the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that,
as a condition of employment under the grant, the em~lc%,ee will--
(i) Abide by the te'rm~ of the st·teen=; and
(2) Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for &
violation occurring ~he the workplace no later than five days after
such convicti~;
For~ AD- 1049
A(~IENDA IT~
APR 2 % 2tO01
Pg._ 7
(e) ~ot~£ying ~he agency ~i~£n ten ~y~ &~tez ~ece~v~ng not,ce
(~) T~ng one o~ ~e ~o~o~ng ~cc~, ~ch~n 30 ~y~ o~ ~ece~v~ag no~ce
~der ~aragraph (d}{2), ~i~h ~e~c~ ~o ~y e~l~ee ~o Il ~o
c~vic~ed- -
~d including te~t~=i~; or
(2) Ro~i~ing eu~ ~l~o to pl~lci~te matimlic~orlly In · ~g
~fo 8fjio=~ce o~ re~ili~,~lm pr~r~ a~rMd for
pu~oeo ~ a ~e~ral, ~ace, or l~al'heal~, law e~or~,
o~he= appr~ria~e agem~;
jgj ~ing a g~ fai~ e~forc ~o c~imue to ~Ancain a ~g-tree
~d (t).
~e[to~ce et vo~k d~e ~n co~eccion vi~ ~he ~eci~c ~.
Collier County Board of Commissioners
James D. Carter, Ph.D-. Ch~irman
Ochopee Fire Control District
PR/Avare l~mber or Pro}act Mmmm
Attest:
Date
INSTRUCTIONS l~DR CERTIFICATION
1. By eigning ~nd eut~itting ~hil iorm, the grantee il provi4tng the
certigication let out on pages 1 ~nd 2.
2. The certigic&Cion lac out on pages 1 and 2 is & material ~lprelent&~lc~ o£
f&cc upon vhich reliance vis placed vhen
g£~t. It Lc is 1&car ~ecermiued ~ac the g~antee knovingly ~en~ered ·
falle certigiciticm, or othe~ile violicel ~he requiremea~e o£
Oz-~g-Free ~orkplace. Act, the agency, in
available ~o C~he Federal GoVernment. 0~y cake action auchorised unM~ ~he
Drug-~ree Workplace
D~ighL E. Brock, Clerk Form ~m-XO(~ (2/1~)
, Deputy Clerk
Appr~oved as to form and legal sufficiency
~[l~J3C~ ~ _~JL~.~f~~~tY Attorney
CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS
AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No federal appropriated lunds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned,
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee o! any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee ol Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with
the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any. cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or witl be paid to any person
lot influencing or attempting to Influence an officer or ymployee of any agency; a Member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal'
contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard
Form-LLL, 'Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying', in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award
documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including sub-contracts, sub-grants and contracts under grants,
loans and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of lact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction
was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is. a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31 U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification
shall be subject to a civil penalty ol not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Signature Date
James D. Carteu,. Ph.D.,, Chairman
Name and T~le Cbllier County Board of' Commissioners
ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BY: , Deputy Clerk
Approved~s,~ F~rm a~771 Sufficiency
sis~ant Cot~ntt ~ - At t orney
APR 2 2001
'O01X~R
· ~.
I
I
I
'1
(~
NARRATIVE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL InSTruCT
GRANT REQUEST
The Ochopee Fire Control District covers approximately 1,100 square miles. Seventy
percent (70%) is CH-2 land. This area is known as a high brush fire occurrence area.
The Ochopee Fire Control District provides fire protection for homes, trailers businesses,
hunting camps, brush, woods, rescue medical (EMT level), assistance for tmck and
automobile accidents. The District provides this protection to the southeast portion of
Collier County Including Everglades City and a portion of approximately 3,500 people.
The District works closely with the Division of Forestry (Copeland, Mile City) and with
Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahatchee Park Rangers and Panther Rangers throUgh
mutual aid agreements relating to fire protection.
This year, the Division of Forestry has set a high priority on portable pumps. Which
would increase Ochopee Fire Control District's effectiveness in combating brush fires
during mutual aid events between the Division of Forestry and other Fire Departments.
Also this equipment would assist greatly in protecting residences in the heavily wooded
areas during brush fires. Consequently, in keeping with the initial Division of Forestry's
objective this year the Ochopee Fire Control District has applied for an 18-horse power
portable pump to replace a 10 year old model needing repairs that would exceed the cost
of a new one. The pump to be replaced is on a vehicle assigned to us by the Division of
Forestry, Brush 60, therefore, this replacement is for the proper maintenance of said
equipment.
(April 3, 200
December 9. 1999
VFA
REQUESTFORCOSTSHAREAPPROVAL
TO: Director,
L. Earl Peterson
Florida Division of Forestry
The Ochopee Fire Control District requests your
(Name of Local Government)
approval for the cost-share purchase of the following items of equipment and/or training, or such portions
thereof, as may be approved, not to exceed the purchase price as stated herein:
Items of Equipment
and/or *Training
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Community to
Receive Benefit
Darely Pump 18HP
Briggs & Stratton Engine
Installed
1 $4,,200.00 $4~1200-00 Ochopee FiFe Control
Disl
Total
$4,,200.00
We hereby acknowledge that the population of the above named individual community(s) does not exceed
10,000.
Furthermore, we understand that this is a 50 percent maximum cost-share program (Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978, PL 95.313), and that funds on deposit up to 50 percent of the actual purchase
price of the items approved will be committed to our project. We further understand that funds for all
items to be purchased are to be encumbered by JULY I 2000, and all unencumbered funds as of said
date will be withdrawn by the Division of Forestry.
Authorized Signature
Chairman,, Collie~ County Board of Commissioners
Title
ATTEST:
' If request is for training, itemize the following:
1. Milage By:
2. Lodging and Meals
3. Training Supplies
4. Tuition
5. Salary (Paid Firefighters only) ·
Approved as to Form
Legal Surf lc'
Date
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
Deputy Clerk
NO.
APR '2 ~1
O
ELITE
Fire & Safety
Equipment, Inc.
TO:CHIEF PAUL WILSON
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
PHON~S95-4114
FROM:JEI=:PRfEY' R. ~ENKF. R
CONSULTANT
4 4-01
PUMP 11~ H.P.
..' :L .,:, ..i: '.,.", ;; ',',', :;.:
.... i 'i .; ' ;:'::: ' : :;"; ....... % ';" '
;:;,;;1: .; ,;:;;;2;;:; T ' ' .....
UNIT
$4,~00.00
T~
Specializing In:
Fire Apparatus, Fire Fi.0htir~q .Equipment, Foam & WtldWe E. qulpmP, n~
24 HOUR EMERGENCY FOAM SUPPI.Y
1-ROO.A3~-FOAM (,36~fi)
#64
04
.eom
~ COff~
TO
ATTN
FAX
Ochopee FCD
Chief paul Wison
941-6954473
2000 ANSON DRIVE
PIIOHF, 708-3a5-1t050 FAX 708~ 345. 8993
FIRE FIGIFI'IN¢'; EO[IIPMEN'I'
DA I E
PA~
MELROSE PARK., I!.. 60161)-1087 U.S.A.
'I/Apr;/200 !
I
REGARDING 21BE 18BS
WE ARE PLEASED tO OUQTF PRICES 'TO YC)U ON 'DIE FOL.OWING
~ QUOT~ ~0
....... ?>.AL F-gMAN .............
...... ~DEI. IVER¥ VALIDFI¥. ,
I Jim barley 10 weeks ARO 90 days
~ 4 Apr 2001 best way
63
to arl'ainge for replacement of 2~E 18B.'3 pump
I.abor to include pulling n.1 oki pump 8nd placififj ir~ new
pump
pump replacement
4,~$0.00 ~4,850.00
THESE COMMODITIES ARE LICENSED BY THE U.S. FOR ULTIMATE
DIVERSION CONTRARY TO U S. LAW PROhlP, II'ED
NOTES
HIPPING
Please let us know how we can be of furlher as$ilance
Ji~~~AW' S,-~ARLEi
& CO.
APR2 "'200(
C. L. Carder & Associates
~4ain Office: 4270 Creek Haven Dr. Marietta, Ga. 30062
Phone: 678-560-0801 Fax: 678.560-0802
E.MalI: ccsalesrep@aol.com
April 3, 2001
To: Chief Paul Wilson
Ochope¢ Fire Control District
From: Chuck Carder
C. L. Cruder & A~>ciales
Subject: Price Quo~e/Darley Pump
Ik. seription
D~rley # 2BEI BBS Pump; wi18 Itor~epower
Brlg~ & Stolon Motor; R~move oM pump
mud in~tall n~w one.
Thanks for the oppommity!
Regm'ds
Chuck
Price.
.$ 4,985. 89
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOGNIZE CARRY-FORWARD AND APPROPRIATE
MONIES IN THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
GRANT FUND
OBJECTIVE: To gain Board of County Commissioners approval to recognize carry
forward and appropriate monies, in the amount of $35,100, in the Emergency
Management Grant Fund (118) and to approve a Budget Amendment.
CONSIDERATION: The Board of County Commissioners approved grants for the
development of a Local Mitigation Strategy and for the bi-annual update of the hazardous
materials storage sites within Collier County. Both of these grants were completed in-
house. The sum of $35,100 was unspent and was carried-over into the Fiscal Year 2000-
2001 budget. The Emergency Management department has identified several projects that
are currently unfunded this year and could be used if these monies were available. These
projects include flip-down signage for shelter identification, two additional work stations
within the department, cost share of developing a Business & Industry Emergency
Preparedness program, and "All Hazards Guide" and additional representation at the
Governor's Hurricane Conference and additional training venues.
FISCAL IMPACT: Increase Emergency Management Grant Fund by $ 35,100 by
recognizing carry forward and appropriating expenses.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact with
this project.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve a Budget
Amendment that recognizes carry-forward and appropriates monies within the Emergency
Management Grant Fund.
PREP ARED~~u,~~rer gencD;tlV~:ana~m e~nt D?~ct or
APPROVED BY: ~
Thomas Storrar, Emergency Services Adrmnistrator
APR 2 q 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVAL OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS 90110% GRANT APPLICATION
OBJECTIVE: Approval of the Board of County Corranissioners to enter into a 90/10%
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant, and
approve the necessary budget amendments.
CONSIDERATION: The Ochopee Fire Control District has selected two of the
categories allotted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency - Vehicles and
Personal Protective Equipment. FEMA has set a high priority on the safety of fire
personnel and first-line vehicles in need of replacement due to deterioration or high
mileage. Therefore, the Ochopee Fire Control District wishes to obtain a new fire engine,
20 sets of complete protective (bunker) gear including hoods, boots, gloves, helmets and
20 air packs with fill station through this 90/10% grant. FEMA will reimburse 90% of
the total costs with the remaining 10% to be paid by the Ochopee Fire Control District.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the application is approved by FEMA, the grant will require
budget amendments in the amount of$321,811 of which the Ochopee Fire Control will
be reimbursed 90%. New revenue must be recognized and appropriated, and funds will
be transferred from the Ochopee Fire Control District's Reserve for Contingencies via
budget amendments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Chairman to sign the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to Firefighters
Grant application to enter into a 90/10% grant to purchase a new fire truck and firefighter
protective gear, and approve the necessary budget amendments
SUBMITTED BY: ~~_~ ~ Date: Z'-/-/~ ~o / Paul Wilson, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District
APPROVED BY:
Thomas Storrar, CEM, Emergency Services Administrator
APR 2 2001
pg. I
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Assistance to Fireflghters Grant Program
Application Checklist
F~reDepmrtment: Ochopee Fire Control District
To Complete the Application, Have You:
Completed the Standard Form-424, Request for Federal Assistance
(All fields identified in the application's instructions)?
Signed the Standard Fon'm4247
Completed FEMA Form 20-20, Budget Information - Non-construction
Program, for each category applied for, one category per column?
Signed FEMA Form 20-20 (Budget Information)?
Completed and signed FEMA Form 20-16, Summary Sheet for
Assurances and Certifications?
Completed and signed Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities if applicable?
Completed the General Questions for all applicants?
Completed the Category Specific Questions for all categories for which
applying (no more than 2)?
Completed a project narrative that gives detailed information for all
categories for which applying? (Five page limit for each narrative.)
Umited your application to two categories?
Sent an original and two copies of the completed application package?
Mailed the application package for delivery to FEMA by the May 2, 2001
Deadline?
NO LATE OR INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL BE R~VIEWED.
APR 2 Jt 2001
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL A8818TANCE
Collier County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 25
Ochopee,, Fl. 34141
l-q'~l- 16 I01 ol d5 151al
L YTl, I OF ,4/qqJCATIO~:
Collier County
Z. DATE
4-6-01
DATE RLk.~',--r.G BY ~TAI~
L DATE REC~ BY FF. DERAL AGENCY
IA,~#clnt Icladlter
N/A
~lIme Ind tMel)hone nur~)er M pemon io b4 oonticled on mitlirI invoiMng
~ .pIMW (g~ .re. co~)
Paul Wilson,, Fire Chief (941) 695-4114
Ochopee Fire Control District
N/A
289,629.90
32,, 181.10
NA _
NA .m
NA .m
1I. I~~ SUBJECT TO REVIEW Ey ITAll IXBI:UTIVl
O4~DIR 1Z~2 IIROGEI8?
11.fl8 PREAPPUCATION/APfqJCATION WA8 MADE AVAILABLE
TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PRO(~88 FOR
REVIEW ON:
PROGRAM COVERED BY FO. I~1172
18
NOT
OR PROGRAM HA~ NOT BEEN ~I.ECTED BY ~TATE
FOR REVIEW
2 200l
p~o. '~
17. I TWB APPI. J~J~T ~T ~ ~ ~ ~
r=uERAL ~;;RGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
A~SURANCES-NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Note: Cereafn of ~-_-_:-_- assuranc~ may not be applicable to your project or program. If yon have any questions, please
contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to
additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified.
As ~e duly authorized representative of the applicant, 1 certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance.,
and the institutional, managerial and financial capability
(including funds suflicimt to pay the non-Federal share of
project costs) to ensure proper planning, management and
completion of the project described in this appilcation.
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller
General of the United States, and if appropriate, the State,
through any authorized representative, access to and the
right to examine ali records, books, papers, or documents
related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting
system in accordance with generally accepted accounting
standards or agency directives.
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from
using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or
presents the appearance of personal gain.
4. Will h~tiate and complete the work within the
applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the
awarding agency.
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Section 4728-4763) relating to
prescribed standards for merit systems for programs
funded under one of the nineteen statutes or regulations
specified in AppendLx A of OPM's Standards for n Merit
System of Persunnci Administration) $ C.F.R. 900,
6. Will comply with ali Federal statutes relating to
nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to:
(a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Att of 1964 (P.L. 88-352)
which prohibits discrimination on thebnsis of race, color
or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972, as mended (20 U.S.C. Secffons 1681-1683, and
168fl-1686), wkich prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sex; (c) Section 504 of the Relmbilltation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. Section 794), which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U~.C.
Sections 6101=6107), which prohibits discrimination on the
basis of age; (e) the Dang Abuse Ofllee and Treatment Act
of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the
Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention,.
Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91=616), as
amended, relal~ to nolMiscflmination on the basis of
alcohol abuse or alcoholism; ~g) Sections 523 and 527 of
the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290-dd-3
and 290=ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of
alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIH of the
Civil Rights Acts of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq.),
ns omended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale,
rental or financing of honsing; (1) any other
oondiscriminatlon provisions in the specftflc statute(s)
under which application for Federal assistance is being
made; and O) the requirements of any other
nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the
appilcatlon.
7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the
requirements of Title U and 111 of the Uniform
Reioeatlon Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair
and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose
property is acquired as a result of Federal or Federally
assisted programs. These requirements apply to aH
interest in real property ac~--~red for project purposes
regardless of Federal participation in purchases.
8. Will comply with provisions of the Hatch ACt (fl
U.S.C. Sections 1fl01-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit
the poflticaJ activities of employees whose principal
employment activities are funded in whole or in part
with Federal funds.
9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. Sections 276a to 276a-
7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. Section 276c and 18
U.S.C. Sections 874), and the Contract Work Hoars
and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S,C. Sections 327-333),
regarding labor standards for federally assisted
construction subagreements.
10. WHI comply, if applicable, with flood insurance
purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of t973 (P.L. 9~-2~) which
requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to
participate in the program and to purchase flood
insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and
acquisition is Sl0,000 or more.
Form 2~I~.~ JUN 94
LII. Will comply with enviromental standards which may
be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution
~f environmental quality control measures under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (I),L, 91-190)
and Executive Order (lO) 11S14; (b) notification of violatino.
facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wethnds
pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in
floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of
project consistency with the approved State management
program developed under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (16 U~.C. Section 14S1 et seq.); (f) conformity
of Federal actiom to State (Clean Air) Implementation
Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Att of 19SS,
as mended (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.); (g) protection
of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974, as mended, (F.L. 93-S23);
and (h) protection of endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
(P.L, 93-20S).
12. Wit comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968 (16 U.S.C. Section 1271 et seq.) related to
protecting components or potential components of
the national wild and scenic rivers syste~
13. Will ms~ the awarding agency in assuring
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation ALt of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470),
FA) 11S93 0dentiflcation and protection of historic
properties), and the Archaeological and Historic
Prmervation Act of 1974 (16 U~.C. 469n-1 et seq.).
14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the
protection of human subjects involved in research,
development, and related activities supported by this
award of assistance.
15. Will comply with the LalMratory Animal Welfare Act
of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.)
pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm
blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other
activities supported by this award of aseimnce.
16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4801 et seq.) which
prohibits the use of lead based paint In construction or
rehabilitation of residence structures.
17. Will cause to be performed the required financial
and compliance hudits in accordance with the Single
Audit Act of 1984.
18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all
other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations and
policies governing this program.
19. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum
hours provisiom of the Federal Fair I~bor Standards
Act (29 U.S.C. 201), ts they apply to employees of
institutions of higher educa.~icn, hospitals, and other
non-profit orglnJLttions.
FEMA r-c, rm ~.~ISA (B~CK)
APR 2 2001
FE~.kAL EMERGENCY MANAGEM~,;T AGENCY
CERTIFICATION8 REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND
OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS
Appllcuts .i~_~ld refer to the regulations cited below to (let. udne the c~,ncatlon to which they are required to attest. Applicants
ihoMd also revlc*w the iludructions for certif~ation included in (fie regulations before completing this form. Signature on thb
form provtdel for compliance wtth certification requirements under 44 ~ Part 18, '*New Restrictions on Lobbying; and 28
Part 17, '~overmnent-wide Debarment and suspension (Nonprocurement) lind ~overnment-wlcle Reqmlrements for Drug*Free
Workplace (Grants)." The certifications shall b~ treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed
wlten the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determines to award the covered transaction, grant, or cooperative
agreement.
1. LOBBY1NG
A. Aa mqutred by asctlon 13~2, TII~ 31 of the U.S. Code, and
implemented at 44 CFR Part 18, for pemons ente~g into a grant
or cx3ol3emtive agreement over S100,000, as defined at44 CFR
Pail 18, the applicant eerlflleo that:
(b) If any othor fimdll than Federal appro~i~d fund~ have been
paid or wil be peid to any peraon for Influencing or attempting to
influence an offioer or empk~yee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, mn o(~omr or an employee of C~ngmas, or employee
of a n'mrrt3er of Congm~ in connection with this Federal grant or
Cx~oplmlNe agreement, ttm underBigned stroll corvyHete and submit
(c) The undemigned ahall require that the language of thb oertification
be Included in ttm awan:l doctwnents for all subawards at al item
(Indudlng subgmnts, oontracta under grants and cooperative
agmementa, and sot~ontmct(s) mod that al sutw~ctplenta ~
2. DEBARMEI~rr, SUSPENSION, AND O'DIER
RESPC)N$1BILn'Y MATTERS
(DIRECT REClPIENI')
Aa required by Executive O~ler 12~,te, Deberrnent end Suapenaton,
and ~mPlemented at 44 CFR Part 67, for proepecttve pert~cipanta in
Primary oovemd b'armactlmm, ae defined at 44 CFR Part 17,
8ec'~on 17.510-A. Tlm ep~lcant oertlfles that It and its IXfncipeb:
(e) .aze not pm~we'y debened, mmpenctad, ~ tbr detmnnenL
cleclered indiglt~, asntanoed toe denial of Federal beneffta bye Slate
_FEM._4. F~,,-~ 2~-16C, JUN 94
(b) Have not wilhln a three-year period preoedlng INa appllcetlen been
oonvicted of ar had a ch4lan judgment rendered agalnst ltmm for
commission of fraud ora criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or perform a pubac (F~l~lml, State,
of Federal or State anfllrust .tatutal or commlaslon of ~bezT. lement,
(c) Am not presently indlctad for or ~ orlmirm,y m civilly
cha~ by - govemm~tal entity (Federal, State, or local) with
comrr~ of any of the ot~ enumerated in peragfaph (1)(b)
(d) Have not within a h~e-lamr ~ prec~ding thts appacalion
had or~ or more pul~c t ransactiom (Federal, State, or local)
tormlrmt~l for caum or default; and
B. Wtmre Itm appac~t Is unable to certtfy to any of the 5bab~ment~
in thb c~n'tflcatton, he or shag ~'ml attached m exptenatton to this
application.
3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
(GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS)
As required by Ihe Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and
imptementad at44 CFR Part 17, Subpaff F, for gmntas~, as defined
at44 CFR Part 17, Sections 17.615 and 17.620:
A. The applicant cenlf'd~ that It wil conUnue to prlvide e drag.
(a) PulcHl~tllng a statement noUyng employeas that the
manufacture, dlsbibution, diapen~ing, ~, or uae of ·
Co) Establishing an on-gotng drug fi~e ewsrermas program to
inform empoy~as about
(1) The dangem of drug abuee ~n the workplaee:
(2) The gmntae'8 polic'y of rnalntainlng m drag-frae wodqcdace:
(3) Any evallabte drug counseling, mha~lltat~rt, and
ernl~o~e mmis~-,o5 pmgrarns; and
(4) tt~ permltias ttmt may be Impeeed upon eml:~oyeea for
dn~g abuae vlolationa occuntng in the workplaoe;
APR 2 2001
Pg. ?
(c) Making It a mqulmme~ that each employee to be engaged In
b,~e perfomuex=e ~ ~e grant to be gh'~n a copy o~ the statement
required tw peragrmm (a);
p~agraph (a) that, as a oondltion of employment under the grant,
the mnployae ~11:
(1) ,N:~de by the mm-~ of the ~tetemen{; and
(1) Taking appm~x~ate pemonnel actloe a~ainm auc~ an employee,
(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a
drug abuse assistance or rehabilitelJon program approved for
such purposes by a Federal, State, or tocal health, law enfomement,
(g) Making a good faith effort to co. tl~ue to maintain a drug ~
woffq31ace through In13iementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
and (f).
8. lhe grantee may Insert in ttm srmoe provided below the site(s) for
the performanoe of wo~ done in connecltcm wi~ th® apecific gnmt:
13~0. of Performance (Street addre~, City, County, Sate, Zip code)
Section 17.630 of the regulations provide Itmt a grantee that is a StYe
may elect to make one certifmatio~ in each Federal fiscal y~er. Acopy
State~ and State agendes may elect to use a Statewtde certlf~atJon,
(BACK)
AGEND4( IT, EM/'
No. 16, IF) L~
APR 2 2001
This Fo~m does not apply to our Department
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Cemple$1 Ihl~ form to dimdole lobbying I(:tlvltJe~ purmJlnt to 31 U.S.C. 13~2
(SN mYerae for public burden ~_!_~3~!oiure)
d. Iomn
e. lean guarantee
f. loin Iniumnce
2. ~'~6Ji of FedoraJ Action:
F--Ia. Md/offer/application
b. InWnl award
Tk)r
,fi/mown:
11.
I.~,,--_L~_~, m~ Ihmugh ~t8 ~,,, ~ aU~,O,~,d by b'tJe 31
U.$.C. sectkm 135Z Thts dl~loaum of lobbying activities b a matedal
dmctc~n, mmqui,~ ~t to 31U.S.C. 1362. Thminfon,aUo,
~gan S10.000 and not mine thru S100,(~0 for each auch failure.
t~ Type:
Initial filing
b. nlllrlll chan~e
For Mat~rf~J Change Only:.
year qtmrt~r
S. If Reputing En~'Y In No. 4 I,, Subawarclee, ~ Name
and Acldmu of Prime:
Congrellional DMI]~d,/f/mown:
7. Fedoral Pro~rim Name/OeecrllXlon:
CFDA Number,/t'app/(:sb/e:
9. Award Amoun~ ff known : $.
b. Indlvtduale Performing ~ervlcee (/nc/ud/ng add~ss ff
different fn~n No. fOa)
(lear heine, #mt name, MI):
Slgnmurl:
TWe:
T.~,on~ No.:
APR 2 2001
~~FO? I I~DERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS
CA ;:OR (Name of Applicant)
--2001 O**~',;.~.~ee Fi~e Control District
O.M.B. No. 3067.0206
Aphtssummary and Certifications that must be read, signed, and submitted as a part of the
sheet
AMursnce!
placation For Fede~ ~A~hmnce.
An appUcant must check each item that they are certifying to:
[~ FEMA Form 20-16A, Aasurance~-Nonconstruction Programs
Part
I
D FEMA Form 20-16B, Assurances-Construction Programs
Part
H
~] FEMA Form 20-16C, Certiflcaliom Regarding Lobbying;
Part
III
Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility
Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (If applicable)
Part IV D
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, 1 hereby certify that the appUcant will comply with the identified
attached assurances and certifications.
James D. Carter, Ph.D. Chairman
Typed Name of Authorized Representative
Title
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date Signed
NOTE: By signing the certification regarding debarment, suspension, and other responsibility nmtters for primary covered
trusacfion, the applicant agrees that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter
into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who ts debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from particilmtion in this covered transaction, unless authorized by FEMA entering into this transaction.
The applicant further agrees by submitting this application that it wUi include the clause titled "Certification
Regarding Debarment, Suspension, lneilgiIMlity and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Tt-ansaction,' provided by
the FIr. MA Regional Office entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions
and in all solicitations for lower tier covered tramactions. (Refer to 44 CFR Part 17.)
Papm~ork Burcl~n Diaclo~um Notic~
"Publ~ rupmtir~ burdan for thl~ form i~ ~lmat~d to av~ra~o 1.? houra pm' ranpones. Burdan manna ttm tlnm, M~ort and
flnanr~l r~ourcel eXlUmnded by pemona to genarde, melnblifl, retain, dlm:~:)~, or to provide infomtdlon to tm. You mey
send comments regarding the burden estimate or any m~p?ct of the form, Including suggestions for reducing the burden
z): Informdion Collections ~t, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Str~rt, aW, Washington, DC 20472,
~pmwork R~ductlon Project (3067-0206). You Ire not required to reipond to thl~ collectkm of Information uniel~ a valid
iMB control number appeare in the upper right corner of this form. Plmles do not annd your completed form to the above
FEMA Form 2~.16, FEB 01
,tp~ u to form & ~ ntfle~en~
APR 2 2001
/O
General Questions for All Applicants
For FEMA Use
, Questions, page 1 of 2 Only
1. Are you a Fire Department or the authorized
representative of a fLre department? (circle one)
b) ~'6.
2. Are you a Federal Fire Department or contracted
by the Federal government and solely responsible
for suppression of fires on Federal property?
a~Yes.
3. Is your active firefighting staff(circle one):
a)~aall paid/career?
11 volunteer or combination volunteer
and career?
4. Is your department located in (circle one):
a) an urban community
(population over 250,000)?
b) a suburban community
(population between 20,000 and 250,000)?
a rural community
(population under 20,000)?
5. How many active fu:efighters are in the operations/-
EMS divisions of you department?
12 = Number of active firefighters.
APR 2 ~ 2001
General Questions for All A nts
, - For FEMA Use
Ques~ons, page 2 of 2 Only
6. What is the permanent resident population of your
primary/first-response area or jurisdiction served?
250o -- Population of response area.
eul~ 'i'tfi~, 3,,000 ducing peak tourist season
7. What category (or categories) of assistance are you
applying for with this application and how much is
the total Federal share of the cost of the project that
you are seeking in each category?
Cat~goFy #1: Vehicle $ ~, 000.00
Fersonal
CategoFy #2: Protective Equip. $ 129, 81%.00
8. If the population you protect is 50,000 or less, you
are required to provide a non-Federal cost-share
equal to 10 percent of the total project cost. If the
population you protect is over 50,000, you are
required to provide a non-Federal cost-share equal
to 30 percent of the total project cost. Are you willing
to comply with this requirement? (circle one)
9. It is also a requirement that departments receiving
funding under this grant program agree to provide
information to the national fire incident reporting
system (NFIRS). If you receive an award, do you agree
to ~rmation to:this national system? (circle one)
Suggested Format for the
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's
Project Narrative
Instructions: Please be sure that your narrative addresses each of the following areas
to the best of your abilib/. Your narrative should be concise, but brief, if you need more
room than has been allotted for your answer, please use the back of the suggested forrr
or feel free to attach more sheets. Your narrative may not exceed a maximum of fiVe
pages including this form. The project narrative must be double spaced.
Applicant Name: I Category:
, Ochopee Fice Control District IVehicle
Please describe in full the project that you are requesting to be funded.
See Attached
Please provide a detailed description of your planned uses of the grant funds for
each major budget category as listed on the budget form (SF 20-20).
See Attached
Please explain why this program would be beneficial to your community andlor to
your department.
See Attached
Please explain why this project cannot be funded solely through local funding.
See Attached
Please provide any additional relevant information that you would like us to
consider when evaluating your application.
See Attached
pg. /~-~
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANTS PROGRAM'S
PROJECT NARRATIVE
FOR THE CATEGORY OF VEHICLE
The Ochopee Fire Control District is a sm~.ll paid/volunteer Department that covers 1,100
square miles in South Florida. Our District is the largest in the State of Florida with the
smallest ad-valorem tax base. Residence is approximately 2,500 full time and 3000
during our seasonal peak.
The primary response vehicle to all calls other than structure fires is a 1992 GMC
Topkick. This vehicle currently has 140, 111 miles on it. The vehicle has become a
severe maintenance burden on the Department. Currently it has a split tank, electrical,
AC, and engine over heating problems being dealt with on a week-to-week basis.
40 percent of our calls are responses to the 1-75 corridor with an average response of 40
miles one-way to arrive on the scene. Another 20 percent of our calls are responses
greater than 5 miles and cover the full range of fire/rescue related responses.
The 1992 mini-pumper/attack vehicle carries 500 gallons of water when the track can
carry its capacity (currently it cannot). This vehicle has served as our front line first
response/rescue vehicle since 1992. Our back up to this vehicle is a 1981 GMC Engine
equipped for rescue. Given the length and duration of the calls we nm the 1992 has
served the District well up until the past two years where the vehicle is in need of
Page 1
A~.~NDA ITEq~/~
APR 2 ~t 2001
When the primary response vehicle is down our secondary response vehicle is moved up
to cover rescue operations. Our District is placed in extreme circumstance to handle more
than one rescue call at a time, The next nearest town is 40 minutes away. This makes
the Ochopee Fire Control District have to maintain self-reliance for initial responses.
without a reliable primary response vehicle we are subjected to un-necessary delays in
responses where lives are saved by time. Our newest engine is a 1998 International,
which is setup as our primary structural firefighting apparatus. This vehicle shored
up our structural fire response and is used only on structural fires. This vehicle stays
within the boundaries of the District's main housing and business area. The vehicle
is being purchased as a lease/purchase of which we are in our third year of an
eight-year lease. This lease creates a burden on our budget but was necessary
to replace a failed 1977 Ford pumper.
To summarize we are a large District containing two federal agencies; Everglades
National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve depending on Ochopee Fire Control
District by MOU to provide structural fire protection to their establishments as well as
rescue services. Boundary wise we are an extremely poor District with ad-valorem only
coming from 2500 residences. The next nearest Department is 45 minutes away
(if they have an engine in their remote station).
Page 2
The Ochopee Fire Control District is compelled to provide all aspects of fire/rescue
to the best of its abilities. Currently this is severely hampered with out fora line
rescue failing over the past several years to the point that a refurbish would cost more
than the 10% grant proposal. We thank you for your considerations in this matter.
Page 3
APR 2 2001
pg. /~:'
Questions for Vehicle Category
For FEMA Use
Questions, page 1 of 2 Only
1. What type of vehicle will you use the grant funds
to purchase (circle one):
a) Engine (includes Pumpers)
b) Tanker
c) Heavy Rescue Vehicle
d) Brush Truck
e) Ambulance
0 Aerial Apparatus (includes Ladders)
~Other, Mini Pumper/Attack Truc~
specify
2. The purpose for this grant is to (circle one):
a) Obtain an additional vehicle for firefighting fleet.
~) Replace/retire an old firefighting vehicle.
c) Refurbish an old firefighting vehicle.
d) Purchase a new vehicle to fulfill a
new mission.
3. How many vehicles of the type or class you are
planning to purchase, does your department own?
~ -- Number of vehicles.
4. What is the age of your newest first-response
vehicle in this class ~hat you currently own?
1992 ---- Age of newest vehicle.
Questions for Vehicle Category
For FEMA Use
Questions, page 2 of 2 Only
5. What is the age of the oldest fu'st-response vehicle
in this class that you currently own?
= Age of oldest vehicle.
19~2
6. What is the mileage on the first-response
vehicle you are replacing/refurbishing?
~4o, ~ = Mileage of vehicle.
7. What is the average number of annual responses
for the first-response vehicle you are
replacing/refurbishing?
580 = Average annual responses.
APR 2 ~ 2001
Suggested Format for the
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's
Project Narrative
ln~&uctions: Please be sure that your narrative addresses each of the following areas
to the best of your ability. Your narrative should be concise, but brief. If you need more
room than has been allotted for your answer, please use the back of the suggested form
or feel free to attach more sheets. Your narrative may n{)t exceed a maximum of five
pages including this form. The project narrative must be double spaced.
Applicant Name: I Category:
Pleas~ describe in full the project that you are requesting to be T~ded.
See Attached.
Please provide a detailed description of your planned uses of the grant funds for
each major budget category as listed on the budget form (SF 20-20).
See Attached.
Please explain why this program would be beneficial to your co,;',munity andlor to
your department.
See Attached
Please explain why this project cannot be funded solely through local funding.
See Attached
Please provide any additional relevant information that you would like us to
consider when evaluating your application.
See Attached
APR 2 ~ 2001
/?
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANTS PROGRAM'S
PROJECT NARRATIVE
FOR THE CATEGORY OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
The Ochopee Fire Control serves a District of 1,100 square miles. We are the largest
District in the State of Florida. Our ad-valorem is levied at four mils on 2500 residents
making us the poorest District per square mile within the State of Florida.
We currently have ten Scott 2216 air packs in service that are twenty years old and a fill
station that is twenty-five years old ready to fail per our service personnel, Breath Air
Systems. They have served their purpose and their life expectancy. We are the last Fire
Department within Collier County to maintain this type of equipment. This poses a
problem in the aspect that we are not interchangeable with any other Department.
relying on mutual aid is a must as we are a Department of twelve paid and ten
volunteers. Currently we do not and cannot afford the necessary air packs to properly out
fit our own personnel nor work in a mutual aid equipment exchange with any other
Department. With the next Department being approximately forty minutes away, we
have to rely on our initial attack to suppress or gain control of the fire until other units
can arrive. It is our intention if accepted for Grant approval to purchase twenty new
Scott 4500 air packs, 40 bottles and a complete fill station to replace/enhance and outfit
personnel who otherwise could not be utilized in a fire situation that required air packs
(as noted 12 paid, 10 volunteers and only 10 in service air packs with 16 bottles).
Pa~e 1
APR 2 2001
We are also requesting twenty complete sets of bunker gear including hoods, boots,
helmets, gloves to replace twelve sets of gear currently eight years old and
outfitting volunteers who do not have bunker gear.
We are under severe budget restraints as we remodeled our primary station now 25 years
old that has severe roof leaks and water damage through the year. At the same time we
are under a lease for the next five and a half years due to a track purchase in mid 1998
that was necessary to replace a failed 1977 engine.
Our area serves the Everglades National Park, the Big Cypress Preserve both federal
agencies who rely on our Department to provide the MOU for structure coverage on
their establishments. Our budget received some PILT funds to supplement our budget
otherwise we would have to close the doors. We serve a 40 mile stretch of 1-75, a
federal highway that represents forty percent of our call volume. There has been several
Ha~'mat incidents in recent years as well taxing our department's resources.
One of our goals within our five-year master plan is to try and at least become
interchangeable with other Fire Departments in Collier County when it comes to
breathing apparatus and bottles. Goals we see unreachable with out help to make the
purchases listed within this grant application.
}'age 2
APR '2 4 2001
Questions for Personal Protective Equipment Category
QUestions
1. What percentage oryour active firefighting staff has
personal protective equipment that m~ts curr~nt
NFPA and OSHA standards?
45% -- Percentage with PPE.
eaxc~ & Volunteer
2. What percentage of your active fu-~fighting staffwill
have personal protective equipment that meets
current NFPA and OSHA standards if this grant
is awarded?
91% ---- Percentage that will have PPE.
3. The purpose of this grant is to (circle one):
a) Equip fir~fighting staff for the first time.
~_~('~ R~.lace obsolete or sub-smndar0
equipment
c) Equip staff for a new mission.
For FEMA Use
Only
APR 2 ~ 2001
QUOTATION
Ferrara Fire Apparatus
Quote For:
Ochoppe Fire Distnct
Chief Paul Wilson
4-Door Rescue Pumper
Exp. Date: 05/04/01
Quote No: 10000-001
Ship To:
COMM. CHASSINT
BODY: RP1007
0411312001
International Chassis
1000 Gal. LTT - S.M. Ext. Alum.
R.S.
20.O 1-00
20-01-04
22-00-34
22-05-50
22-08-50
22-08-53
22-09-30
23-01-28
70.00-04
70-06-10
70-06-32
70-O6-32
70-06-35
80-00-03
8O-0O-O4
80-00-70
00-00-15
00-00-88
21-00-00
21-00-06
21-00-13
21-00-14
21-00-15
21-00-19
21-00-22
22-05-15
22-05-90
22 -05-95
22-07-05
22-09-40
30-00-30
30-00-47
~)-01-70
30-01-99
30-02-20
30-04 -03
30-04 -99
30-99-99
40-06-12
40-07-0?
40-07-09
COMMCHASS=== COMM.CHASS === COMM.CHASS
..... Intemationat Commercial Chassis .....
CHASSIS- "4900" I H - 35,000 GVW 4DR.
Chassis Trim - Deluxe - 4 DR. International
Exhaust Run to Front of R.R Wheels
Ignition On Light
Igmtion - Key Chain
Master Load Disconnect
Seat Back - Bostrom - W/Bracket
Total System Manager - Class 1
Light - Engine Compartment
Light - Underbody (Ea)
Light - Underbody (Ea)
Switch - Cab Master Light Panel
........... COMM CHASSIS PAINT OPTIONS-
Chassis Finish - OEM
Chassis Paint Color - RED - B8241UM ALT 3
BODY BODY ........ BODY
Pnncipal Dimensions
Approval Drawings
Seating Capacity Plate - NFPA
Seating Capacity Plate - 6 People
Fluid Capacity Plate
Occupany/Seat Belt Plate
Overall Height Plate
Apparatus Movement Warning Plate
Occupany- Do Not- Ride - Plate
Lock-Up - MD 3060 Transm,ss~on
Mud Flaps - Black - Front
Mud Flaps - Black - Rear
Tow Eyes - Rear - Below Body (Pr)
Receptacle - Battery Charging
Pump System - QFLO 750-1250 S/S Hale
Mechanical Seal - Hate Pump
Pump Mounting - All Chassis
Pump Panel Tags - Color Coded (METAL)
U.L Test Points
U.L. Certification 1250 GPM
Pump Certification Test Plate
Anodes For Hale Pump (PR)
Steamer - 6" Suc W/Lng Hndle Caps pr
Suction - 2-1/2" Left Side Midship
Suction - 2-1/2" F?~ht S~de Midship
Pa 1
AGE N~A ~
No. /~.c. IF
APR 2 2001
0411312001
40-09-~
40-10-05
40-10.45
40.10-58
40-11-41
40-11-70
40-11-80
40-12-05
40-13-01
40-15-10
40-17-12
40-17-14
40-17-28
40-17-64
40-17 -96
40-19-03
40.21-00
40-21-01
40-21-03
40-21-04
40-21-05
40-21-07
40-21-23
50-02-47
50-02-73
60-00-55
60-20-45
65-00-00
65-00-05
65-00-15
65-00-29
65-00-70
65-01-66
65-01-80
65-02-10
65-02-49
70-00-00
70-00431
70-00-08
70-00-09
70-00-18
70-00-21
:70-01-01
7 0.01-07
i 70-01-59
70-01-60
70-01-62
70-01 °63
i 70-02-01
70-02-02
70-02-04
70-02 -90
,70.02-92
' 70-04-17
70-04-31
70-04-31
70-05-36
70-05-48
70-05-55
70-05-70
70-06-15
Tank-To-Pump - 3" Midship
Drain - Master Valve- Midship
Relief Valve - Elkhart 40 - Intake
Relief Valve - Hale QD- Pressure
Pnmer- Hale Model ESP- Electric
Cooler- Engine - 1t4 Turn
Cooler - Pump - 1/4 Turn
Pump Shift - Dash Mounted
Tank Fill - 1-1/2" Side Control
Crosslay - 1.75" Dbl w/2" Plmb - Side Ctrl
Discharge -LA Side 25" Midship - Side Mt.
Discharge -Rt Side 2.5" Midship - Side Mt.
Discharge - 2.5" L Rear- S C.
D~scharge - 3" Deck Gun - S M.-Slo Close
Plumbing - GatvantZed Steel
Gauge - Electric Tank Level (MC 4 Lt) (Ea.)
Meters- NFPA Required
Gauges- Individual Group- NFPA
Meter - Tachometer, Pump Panel Mounted
Meter - Voltmeter, Pump Panel Mounted
Meter - Engine Oil Press, Pump Pnl Mtd
Meter - Engine Water Temp, Pump Phi Mtd
Alarm - Ofl Pressure/Water Temperature
1000 Gallon Tank (T) - Polypropylene
Water Tank Size- NFPA Certification
Body -RP1007 Alum-S M LTT 126"CA
Wheel Well Air Bottle Comp. Four (4) Package
Body Trim Package
Rub Rail - Rubber
Running Boards - Slotted
Rear Step - Slotted
Handrail - Below HoseBed
Hose Bed D~v~der - Class A Pumper
Hose Bed Capacity
Adj. Shelf Compt Mounted 37-48"W (Ea.)
Step - Rear - Lighted (Ea.)
Electrical System
12 Volt Testing
Light - Pump Panel (I Side Pnl) - Wetdon
Light - Pump Panel (R Side Phi) - Weldon
Wheten- Pumper Package 1 - <30'
Light Bar - Whelen - Model 9308NFPA 65"
Lights-Whelen-6:~ Strobe Zone A- Front Lower
Lights-Whelen-64 Strobe-Zone C Rear Lower
Lights-Wheten-64 Strobe-Zone B & D Lower Red
Lights-Whelen-64 Strobe-Zone C Upper Blockqng
Beacon - Whelen RB6PRP -(Pr )-Red W/STROBE P
Power Supply - Whelen-UPS64LX-Four Outlet
Power Supply - Whelen-UPS64LX-Four Outlet
Lights - Clearance and Reflectors
Lights - Stop/Turn and Back-Up - Whelen
Lights - License
Lights - Unity Deck
Light - O.K. to Pump
Pa( 2
APR 2 2001
04/13f2001
70-07-06
70-07-56
70.09-01
70-09-05
70-12-02
71-00-06
71-00-53
7%00-58
71-00-80
71-00-96
71-02-24
80-00-00
80-00-01
80-00-60
80-02 -00
80-02-01
80-05-05
80-06-00
90-02-60
90-08-10
90-08-15
90-08-16
9O-O8-17
90-09-20
90-09-23
90-09-37
90-09-39
90-09-40
90-09-55
90-09-59
90-10-75
90-10-75
90-12-01
90-12-10
90-14-10
90-14-11
90-14-20
90-15-30
90-16-40
90-20-17
90-21-00
90-21-15
90-21-45
90-22-03
90-22-19
90-22-58
90.22-75
90-22-76
9O-22-79
90-23-90
90-24-21
9O-24-23
90-29-05
90-29-15
9O-36-06
92-00-08
92-00-22
92-00-75
93-00-02
93-01-18
93-01-54
ompartment
Siren - Wheten - WS-295 Hands Free
Speakers - Cast Prod.- SH-2015 - Bumper Mt.
Lights - Compartment -TL #80351
Light- Comp Auto Door/Ajar Indicator SW (ea)
Back Up Alarm
Generator - Gas-Honda-EMS000SXK1-5000 Watt
Generator Roll-out Tray - 250 LB.
Generator - Start Battery Cable
Breaker Panel - 110V 6 w/6 Breakers
GFI Circuit Breaker - 20 AMP, 110 Volt
Quartz Light - 1500 Watt w/Internal Telepote
...... PAINT OPTIONS-
Body Finish
Body Paint Color - RED - B8241UM ALT 3
**~'~"~*SCOTCHLITE STRIPE- NFPA
Scotchlite Stripe - 4" - NFPA
Lettering-60 Letters-3" Mylar/Shaded
Paint Stripe Wheels
Strainer & Bracket -6" Strainer & Mount Koc
Axe - 6LB Fiberglass Flat Heavy Duty
Axe - 6LB Fiberglass Pick Head Axe
Bracket - Axe
Cover- Pick Head Axe
Rubber Mallet- Model CM2
Crow Bar - 36" - Council Tool 60PP
Brackets - Crow Bar - South Park
Cutters - 24" Bolt - Council BC24
Cutter Bracket - 24" Bolt - South park
Pike Pole - I Beam Style 6' Fiberglass
Pike Pole - I Beam Style 10' Fiberglass
Bracket - Pike Pole Tube Style (Pr)
Bracket - Pike Pole Tube Style (Pr.)
Hooligan Tool - 36' - Paratech
Bracket - Hooligan Tool (Pr.)
Shovel - Scoop - Aluminum - Nupla
Shovel - Square Point - Steel - Nupla
Cover - 12' x 18' Salvage - 10 Oz.
Light - Streamlight - Lightbox (EA)
Hydrant Wrench/Spanner- Set
Bracket - Ziamatic Air Pack w/CRS strap (EA.)
First Aid Kit - 24 Umt - Brooks F25
Extinguisher- 20LB ABC w/Bracket - Badger
Extinguisher - 2-1/2 Gal Press Water w/Brkt.
Wye - Akron 2 5"X_ (2) 1 5"NST - Pyrohte
SIamese - Akron 6" Fnst x (2) 2 5" Fnst
Reducer - 2.5" x 1.5" Chrome
Adapter - 2.5" NST Double Male (Ea.)
Adapter- 2.5" NST Double Female (Ea.)
Adapter - 2.5" x 2.5" Chrome 30 degree elbow
Adapter - 6" FNST X 4.5" FNST
SCBA - ISI Viking Air PACK W/O CASE 2216 PSI
ISI - Spare Alum Cylinder 2216 PSI
125' 5/8" D~a. Rope
125' 3/4" Dia. Rope
Wheel Chock-Worden HWG (PR) w/Mnt Bracket
Ladder - 10' Folding Attic Alco-Lite
Ladder - 14' Roof Alco- L~te
Ladder - 24' F__.xtension Alco- Lite
Suction Hose- Kochek - 10'x 6" (pr)
Rack- Suction Hose - 10' x 6" (pr}
Pa~ 3
AGENI
No.
APR 2 2001
04/13/2001
94-04-48
95-08-08
95-08-18
95-10-15
95-60-04
98-00-01
98-00-06
98-00-09
99-00-~5
Hose - 50' x 3" DJ Cpld 800#
Nozzle - 1.5" TFT - H-V
Nozzle - 2.5" TFT - H-2V
Task Force- Safe-Tak 1250 Monitor w/Tube/Tips
Smoke Ejector- 16" Super Vac (electric)
Warranty-One Yr- Mechan,cal Parts & Labor
Warranty-Ten Yr-Structural Integrity Lim~teci
Warranty-Four Yr-Paint/Corrosion
Chassis Surcharge- All Chassis
END OF QUOTE - Quoted Price = $192,000.00
Pace 4
No.
APR 2 6 2001
Thursday, Agmi 12, 2001 5'06 PM
To- Cl~ef Paul Wilson From' Paul Chnstiansen 240/250-3059
Page: 1 of 8
TO'
Name: Chief Paul Wilson
Company: Ochopee Fire District
Fax Number: 19416953473
Voice Number:
Total Pages: 8
FROM:
Name: Paul Christiansen
Company: Ferrara Fire App.
Voice Number: 407/977-4512
Sender Fax Number: 240/250-3059
Subject: Florida Sheriffs Association State Contract
Note:
Here is the pricing for commercial and custom chassis
pumpers, along with listed options, from the current State
Contract. Other options are available upon request.
AC-~ NI~A_'tTIE~
No.
APR 2 ~ 2001
Thursday. Apn112, 2001 5'06 PM To Ct~ef PauIWilson
Rece~Vecl: 09 Apr.01 12:57 PM From: 2255675260 To: ?402503059
0~/09/01 }ION 12:$2 FAX 225 56? 5260
From: Paul Chfistiar'~en
FHRRA1LA FIRE APPARATUS
240/'250-3059 Page: 2 of 8
Pow~r~ I:~/,i~Fsx,Com Page: I of 7
~ PAUL CHRISTIANSE ~001
BID NO. OO-O8-O905
Unit Price Per Base Vehicle
Brand Name F~rrar&
Model. No, RP 501
Delivery should occur within 180 calendar date after receipt of ordered cha.aa~ at apparatus
Agent'S ~tl~ilatur~ Date:, 9-1-00
APR'2 2i01
Thumaay, Apnl 1;', 2001 5:06 PM To' Chef Paul Wilson
Recetve~; 09A~r.01 12:57 PM From: 2255675260 To: 2402503059
04/09/01 lION 12:52 F?,X 225 $$7 5280
From' Paut Chnstiansen
FERRARA FIRE APP.ARATUS
240/'250-3059 Page: 3 of 8
P°wered bY~l~FaX'com Page: 2 of 7
-*-*-~ PAUL CHRISTIANSE [~002
ORDER CODE ~O~ON8
01 Pe_~man~a Bond-
02 Stainless Steel Piping
$
$
OR~F.~CODE
~07
08
ADD OPTIONB
Ul~rade engine t~ 300l-lP
with heavy-du~y cooling system
~'""~"~" ~ plate overlay cab
step on driver's side, fuel tank
011 0flicks side Of apparm/um
34' extended ~ bumper with
aluminum ~-avel shield, 1-1/2
front Jtuzlplllle with open colll-
par~uent in front bumper
· xtemsion to accommodale
100' of 1-3/4 fire ho~c
24' {m~n~r air horn
PRICE
$ 993,00
$_ 300.00
Da~:_.
9-1-00
APR 2 00i
'rhu~sclay, Apn112, 2001 506 PM To Chief Paul Wilson
Receive0~ 09 Apr01 12~57 PM From: 225§675260 To: 2402503059
04/0g/01 liON 12:53 FAX 225 S87 5260
From: Paut C~qstiansen
FE~R.~A FIRE APPARATUS
240/'250-3059 Page: 4 of 8
I~wered by4~!~Fnx'Com Page: 3 of 7
+-*-* PAUL CHRISTIANSE [~003
8P~C]3rIC. A'I~ONS THAT MAY BE DELET'P~/ADDE:D,
ORDER P-.ODE. DI:SCR,I/:~ON ,ALTO PR~C~
SEPARATE SIlEE:'I'B FOR E,&CH RR,A,t,H'D .4.RD MODEL O~ ~'
ORDF~R CODE
09
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
~0
21
ADD
2-1/2 rear bm4[ inlet
2-1/2 right siclc
Top mo~ ~s
H~e ~d ~ver h~on
Four whc~ ~H ~A bo~e comp~en~
~a~ ~ h~~
Up~dc ~ 7~g~on
~ent ~
- $ 960.00
.......... it 3; 570.00
24
$_ ,066,db"
$ ~. 00o. 00
$ q'?n_ nfl
$ ??0 nn
$-7~n_no
$. 280.00 ea.
$ 540.00 ea.
$ I~'~5_FIN
e_.l ,10q.00
$ qO~ no
~_~;~n~ on ,,
Agent's Sl~F,.ature: ~
Date:_ 9- t -00 '
APR2 200I' I
|
Thursday, April 12, 2001 5'06 PM To' Ct~ef Paul Wilson
Received: Dg,ADrO1 12:57 PM From: 2255675260 To: 2402503059
04/09~01 ~ION 12:53 FAX 225 $87 5280
From Pau~ Chnstiansen
FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS
240/250-3059 Page: 5 of 8
I~ered by~Fax~com Page 4 of 7
~ PAUL C~{RISTI.~SE [~3004,
Ual.t l~ce Per Baee Yeki~e
Bra.riel Name ~errara
ModeI No. _ P--PSO 1
~q
4~:J_?_,~, 8oo.oo./~.
Delivery should occur ~ 240 caIeadar da~= ~ffe~ r~cetpt et' purcb~__~_ order at appaz~l=4s
Agent's Sl~ature:~ Da~:
9-'1 --01~ ',
AGENDA. ITEM
APR 2 4 2001
~y, April 12. 2001 506 PM ]'o Chief Paul Wilson
Receiv.ed 09 Apr 01 12:§7 PM From: 22§667§260 To: 2402§030§9
.04/09/01 YON ]2:~3 FAX 225 ~,67 5260
From Paul Chnstiansen
FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS
240/'25~ Page: 6 of 8
Powered by4~Fax,¢om Page 5 of 7
-++-~ PAUL CHRISTIANSE [~005
THAT MAY BE DELL'TED/Al)bi[D,
DI~RZP'I'ION AND PRICI~
DELrr~OP~ON8
Pe~forma~
Full He~qh~ Rea~ Compartm.~__nt
$ ~;Onn_nn
$_500.00
$ ~nn_on
__03
04
$
ORDF.,R CODI~
O5
O6
08
O9
~nt's Signature:
00~08-0~5
ADD O~z-zOl~
Air suspens~n driver's scat
$ 5.~99_0n
$ 300.00
9-1-00
APE 2 i 2081
Thursr~¥, April 12, 2001 5'06 PM
Receivect 09.Apr01 12:57 PM
04/09/01 }ION 12:54
To Chief Paul Wilson
From: 22556752'~:)0 To: 2402503059
FAX 225 567 ~260
From I:~ul Christiansen
FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS
240r250-3059 page: 7 of 8
· Po~--rt,~l by~F~.¢m Page: 6 of 7
PAUL CltRI $TIANSE [~006
8PECI~CATION #28- CIISTO1M
Sln'B~i:FIcA'rIoNB THAT MAY BE DB3,ETF, D/ADD~D.
CODE, DESCRIPTION AND PRICE
12
13
14
15
. 1'6'
17
18
19
21
22
23
1500ga].otr~estagc~,~ .,..,.::... -: lis
or~ additional 2-1/2' side discharge
Mechantcal pump ~ lis
2~1/2" rear tar~ inlet
2-]/2" rtght sale ,ucu~ -'
$
~oo~tc~ reel w-h 2oo' of
mouatcd o~_r pump eompaxt~m~t
850.00
3.254.00 · ' -
Std ·
9~n.oo
3~570,00
right side discharge
10" x 10" dump through center r~nr
w/90 degree dtr~cuonal chute
$ 1,060.00
$ 1:390~00
$- 3,399.90
Upl~ade to 750~n]]~1 tank
Upgrade to 1,000-~Glon tank
Top ~unt ~n~
~o~ hose b~ ~r
C~y ~ ~
H~ ~ ~r h~
~Ju~ ~eff ~ ~ ~mp~
~_1~970_00
3t600.00
6,000.00
270.00
720.00
280.00
9-1 -00
APR 2 2001
Thursday, Ap~112. 2001 506 PM
Received: D9Apr01 12:57 PM
· 04/09/01 YON 12:54
To' Chef Paul Wilson
From: .?~55675260 To: 2402503059
FA! 225 567 5280
From' Paul Cl~ansen
FERRAI~A FIR~ APP.ARA'~3S
240/250-3059 Page: 8 of 8
Powered byd[~Fax.cOm Page: 7 of 7
*~ PAUL CgAISTLANSE ~]007
9PECIFICATION #28 - ¢I, ISTOM
8PEC~ONS THAT MAY BE DELL'TED/ADDED,
ORDER CODE, DESCRIPTION AND PRICi~
lC = no~kUC~Icbir~
ORDER CODE
28
29
50 ,
31
32
ADD OPTION8 PRICK
Roll out tzy m Iowcr comet $ $ 40.00
Four whe~l well S4~!~ bottle compazummts $ I, 300.00
/diet, tins aaatU~ head~hts ....... $. 240.00
~,,:,~ headllghu, combir~-on rmat
~ and turn s~al light be=als.
5tma foot switches $, 8 9.0 0
Addrtfonal ~dr horn foot
$..69,00 , ca,
$ 5~720,00
35
Tv/o tone c~b paint
$1,790.00
60 3" seotchl~ght letters ~rlth a shade
ffxlui~t l~ckagc; Onc 10'
attic ladder with bracket, one 14' roof
tmtder, one 24' two section ~mlMon
laddcr, two ff' x 10' PVC suction
with 6' strainer and 9tlC, tion
$ 2f801.00
Date:, 9-1-00 -
APR 2 2001
Thursday, April 12.20~1 500 PM To' Ctaef I:~ul Wilson From Paul Christianse~ 240/250-3059 Page 1 of 6
TO'
Name: Chief Paul Wilson
Company: Ochopee Fire District
Fax Number: 19416953473
Voice Number:
Total Pages: 6
FROM:
Name: Paul Christiansen
Company: Ferrara Fire App.
Voice Number: 407/977-4512
Sender Fax Number: 240/250-3059
Subject: Pahn Beach County
Note:
Here is a copy of our buiM order for Palm Beach County.
Bid price is on the last page.
APR 2 q..2001
pg.
Thursday, April 12, 2001 500 PM 'ro Chmf Paul Wdson
Rece~cl~. 11.Apr~01 12:00 PM From: 2.255675260 Tol 2402503059
04/11/01 WED 11:53 FAX 225 56? 5260
From Paul Chnstiansen
FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS
240/250-~9 Page: 2 of 6
Powered by4~Faz.r, om Page: 1 of 5
-+-+-, PAUL C~RISTIANSE [~00!
(~ote For:
PALM BEACH COUNTY FIR.E/R.F.$CUE
TOP MOUNT
I-I-1552 I-I-1553
Ship To:
FERRARa% Fl[RE APPAKATUS, INC.
ERIC ADAMS
04/'~1/2001
00- 00-05
00-00-16
99-00-40
99-00-43
99-00-44
00-00-15
00430-88
20-O4-16
20-04-17
20-04-18
: 20-04-19
20-04-21
20-04-20
22-00-57
21-00-04
21-00-13
2t-00-t4
21 ~00-15
21-O0-19
21 00-22
22-00-18
22-00-38
22-00-51
22=02-00
22-05-15
:22-05-50
22-05-52
22-05-85
22-05-95
.22-07-10
BEa\C'~ ~ COU.NTY FIR//RESCUE
BEAr:Iq COUNrTy FIRE RESCIrE '
Proposal Rcspome (Pumper)
Principal l~,i~clers .
Tra nspoz-tarion
Factory; Tx-ainmg Per Day
Quanity
Principal Dimensions
Approval Drawh~
CHASSIS AND RELATED COM-PONENTS
FRI(;HTLIN ,ER CHASSIS
4TH BATTERY
DIG ITAL A~M-PMETER
DIGI'ISkL VOLTMETER
OFFICERS SPEEDOMF..'I~2R
DOOR KICK PLATES
Ligh~ - NIGI IT SIGHT SAVER
.Seating Capacity Platte - 4 People
Fluid Capacity Plate
Occupany/SeatBelt Plate
Overall Height Plate
Apparatus Movement Warning Plate
Occupa~y- Do Not Ride - Phte
Console - Aluminum - Custom
Rad/o Installation
Chassis Trkm - Deluxe - 4 D1C Freightliner
Cigax Lightex Dash Mtd
Ak Horns - 24" Grover- (Pr.)
Lock-Up - MD 3060PR Tram~aUssion
Exhaust Run to Front of R_bL Wheels
4.5 Degrec Chrome Turndown
Cab Door Assi.~t Hmartt, i_ls (Pr.)
Mud Flaps - Black - Rear
Tow Rem ~ Above' Tailboard
AO4~
APR 2
2001
Th~'sday, Alm117, 2001 5-00 PM
Receive0i 11.Apr 01 12:00 PM
0~/11/01 RED 11:54
To' Chief Paul W~son
From: 2255675260 To: 2402503059
F.4~ 225 587 5260
From- Pm.d Christian.sen
FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS
240/250--3059 Page: 3 of 6
Powered by,l~F~x.c°m Page: 2 of 5
-+-+-,, PAUL CI~RISTIA~SE ~002
04/11/2001
22-08-01
22-08-50
22-09-30
22-13-90
70-00-04
70-06-3.5
70-08-06
80-13-48
22-09-40
30-00-32
30-(X)-47
30-01-00
30-01-70
30-01-99
30.02-20
30-04-03
30-04-99
40-06-12
40-07-14
40-07-15
40-07-75
40-07-99
40-0%99
40-08-15
40-09-24
40-10-05
40-10-06
40 10~15
40-10-I2
40-10-60
40-10-62
~0-I0.-63
40-11-37
40-1 t-41
40-11-68
'40-it-69
40-11-70
40-11-80
40-12-05
40-12-50
40-13-02
40-13-20
40-14-29
40-1'5.11
40-17-16
4(I-17-18
adj. 17-58
40-17-66
40-17-76
Crew Air Conditioning
· lg6Jtion On Light. ..' , .
lVmster Load Disconnect
Wheal Covers - Staialess Slx'el - 4 Wheels
Total System M~)agcr - Class 1
Switch - Cab Master Light Panel
Switch .- Foot Air Horn - Driver Side
Paint Stripe Wheels .
Rust Proofing-Cab/Chassi~ Rails - ^ rmour Coat
APPARATUS BODY A-ND RELATED CO-NiPONETS
Receptacle - BarreD- Charwng
Pump System - QFLC) 750-1250 $/S I-lnlc T.M.
Mechamcal Seal - t lale Pump
Clapper Valve
Pump *louotiag - All Chassis
Pump Panel Tags - Color Coded (ME25\L)
C:-L. Test Points
U.L. Cemfiention 1250 GPM
Pump Certification Test Plate
Steamer - 6" Suc W/Lng ltncUe Caps pr
SuCUon - 2-1/2" T.M_ L/H - Coat at Vah, c
Suction - 2-1/2" T M. R/H - Cont, at Valve
Sucnoo-4" _I-'z-t/Air Valw/Lng Hncli Cap
Suction Inlet Warning Plate
Sucnon Inlet W,'mfing Pla~e
Valve - Master Intake (Manual}- Hale
Tank-To-Pump - 3" Miclskip Top Mount
Dr:fin - Master Valve - MS,hip
Dram Valves
RellcfValve - Elkh,,trt 40- Intake
Dram - t"zont Suction
Re. lief Valve - H~le TPM
Relief Valve - Hale or Waterous TRV
Pw=per Testing
Elec. Throttle CrC Class 1 - Cat/CnmmlnS
Primer - Hale Model ESP- Electric
Valve Controls
Valves
Coolei - ~gin, ' e - 1/4 Turn
Cooler- Pump- 1/4 Tm
Ihunp Shift - l)a~h Motmtcd
Air Outlet- Pump Panel w/25' Hose
Tank Fill - 1-1/2" 'lop Mount Control
TRASH LINE 1-1/2" LEFrr.SIDtE CAB
Bstt Reel-Rear,200' Akun 'l-~l/Ft Sw - Dutch Dr
Crosslay - 1.75" Dbi w/2" Plumb -
Discharge -Lft. Side 2.5" Midship -Top Mount
Discharge -Rt,Sidc 2.5" Midship -Top Mount
DL~chazge - 3" Right Rear - S.M.-Slo Close
Diseh~ge _ 3" Deck Gun - T.M.-$lo
- 3" Deck Gun. T.F.T. Ex-tend a Gun
APR 2 -2001
~y. Ap~112, 2001 500 PM
Received 11,Apr01 12:00PM
04~11/0! WED
To' Chmf Paul Wilson
From: 2255675260 TO: 2402503059
FAX 225 56';' $260
From Paul Chnstianse~
I:~RARA FIRE APP.ARATUS
04/11/2001
40-17-95
~R)-17-96
40-19-03
40-214)9
40-21-21
40-21-27
40-24--06
40-24.12
40-24-~
40-24-24
140.24-32
40-24-36
40-2~t-38
40-24-40
40-24-42
50-02-42
50-02-73
4O-24-46
48-00-08
40-24-48
40-24-52
4{I -24-60
49 99 95
60-0O-37
60-17-01
60-00-38
60-11-22
60-17-46
60-17-61
60-2043
65-00-00
65-00-05
65-00-15
65~00-25
65-00-29
65-00-40
65-00-55
65~00-60
65-00-70
65:00-90
65-01-30
65-01-,45
65-01-66
65-01-80
65-1)2-00
65-0.2-08
65-02-35
65-0242
65-02-43
65-02-49
65-02-53
Stainlc,~ Steel Pump Mainfold
- staita
WATEK'IANK LEVEL CI2.SS ONE ~tTLW
Metes - Transmission 'Temp, l~ump Pnl Mtcl
Pump Overheat Indicator
' Cla~s One ESC
Foambiasmr 3,3
Foam Pump 3.3
Control System
Tank Selecto.r/Flmhing Valves- - Single Tank
By-Pas,s Valve
Fo-am Concentrate gtrainers- Flu,~hing
In£egral Check Valve/Injector Fittmg.~
Waterway Cl~eck
Control C_ablc.~
750 Crallon Tank (T) - Polypropylene
Water TatlJt ~iz.e- NFPA cemfieatinn
Foam Tank- Foam,Master
Foam Tanks (l)- 15 Gallon - Potyp~opylene
lqowmeter/Flov,-meter DL~play Unit
Operaung Placards - Single 'l'ank System
Documentation - Foa~ter System
Foam Proportioning Systems- NFPA Test
Body -RP1003 Rescue Sty. Alum,-T.M.
Compartment - Full Depth - LEi"-F FRONT
CR_IB~TNG CO.M'PARMTbL'qT
Compr. - Intcrmechate Rear (P1003) - Adj. C/A
Compartment - Rear L~clder Storage
Compartment - Backhoe, rd
.Wheel Well Air Bottle Comp. Four (4)
Body 'l"~rn Package
Rub Rall - Rubbm
Running Boards - Slotted
Rumalng Board Suction Tray (Ea.) w/alum'slats
Rear Step - Slotted
Intermediate Rear Ste~ -Ahmxinum - 'Eart. Body
ano,oi - Body (Ea.)
bla~clrail - Top Mount Walk-way 30".(Pr.)
! lafldrail - Below Hose. Bed
$1£et~ Bars - Mansaver ('Pi:.)
Cover - Aluminum Cto~slay - Dbl - UL Pumper
CoVer- Hose Bed - HTpalon (L:.L.)
Hose Bed Divlfl~ -
Hose Bed Capacity
Keyed Latch (Fa.)
Adj. ShelVe~
Step - Chrome Foktmg -Large - (Ea.)
Step - Intermediate Pump Panel - Left Side
Step - Intermediate Pump Panel - Right Sade
Step - Rear- Lighted (Ea.)
- Between T M Board
240/250-3059 Page: 4 of 6
I~,wered by4~mx.c°m Page: 3 ~ 5
+++ PAUL CRRISTIANSE ~003
( ,/ ,
APR 2 2001
Tf,~-sday, Al:mi 12, 2001 500 PM To CNef Paul Wilson
Rece~eq: 11Apr 01 12:00 PM From: Z255675260 To: 2402503059
04~11/0-1 ~ .11:55 FAX 225 56'7 5280
From' Paul Chnstiansen
FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS
240r250-3059 Page: 5 of 6
:Power~l byl~Fax.com Page: 4 0f 5
PAUL CItRI STIANSE ~]004
04/~ 1/2ool
65-03-08
70-004)0
70-00-01
70£00-08
70-00-09
70-00-10
70-00-18
70-01-02
70-0i -59
70~01-60
70-01-62
70-02-63
70-02-98
70-04-31
70-04-80
70-04-81
70-05-36
70-05-48
70-05-55
70-05 -60
70-05-70
70-06-05
70-06-10
70-06 15
70-06-20
70-06-25
70-07-06
70-07-57
70-08-10
70-08-12
70-~)-01
70-09-05
70-09-12
7-0-12-02
7~-00-04
71-02-02
80 00-01
80-0t-06
80-02-06
80-O5-05
90-10-30
'90-10~35
90-20-17
90-23-02
37-48" Rollout 'Fray (F__~_) 500 lb Capacity
'Electrical System
12 Volt Testing
Llght- ~ Panel (1 Side' PJ~I) - Weldon
Light - Pm-np Panel (R Side Phi) - Weldo~
Light - Pump Pant Top Motmt - Wcldoa
Whclen- Pumper Package 1 - <30'
Light Bar -Whelen - Model 9308Nb~PA '72"
Ligh[s-Whelen-64 Strobe Zone A- Front I aower
Laghts-Whelen-64 Strobe-Zone C Rear Lower
Lights-Whelea 64 S~obc-Zonc B & D Lower Red
MC100S STROBE LIGHTS
Bc~,,- Wheleu B6RFIP (Pr.) Strobe
Power Supply - Whelen-L PS64I~X-Fottr Outlc~
J.4ghts-~rhelen 64 Scenelights-(Pr.]
FEDE. R_,~L VB12A 1 SPOTLIGHT
Lights - Clcaxanc¢ and Reflectors
Light~ - Stop/Tram md Back-Up - Whelcn
l. aghu - hems,'
Headlights - Alt Flashing Front
Lights - Unity Deck
Light - Recessed St~-p (ea)
Light - Eng/ne Compartment
Light. O-K. to Pump
Light - Pump Compatrmem
Light - Cab Map
Siren - Whclen - WS-295 Hands Free
Speakers - Cast Prod.- SH-3015FL - Bumper Mr.
SX~ntch - Horn ILmg Siren
Switch Air Horn- Pump Pane/Mtd.
Lights - Compartment -'1I, #80351
12gl~t- Comp. Auto Door/Ajar Indicator SW (ca)
Ceiling Beacon - Whele~ 52
Back Up Alarm
Generator - Gas-Homta-EM3500SXK1-3500 Wart
Nightfighter 12V 3 Bulb -w/telepole (Ea.)
Body Finish - Color:
2 Tone Chas~i,s Paint - Commcrcia! (One Color)
Scotchlite Stripe-6" With 1/4" Pin Cab/Body
Lem-Nng-60 Letters-3" Myhr/Shaxted
Pike Pole - 6' Fiberglass - Nuph
Pike Pole - 8' F~¢rglaus ~ Nupla
Bracket - Ziamatic Air Pack w/CRS stxap
Adaptcz - 3" F2NIST X 2.5" MNST Kochek
92-00-08 ~aaer - 10' Folding Amc fiLled-Lite
9.2=00-20 Ladder -t2' Roof Alco - Lite
92-00-75 Ladder - 24' Extettsmn 3 sEcTIoN Alco- Lit
93-01-11 ' . Suction Hose-Ha.rd 10'x3" w/2.5 Coup1
93-01-18 Suction Hose - Kochek - 10'x 6" (pr)
93-01-27 Suction Hose-Soft 5"x 20' w/4-1f2" Reducer
93-01-54 Rack - Suction Ho,~e - 10' x 6"
AGEN
APR 2
Thursday, Al:mi 12.2001 5 00 PM To' Chdef I:)aul W~lson
Rece~ve~: 11.Apr 01 12:00 PM From: 22556752~o0 To: 2402503059
04/11/0"1 ~ 11:58 FAX 225 561' 5260
From' Paul Chnstiansen
F~RRARA FIRE APPARATUS
04/11/2001
95-10-26
95-10-15
95-10-16
95-10-17
96-(~-01
96-00-03
98-00-03
98=00-06
98-00-12
Hose - 100' of 1" Booster - 800~ Ct-]ROMF.
3" X !5' SECTION OF HOSE' : .... ·' ·
'l'gl' M-K IVlaster S~cam Norzle
Task Foicc- Safe-Tak 1250 Monitor w/TUbe/Tips '
TF'r GROUN-D BASF. BKACK_ET
SPARET!RF- AND ~q-tEEL
RAMFAN MODLE #GF 165 PPV FAN
I-IURST RESCUE TOOI~ :SYSTEM *
Warranty-Two Yx-Extendefl Mech.Pmxs & Labor
W~rranty:Ten.yr-stmctmrM Integrity Limited
~%rvan?-$ev~n Yr-l>aint/Corrosion
Total
240/250-3059 Page: 6 of 6
Powered by,~FmX,com Page: 5 of 5
+~ PAI!L CHRISTIANSE ~005
No.
APR 2
P~. ~
2001
ELITE
Fire & Safety
Equipment, Inc.
QUO TA TION/PROPOSA I
TO:CHIEF PAUL WILSON
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
PHONE~95-4114
FAX~95-3473
8006434104;
APR-12-01
4:54PU;
PABE 1/1
3573 Er~e~Prise Ave. #64
Naples, F~lorida 34104
1-941 ~-E45-4140
1-800-64;i-4104 FAX
E-Mail; elitefoam (}sol.corn
Website: wWw. elile-fire.com
4-12-01
FROM:JEFFREY R. BENKER
CONSULTANT
IIII
IIEM .NO.. qTY DESCRIPTION UNIT U.M.T PlaCE TOTAL
QS-103 2000 NFPA GLOVES COMMANDER 1 $378 00
BLACK. WHITE
NFPA NOMEX HOOD FULL
]LACK DIAMOND LEATHER
PULL-ON OR ZIP-UPS
Specializing In:
Fire Apparatus, F~re F~ght~ng Equ,pment. t-Dam & W~lclhre ;-quipment
24 HOUR EMERGENCY FOAM SUPPLY
1-8OO-43:~-FOAM (:1626)
AGENDA ITE,~I.
APR 2 ~1 2001
BY: £L~TE F~RE ; 8006434104; APR-t2-01 4:43PU; PA~E 11t
ELITE
Fire & Safety
Equlprnent, Inc.
QUOTATION/PROPOSAL
TO:CHIEF PAUL WILSON
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
PHONEI~95-4114
FPJUII595-~73
FROM:JEFFREY R. BENKER
CONSULTANT
4-12-01
~:~E$C laJPTION UNIT
UAKER BUNKER GEAR S892 00
AU/I~ROWN 40% BASOFIL
i KEVL.A~'Rli~iST~:~ OUTER Sf4F-LL FABRIC'
D OZ STEDAIR 2000 E-ag NOMEX BREATHABLE
}LSTURE BARF~IER.' i: :~'...:....:: '!' ." 2'1 ~- : - ..............
i.80Z TEAL ARALITF.. QUILTED THERMAL LINER
· J~-~OT(~RL:fTE 'Lt~/YELt.(:~N :TRIPLE TRIM
:)10 POCKET LEFT BREAST W/TRIM
SPANDEX THUMB HOLE WRISTLET
TTERiN~' TOp OF COAT 'OFCD"
IS-103
RIP STOP OUTER SHELL FABRIC
'i~URE 'BARR'tER, I
QUI~TED.':T~ R MAL ?L~NER
SCOTCHLITE LIME/YELLOW TRIPLE TRIM
ARASHIELD REINFORCED CUFFS
TOTAL
3573 Enterprise Ave. *64
Naples, F~lorida 34104
1-94t-~S43-4140
1-800-64~1-4104 FAX
E-Mail: elltefoam@aol.com
Website: w~ ~.elite-lire.corn
Specializing In:
I-~re Apparatus, F~re Fighting Equipment, Foam & Wile'fire Equipment
24 HOUR EMERGENCY FOAM SUPPLY
1.8OO-452-1=OAM (3626)
AGE N O.~, IT./L~'M.
.o.
APR 2 ~1 2001
pg.
04/~2/200~ 82:55 678-560-0802 C L C,A~DE~
P~C~
C. L. Carder & Associates
Main Office: 4270 Creek Haven Dr. Marietta, Ga. 30062
Phone: 678-560.0801 Fax: 678-560.0802
E-Mail: ccsalesrep@aol.com
Apr/i 12, 2001
To: Chief Paul Wilson
Ochopcc Fire Control District
From: Chuck C. ardet
C. L. Carder & Associates
QS-10J Short Style Coat (~0") List Pric
?.$ ot Am/Brvwn dO'/. Basofli / 60'4. Kevimr Rip Stop O~er Shel Fabr~ S 400.09
4.0 eL Stedair 2000 E49 Nomex Brttthab4e Moisture Barrier
?.8 az. Teal Ard#c Ouiitcd Thermal liner
NFPA )** Scotcbltte Lime/Ydlow Triple Trim
Radio Poci~ Left Brim w/Tr~m
Mk C-3Jp Above Radio Pocket
?" l~.vlar Spandex Thumb Hole Wrbtlet
Tan Araslfiehl Retnforted
Lettering: Top of Coat: 3" 'OCFD'
BoRon of Coot: Pirtman'u Name
Total List Price Per Coat -- $ 808.50
Quoted Price Per Coat $ '/28.00
QS-I03 Bib Style Pant
7_~ oz. Aa/Brown 40% Baaol'd / 60% Kevlar Rip ~p Om~ S~ Fa~
4.0 ~ S~air 2~ E-89 Nomei ~tha~ Mobm~ Ba~
7J ~ T~! ~e ~ T~
~A J" ~m~l~e Lim~ T~e T~
Fabrk ~info~ K~
Tan A~sh~ ~f~ C~.
T~! ~st P~e Per Pant ~ S SSS.~
To~l Q~t~ P~ Per Pant -
Total Quoted Prk-e Per Set - $1,223.00
S 2?3.00 ~
S 61.00
S 27.00
S S.0~
S lO.Oe
NC
$ I0.00 q~
S 22.~0
List Price
$ 317.00
$198.00
$ 11.00
S 22.00
NC
Total Number of Sets -- 20
APR 2 ~ 2001
PO. ~
04/09/01 MON 13:49 FAX 8139493695 Ja~le Bally O001
Safety Equipment Company
Public Safety Division
April 9, 2001
To:
Tom Mitchell- Ochopee Fire Control District
From: Jamie Bally
Subject: Air-Pak Quote
Tom - attached is the quote that we discussed.
call me at 813-230-3020.
Thanks,
If you have any question, please
Ps - please disregard the quote for Sarasota County that I accidentally faxed over
earlier.
Safety Equipment Company ' Public Safety Division · Tampa, Flork:la
(888) 263-5319 ' (813) 622-755~1 ' Fax: (813) 621-7413
APR 2 ~ 2001
AGENDA
APR 2 ~ 2001
Z00[~ -¢[Tea aTeref' S69C6t6CT~ :~Y,.-[ 0~:C! h;OK T0/60/t0
04/09/01 WON 13:15 FAX 8139493595 Jamle Bally ~001
Safety Equipment Company
Public Safety Division
Apdl 9, 2001
To:
Bob Kilcullen - Sarasota County Fire Depa[tment
From: Jamie Bally
Subject: Attached Budget Quote
Bob - Sorry for the delay - call if you have questions
Safety Equipment Company ' Public Safety Division , Taml3a, Florida
(888) 263-5319 ' (813) 622-755~1 ' Fax: (813) 621-7413
AGENDA ITEM.,
No. !/o (~-~)
APR 2 ~ 2001
04/09/01 MON 13:15 FAX 8139493695 Jamle Bally 0002
APR 2 4 2001
BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS
DiV. OF SUB-AQUA'TICS, INC.
8855 E. BROAD ST,- RE"YNOLDSBURG, OHIO 43,..q6~
Branches in OCALA, FL and CHA ~'CTA~'4GO~,.
0
A
L
0
F
F
NUHB~R OF pAGES .~-",~-~
NO?E:
IF YO~j DO NOT RK~!VE I~Y
PLEASE MAKB ALL CONTACT WITH SENDBJ~/CALL
5ENDING iNFORMATION.
THANK YOU
AGENDA~ITJL~Vl.
No.
APR 2 ~ 2001
BREATHING AIR SYSTEES S
Division of SUB-AQUATICS,
8855 E. Broad Street. Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43065 (6!4)
SALES: 1-800-937-2479 FAX: (614)86~!-0071 INTERNEr~ v,~w, breat~ingaic,~
OCALA, FL (352)629-7712 CHATTAN~A, TN ~:423) 892-5~;'~ DECA~
Chief Paul Wilson
Oc, hopcc Fire Control District
PO Box 25
Ochopce, Fl., 34141
^pril 9,
Chief Wilson,
Thank you for your call today for information on our air systems. ! ha'~e paced ou~ ~he
two systems we discussed. 'Ihe prices will include shipping, persmmel tra~nirtg, and
installation. Installation does not include electrical hook up. This requires a licer~sed
electrici~]. We will connect the fill station, comprcs.mr, and storage up and do a thuceugh
system check out. You will receive a signed copy of the cheek-out sheet showing 'all tiac
pertinent information on the system, such as belt size, amp draw, gauge readings, safe~
valve setting, pressure switch setting, and much more.
Model }{13VEI (System 3 6K-I) Compressor, 6,000 PSI, 10 HP. 230 VAC: Singi<
Phase, 13 CFM Charging Rate $16,976.00
Model C2 Cascade System, 4 - 6,000 PSI DOT Rated Cylinders with wMl rack. va] ,,'cs
nnd four connecting hose. s (I 0' each). $4,16tL00
Model M2782x4x4 Containment Style (Class Two) SCBA Fill Station. '¥~n o Pasit:ens
with Cascade Control Valves and Gauges. $6,4~8.00
Model UNII/10HE1 Compressor 6,000 PSI, 10 liP, 230 VAC, Single l'has~, i.~ C}'M
Charging Rate with a Three Position. Conlaimnent Style SCBA Fill Statio~,
Storage Cylinders. $28,986.00
Add $3~625.00 for two additional ASME Storage cylinders (Total of four),
Based on our fill chart in our catalog the C2 cascade system can recharge 38, ~0 minute
4.5 SCBA units and 19 one hour cylinders. Your 45 minute units would fall somewhere
in between. The two bottle ASME system would provide 10,30 minme c) lindt~rs and 5
one hour units and again the 45 minutes in between. With the two additional ASM~
storage cylinders you could do 36 and 15.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Lcbon lhmcock
APR 2 2001
Fully Automat!e il .
Completely
':Available in other sizes... 18 MODELS,
i.. 5000 & 6000 PSI - 7 TO 42 CFM
20 4 cfm Charaina Rate Polished Stainless Steel Control Pan~ls
150.~0 cu.fl. Purification System Class 2 Containment SWle Fdl Stahon
.Ca, adc Storage Cylinders 3-position (tested)
i~;r-:¢{¢,~iioqidca~ridge;~ Monitoring system Electronic Carbon Monoxide Mo~ito~
for ~mpreSsor Filling Automatic Conde,sate D,'ain System
~ui°~ated in every res~cll Assembled in the U.S.A.
!
S};R~,'It't: I*ALII.IIII';,~, 1 HROI~¢;IlOI."I' I'tlE
BREATHING AIR SYS
Oivision of SUB-AQUATICS, INC,
~855 E. Broad St., Reynoldsburg, OH 43058 - Pho
SALES: 1-800-937-2479 FAX: 614-864-0071 '
BRANCHES: Ocala, FL (352) 629-7712 Chattanooga,'
Fax: (352) 401-9501
A~NDA ITE
APR 2 Jt 2001
~reathing Air, Florida
FAX NO.~ 401 9501
?. 3
., CONTAINMENT
~ S 1 YLL-
...--, FILL SI'IT!ION
":~'*'~ -. ;, Fragmentation
/:~'[
~:' .. .~ Enclosed
:~190
~ .... ,_.-~_~ ~ . :~'t~'~:n~:
.keepdo?rShut
'"' TESTED
>':'-~:, ' 5;,;" ., . :.
.:;::.;~ . -:~:~. ..... .:.,~:.~ ,7:' '
SUGGESTED PURCHASING SPECIFICATIONS Made i~3 the U.S.A.
BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS CASCADE SYSTEM #C-2 (W~thout Reguiatori~ or
CASCADE SYSTEM #C2-Ft (with Regulator) or equivalent
1 The system shall be comprised of four (4) new. 6000 psi.
2
Each tank is to be equipped with a new, Teflon-seat valve, complete wire app~:opriate
safety relief device Tanks are to be painted yellow with Breathing Air stenci!ed v~h:a~.!., :n 3"
black letters. Each tank is to have been internally inspected prior to being valved, with z ~ated
sticker attesting to this inspection. A dome-type protective cap is to be supplied .~th e.ac~. ~.~k to
protect ti~e valve during shipping or transportation.
3
A 6000 psi manifold tee is to be supplied for each tank and a 6000 ps~ p~gtail tc ~.c~,;ns, c.t aac,'~ tank
to the otimr. For one end of the system is to be provided a nut & qqDple ar~ elbow ;*.~¢¢ ~ ~,:'~ psi
8-inch flexible hose, to connect from the compressor, and for the elbe,
a 2-1/2 inch7500 psi line gauge and the filler hose
A heavy-duty 6 ft. filler hose is to be provided with a radius protector .:;r, ~h(=. Ca.~,';~d~ en~ ~ m ;he
fill end shall bo a rubber-covered 0-7500 psi gauge, a Teflon-seat lipe valve a bie,:,,~e, .,;~iv~ _~'~d a
hand-tight wheel and soft tip nipple to connect to any brand SCBA bottle
5 A 5 ft. steel rail section and four ridged clamp sets are to be promded !o sec..,r~- ~i,¢~ ~ar:¢::. ~" ;:face.
propody spaced.
6 Any components or tiltings necessary for a standard installation, but ,.'~o~ mentior~ abo~:e, v-ii! be
considered to be included.
7 A 5-year warranty is to be provided on all cascade components,
gauges and valves.
if this cascade system is being purchased along with a compressor, U~o foilowi~g may be
added as specifications #8:
8 The delivery technician will install and hook-up all of the above componems >.; r:-,~ :i~;:¢; ;.¢ the
compressor start-up arid test the entire system to full working pressure
NOte:
More or fewer cascade cylinders can be provided by modifying items #1 arid ~5 at~ov¢..
· Options:
a Valve handles are to be covered with a rubber cover.
b An adjustable filling regulator, with 9auges, shall be provided.
c For Mobile application a valve protector should be installed to n~cet NFPA ~,g[3!
PRICES ANO SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CH,ANGE
· ! L"
APR 2 2001
Chargin
13.2, 19'2 :or ~:~-.,
"? ~. :7.
6000'
· .-FILLS 30 MIN. BOTTLE IN 2-1/2 MINUTES
MEDICAL GRADE PURIFICATION SYSTEM
i:RUGGED, EASY TO SERVICE
..... ! COMPLETEI,Y AUTOMATED
IVE STAGES, SPECIAL DESIGN FOR 6000 psi
SECURUS Electronic Cartridge l~tomto;
150,000 cu.ft, purilicetion system
Gauge panel, 6 gauges
High-temperature shutdo:¥n swilch
Magnetic starter, heat risers
Safety relief valves, ell sta~e$
Condensate resevoir container
Electric starter, gas & die,si
ICLUDES:
BAUER AUtomated Compressor
timed drain system
P"resSure switch
~hutdown switch
light!. .:
iof .C..ha i~ates~,
ality Systems
CHNICIAN SERVICES AND FUI.I_. YE ~ E
~' :WiARRANI"Y ARE INCLt:DED
~rk~,i,$ 3pe~(~cations are on t~ ~c'k of this pag~
BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS
Oivision o! SUB-AQUATICS., INC.
8855 E. Broad St., Reynoldsburg, OH ~.306B- Phone:
SALES: 1-800-937-2479 FAX: 6!4-864-0071
BRANCHES: Ocala. FL (352} 629-7712 Chattanooga.
Fax; (352) 401-9501
No. / Lo ,/~., ~o
APR 2 q 2001
SUGGESTED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS//2 FILL STATION
BFIEATHING AIR SYSTEMS CLASS//2 FILL STATION M2782 (2 Bottle.'. or
CLASS #2 FILL STATION M 2783 (3 Bottle), or equivalent
Made in tl~S LI.SJA.
1. The unit will be desigrled and conslructc~ Ior s~fely, convenience and durability 7he 1i!~ statler, wi~ ~::o'.~m,'~<:tj~!e tr, to 2
t0 3 SCBA or SCUBA tanks for filling, individually or simultaneously.
2. lhe Iilt station shall be constructed to contain any cylinder c~ fragments projected during the untik~
rupture, while allowing the air blast to vent quickly through a 1 -inch steel grate located m Iht= rear el ~l~e $;~;i~i, ~?. :~5m the
upivard and downward direction. Baffles will be integrated into the internals of th~. c0ntaTrlm~rT? s~:;t~0~ ~o c~:~np~ the. flow
of an air btast and reduce the vioJence of the air fJow.
3. Tt~e unit's containment se%on is Io be constructed from 1/4-inch plate steel wilh no ~vees ;r, ~t:¥ :,' m~: fo~;~ :~d~,.:~e cor-
ners. The tilt-out door will have a Ihickne~s of 1/2-inch plate stool. The cyt. inders t~n~ filled w;ti also L~- s~'~o~',cJed by
1 ~4-inch plate steel and lined with a 1/4-inch steel tube
4. Tho tilt-out door and carriage .will be cork~lructed to operate as one piece, s~lpported on p~l~ow bioct~ beam.~_'~ -~,vo gas
cy~nders wilt assist in the ease of operation. A glide bar and interlock system wilt make it impossib~-~ to tfi! ~A-.: ~Jmess
the door is in Ihe closed position and the safety bar is down. A chrome plated grad ba~ and dual rqoct',~r,i~ lab:'t: system
~11 be instalted to further assist in keeping the door in the closed position while filling. The la,ch p,,;mc*,or wli] ~ ~overed
~'i[l~ 1/8-inch r~ober to further in, sure protection from scratching cylinders or the interim of the fi~t
5. A pivoting safety bar will be provided to drop down over the tilt-out section during the Mh.qg process..,;7~n.~,~i~t~d ~ 3/8-
inch thick steel plate, 4-inches wide. A rubber grab handle will be provided to lie anc ~ower :he l>a, :r~o pc,~t~.~ A tee
har~dle polished stainless steel spring latch will be added to lock the safety bar m the up or down positio.,n t~ IO,~,ng and
u~loading cylinders.
6. The top section of the system will be divided from the containment section by a 1/4-inch plate stee by a c¢]tm~'-qg weld
performed by a certified welder, pn the inside and outside. 'The panel hous;ng v.~l. b~ ,.'~, nstruc~ed ~. i ~5~lc'J-, ~.,~e steel
and have an access door fo~ easy service capabilities.
7. The control panel will be made from a high qual:,ty black anodized aluminum 1/S-it',ct, rn.~.~k w¢lh p6r,m, an~:~r~i.i'¢ eng'r~¥ed let
toting. Standard units will be provided with 4 or 5 liquid filled panel mount gauges to show inlet pr~:ssu:e, ~'~,~-~d_ pres-
sure, and 2 or 3 to show botllo filling pressure, arid also an adjustable 0-6000 psi ~egul.~u_~r (setf.v~lir~p
8. The urUt will come standard with a ~egutatcd remote outlet valve and CGA fitting
9. Once completed, ll~e unit will be pressure tested. The panet will also, d needeD, alicvt roorq lo[ L~, lc :, ca~ca~:~:; ~R, ntrol
valves with gauges, or 8 cascade controls without gauges. The 2 or 3 fill hoses 'will be provided wi~, i?,k.~N~rs. ~.tainless
st~el elbow and stainless steo! SCBA adaptor as standard.
OlltEr( AVAILABLE EXTRA COST OPTIONS:
Additional panel mount valves (up to 8) or vaJves with gauges (up to 4)
frO~TI cascade cylinders. -
Ar, adapter to ~ from fire fill hose end to adapt to SCUBA.
SUGGESTED PURCHASING SPECIFICATIONS
BREATHING AiR SYSTEMS #3-6K, OR EQUIVALENT
1 'lhe syslem shall be turn-key complete, assembled in the U.S. and include the compressor, (.,r~e; p.:r:i,~;.-~;,.-.,, ;,~s::em and
A~ controls, on a steel chassis with a heavy-duty rectangular vertical or enclosed ~orizo~ta; fr~tm~-;. ~i~ ;.o:~pre:~s.or shalt
be mounted above or beside tiaa driver. The service areas ~re to be easily accessible and t,qe cc~;.~[4S i~,:a~ ,~" ~g. front
of thc unit. The compressor block, chassis and purification system are to be all of the sa.m~; ma~,.ufa.?.u:¢-, :.: ~r;~
2 The cornpressor is to be four-stage radial design, air-cooled, pressure lubricate(:[ a~l des~Ur~d
with no shutdown cooling ir~tervals required. It is to be designed specifically for high-pressure u~e~',b!,~
(Military surplus components will not be Acceptable, even if new.) The charging rate is ~o be. al h'~a~,': 10 2 cfm :.'.~ w~th a
'working pressure of at least 6000 psi. The unit must be capable of starting unde~ fuh ioaO~ wilt; r<~ b!f*'-,'~.',:.~*'.',v.?: -e,:~uired.
pistons are to be sing!e-acting with final stage piston and sleeve replaceable as slide-ir
3 Trt~ dr.rver ~s to be, {select one) 10 HP, 3 phase, veil electr~:, mote;
10 HP, 1-phase, volt, electric motor
Enclosed dual, V-belt drive with adjustable tens,o~ or A~jtr:..Fj,.av;?y
The purificabon system is to be of the replaceable cartridge type and designed to produce at ~eas: 'LiRAL: ~
AiR. processing at leasl 61,000 cu.ft, between changes. A high-efficiency moisture separator ~c ,q,,3.~;,".~ ,h!~.,~ are to
precede the purification chamber. Cartridges are to be easily and safely changed, with nc. tools r~c.;=~r~:'. ~; cq.!~,b~r vent
system shall preclude ~mproper cartridge insertion.
5 'fbe system ~s to be equipped and automated as follows: (a) Air Inter-Coolers, Interstag6 Sepa~a~'.).."~,
(b~ .&djustable Automatic Pressure Switch; (c) Magnetic Starter with Heater Elements; ,id) Low O~: ;-,-6$s~,r~: ~:hdtdown
-~:~,.L ,h; -~momatic
Switch; (e) High Temperature Shutdown Switch; (f) Replaceable Dry Intake Filter: (g) Power-or,
Condensate Drain System with Test Butlon; (i) Panel-mounted Gauges lot Intersta.~}e P, essu~gs Fh-a Pr-;~bre. Oil
Pressure: (j) Hour Meter, accumulative; (k) Vibration Pads; (I) Heavy duty 6' Fill Hose vv~tf~ r~bba,' ¢;o'.:.~'¥: L~,~,~:j~ l.ine
Valve, Bleeder Valve, Hand Wheel Nul and Soft-tip Nipple.
6 The seller i3 to provide a faclory-authorized delivery technician to put the system into sate a¢~(', ~.~'*'~b~; s~,'v;c,:, ~e will
mechanically perform a post-delivery integrity check: calibrate all safety and controt devices ~(, '.~ ~*4.~ye*'.; .specific
applications; install the initial cartridges; install the connector and/or filler hoses; perform a field t~.s~ lot Caru.o-:; M~')~oxide
content; measure and document the exact air flow (clm); and assure that the electrical supp~/r~as ~eer~ rr~de ;orrectly.
({Suyer will provide for the electrical installation.) The technician is then to provide a tl~orough or'~s~. F~r~r!~ 8e~on for
the persormel who will be operating and maintaining the system. The supplier must provide R CorHf~cate of Training
bearing each person's name that attended the training session. The c~rtificate .-~Jaalt describe the ~:~n~li:: m~;i,-¢m.~.nt that
was covered in the training session.
7 A ful: 1-year warranty is to be provided to cover both parts and labor, ON-SITE, arid a se~.ond ¢ea~ '~cv,-.~-~.~;e ,'.,:' ':~ective
parts alone. Any warranty service required is tO be pedormed promptly, at no charcje to tl~.
8 A parts lint. schcmabc diagram, wiring diagram and operational guide are to be p:cv]d~d wrlh ..'h~+
9 An electric cartddcje rnon~toring system shall be provided, which shall warn when p.rificat~o., ::~;1-~ir:~t~,~, ~.-e';c~ ;~.~ ~early
spent, and which wilt then shut the syslem down it the cartridge becomes completely
10 A s~lencer and reservoirs shatl be provided for the automatic drain system.
11 The system is to have a UL Approved Electrical system and be built under ISO [~001 Quality
Note:
More detailed specifications are available upon request.
N o.AGE N D~T~
APR 2 2001
Prices and Specifications are subject to change w/theist notice
6000 psi
D.O.T.
CASCADE
SYSTEM #2
and
SYSTEM #2R
COMPLETE
4-TANK SYSTEM
2036 CU. FT. Storage
INCLUDES:
4 New, 6000 psi, 509 cu. ft. cylinders
Deluxe valves
Safety device on each valve
2 1/2" stainless steel, liquid filled gauge
NOB' AVAII.,ABI,E
IN
LIGHT~,,~:EIGI IT
(Only 188 lbs.
~151{ VI{;L P A{'II.YI'II'2~ Ti"lEI )L~G}IOt;I Tilt;
BREATHING AIR SYSTEIVI$
8855 E. Broad St., Reyno~dsburg, OH 4306~ - Phon~: No.
SALES: 1-800-937-2479 FAX: 614-$64-0071 APR
BRANCHES: Ocala, Ft (352) 629-7712 Chattanooga ~ -
Fax: (352) 401-950!
~?!:cl~ ':i','/ ~:;:.;~;:[ Pg'
Wall mounting brackets
',_:CO'nh~ector hose from
compressor
· ;:Hea~y-duty 6 foot filler hose
:.[AIi~ '~'~ta~nless steel fi~ings
~7500'psi pigtails
::~.~ Adjustable seif. ventm~ Regulator {C-2R only)
'. :.~5,Y~r ~ads warranty
~; ~.,:DEL!~ERYAND HOOK-UP IS INCLLI)I,I)
::2:/:"C: :;'._('~': -~ "';J -.'- -;~ ~.-:':' '~ . ' .
::~.'C,..~ t'- ~:~ '~..~.:h~:.~.tS~gg~dpurc~.~mg specificat~ont on the ~ck ~f ~[~' t,~'
SUGGESTED PURCHASING SPECIFICATIONS Meets ~uy Arnm'ican
BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS "SYSTEM #6", (Bauer UNII/20), or oqdivaier~t
Oirl'l(
cl~clo%'d. 50 fl hose fetal for falling monte systems
[P(TBI gk~clrom¢ pro~am.mNe gFs~em Controller .ith krypad ~ dig,;nl '.',.~ ',,: ~, ~<~?' ei:,4, ~,-
for ~atlcr pn~uct~
svslcm. [:.nablc~ IBc sysl~'m to ~ mov~ for ~tce a~ cleanin?
OTHER MODELS AVAILABLE
Purification ! Air ProceSsing I Dimensions
System J Capability [
MODEL
Number
of Stages
5000 PSI
UNII 12-E1
UNII 12-~3
UNU 26 E3
4
Charging
Rate
26.4
25.2
FAD
10.1
22.0
/e.IB
21
10.0
20 0
10.0
2O
PS SECURUS } ~ q,~) 990 ':;;;.J i- i
::3¢.,30,'.: ;~:;.: F'T
83;(~5SX74
Pi0 SECURU5 i
P2 SECORU$ i 'S7'.::?C- CL. ;T
Pl0 SECURJS } 730 ,',,~.c, CLI r--? ~ 87,~',':~X74
PRICES & SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
.
8jX36X74
AGENDA J'ri~L~J~ ~
No.
APR 2 2001
pg.
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS
BCC Agenda of April 24, 2001
Ochopee Fire Control District (Fund 146)
Budget Amendment #01-265
Operating Expenses $6,500
Capit0~! 4,000
Reserves
Reserve for Contingencies (10,500)
Total: -0-
Explanation: Funds are needed to purchase through Fleet Management a Ford Expedition as a replacement vehicle
for the Fire Chief on a 5 year Lease/Purchase at $6,500 per year.
Emergency Medical Services (Fund 490)
BA #01-267
Capital
Medical Equipment
$15,300
Reserves
Reserve for Contingencies (15,300)
Total:
-0-
Explanation: Funds are needed to purchase Automatic External Defibrillators. Funds were donated, but not
expended in FY00 due to a delay in the placement of the defibrillators.
AGENDA ITEM
No. la ~ ~'/ )
APR 2 2001
FOR BOARD ACTION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 24, 2001
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners ['or
the period:
1) March 14, 2001 through March 20, 2001
2) March 21, 2001 through March 27, 2001
B. Districts:
1)
Big Cypress Basin Board of South Florida Water Management District -
Agenda for April 6, 2001
2)
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes for January 8,
2001
3)
Immokalee Water & Sewer District - Public Facilities Report, Annual
Financial Report, Financial Statements - Audit, Management Letter
4)
South Florida Water Management District - Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report year ended Sept. 30, 2000, District's Scheduled Board
Meetings, Map of county boundaries within the District and Management
Letter
5)
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Public Facilities Report,
A~mual Financial Report-Audit, Management Letter
6)
Key Marco community Development District - Financial Statements
September 30, 2000, Annual Financial Repom Management Letter
B. Minutes:
1)
2)
H:Data/Format
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda fo
Minutes of February 28,2001 meeting
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage, M.S.T.U. - Minutes of February 16,
2001 meeting - Notice of April 12, 2001 meeting
PtO ..___ I ~ ......
APR 2q 2001
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
H:DataYFormat
Beach RenourishmenffMaintenance Committee - Notice of December 19,
2000 meeting and Agenda for April 5,2001 meeting
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for April
12, 2001 meeting and Minutes of March 9, 2001 meeting
Lely Golf Estates MSTU Advisory Committee - Notice of April 12,2001
meeting
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Minutes of
November 8, November 29, December 13, 2000 meetings, January 17,
February 28, and March 7, 2001 meetings and Notice of December 13, 2000
and March 21,2001 meetings and Agenda of December 13, 2000 and
March 21,2001 meetings
Citizens Advisory Task Force Committee - Minutes of September 7,
October 18, December 14, 2000 and March 8, 2001 meetings and Agenda
for March 8, 2001 meeting
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Minutes of February 28,
2001 meeting and Agenda for March 28, 2001 meeting
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Minutes of February 21, 2001
meeting and Agenda for March 21, 2001 meeting
Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Minutes of February
26, 2001 and Notice of March 26, 2001 and Agenda for March 26, 2001
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December
12, 2000 meeting and Minutes of November 14, 2000 meeting
Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee- Minutes of November 8,
2000 meeting and Agenda for December 6, 2000 meeting
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for December 11, 2000 meeting
Ochopee fire Control District Advisory Board - Minutes of October 2, 2000
meeting and Minutes of November 6, 2000 meeting
Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee Agenda
for March 21, 2001 meeting and Minutes of April 18, 2001 meeting
hnmokalee MSTU Advisory Committee -Notice for April 11, 2001
meeting -- A'GE N[~ A' iTEM
NO
APR 2
Pg.
D. Other
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County - Notice of March 30,
2000 emergency meeting
H:DataJFormat
AGENDA ITEM
No._
APR 2 q Z001 /
J
Pg. --~ _
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $100,000.00 FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING EXPERT SERVICES FOR
PURSUIT OF COUNTY'S LITIGATION RELATING TO THE 1995-96
BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY v. COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., CASE NO. 00-1901-CA.
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment for outside
counsel including outside counsel's use of expert witness or witnesses and professional services relating
to the 1995-96 beach restoration project litigation styled Board o.f County Commissioners of Collier
County v. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-1901-CA.
CONSIDERATION: Out of the last Budget Amendment of $110,000.00, the County has expended
$87,663.55 for the services of Siegfried, Rivera, Lerner, De La Torre & Sobel, Esquires (to date a total
of $181,484.91 has been expended). As part of these expenditures, outside counsel has also paid the
costs incurred for our expert engineering firm, Coastal Planning Services, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida.
The costs and expenditures for the pre-litigation investigation, engineering report, including updates and
litigation efforts to date have been reasonable and not unanticipated for complex construction litigation.
It is appropriate and necessary now for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget
amendment in the measure and amount that provides assurance to develop and pursue the case through
mediation, discovery and preparation for trial, if necessary. Mediation proceedings are scheduled for
May 9-10, 2001. Presently $100,000.00 is requested for this budget amendment. Additional budget
requests in the future may be appropriate, but that may remain for evaluation under facts and events that
unfold later.
FISCAL IMPACT: $100,000.00 from General Fund Reserves to the County Attorney Office Budget
for outside counsel and related costs.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve a $100,000.00 budget
amendment for outside counsel and expenditures relating to the 1995-96 beach restoration project
litigation styled Board of County Commissioners of Collier County v. Coastal Engineering
Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-1901-CA.
William E. Mountford [
Assistant County Attorney
APPROVED BY:
David C. Weigel
County Attorney
DATE:
'~ g~)/GIENrlA ITEMt
No. 7f~ ~ r
APR 2 ~ 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PETITION PUD-96-1 (2), MR. WILLIAM HOOVER AND ANDREW I. SOLIS, REPRESENTING
THE CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK, LLC, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
VETERANS PARK MEDICAL PUD HAVING THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE PUD NAME
TO VETERANS PARK COMMONS PUD, INCREASING THE PROJECT ACREAGE TO 5.02
ACRES, AND ELIMINATING THE LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL OFFICE USES
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R.
846) AND VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK DRIVE IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
COMPANION ITEM: PUD-97-13 (1)
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners consider an application to rezone the subject site from
PUD to PUD for the purpose of amending the Veterans Park Medical Planned Unit Development
(PUD), Ordinance Number 96-33 as noted above.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The currently approved Veterans Park Medical PUD allows for support medical facilities such as
physicians' offices, medical clinics and pham~acies as permitted in the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. The PUD document also allows commercial uses found in
the C-1/T zoning district and includes professional office, medical uses, business offices and
institutional uses consistent with the Commercial Under Criteria (CUC) provisions that previously
contained the FLUE. Due to changing market conditions, the petitioner is requesting to add Tract "A"
(1.82-acres) from the adjacent Veterans Park Center PUD to allow low intensity commercial uses. As a
result, there is a companion petition to amend the Veterans Park Center PUD (PUD-97-13) to eliminate
Tract "A", which reduces the acreage of the PUD by 1.82-acres.
Today, the CUC provision no longer exists in the FLUE and has been replaced by the Office and In-fill
Commercial Sub-district that provides for low intensity office commercial or in-fill commercial
development. The petitioner has requested the following additional uses. Automobile Parking (SIC
Group 7521); Business Services (Groups 7311, 7313, 7322-7331,7338, 7361, 7371, 7342-7376, 7379);
Child Care (Group 8351); Engineering, Accounting and Related Services (Groups 0781, 8711-8721,
8741-8743, 8748); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Legal Services (Group 8111); Museums
(Group 8412), Personal Services (Groups 6141-6143); Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991); Real
Estate (Groups 6531-6541) and other similar type uses.
AGENDA ITEDY~
APR 2 q 2001
The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed-Use area as designated on the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management (GMP). This designation allows for residential and
certain non-residential uses including community facilities and commercial uses. The Office and In-fill
Commercial Sub-district is intended to allow low intensity office commercial or in-fill commercial
development on small parcels within the Urban Mixed-Use District. These parcels must be located
along arterial and collector designated roadways where residential development, as allowed by the
Density Rating System, may not be compatible or appropriate. As noted in the Staff Report, the Office
and In-fill Commercial (OIC) criteria is deemed to be met and is consistent if the BCC makes the
following interpretations.
The depth of the proposed site does not exceed the depth of the abutting commercial parcels. The
depth of the subject site is irregular, as the southerly boundary follows a creek; it varies from
300' on the west to 650' on the east, closest to Surrey Place PUD. Surrey Place PUD is more
rectangular in shape but also has some irregularity in depth; it varies from 400' on the west,
closest to the subject site, to 550' closer to the middle of the PUD, to 600' on the east side. If
the average depth of each parcel is considered, then this criterion could be met.
The project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial, except for land abutting
commercial zoning on both sides; the project uses may include those uses of the highest intensity
abutting commercial zoning district. The abutting property to the west (Tract B of Veterans
Park Center PUD) is zoned for public facilities and institutional uses. It should be noted that
these uses are allowed by the FLUE anywhere in the Urban designated area and are not
considered commercial uses. The property to the east (Tract A of Surrey Place PUD) permits
three uses - nursing home, ACLF, and child-care center uses allowed by the FLUE anywhere
in the Urban designated area and not considered commercial uses in the FLUE. However,
past BCC action deemed the Surrey Place PUD to be commercial. Therefore, based solely
upon the previous BCC action, the subject site can be deemed to abut commercial zoning on
one side. As a result, the site is "limited to office or low intensity commercial" as opposed to
being eligible to "include those [uses] of the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district."
The PUD provides for C-1 zoning district uses (e.g., professional and business offices, banks,
child-care center) plus two uses from the C-2 district, both of which are medically related - drug
store and home health care services. Considering past BCC action, this criterion is met.
The traffic impact review indicates that there is no significant difference in the site-generated trips
from the currently approved PUD versus the proposed amendment. As a result, the proposed change
will not exceed the significance test on Immokalee Road (CR-846) within the project's radius of
development influence (RDI). In addition, CR-846 is currently a 4-lane arterial road fronting the
project. The current traffic count for this segment is 33,417 AADT, which results in LOS "D"
operation. It should be noted that this segment is currently being designed to be improved to 6-1anes.
The Transportation Services Staffhas recommended approval subject to the elimination of the northern
driveway connection to Veterans Community Park Drive while the southern driveway must be moved
approximately 70 feet to the north.
AGENDA ITEM
FISCAL IMPACT:
This PUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on the County. However, if this request meets its
objective, a portion of the existing land will be further developed. The mere fact that new development
has been approved will result in future fiscal impact on County public facilities. The County collects
impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new
development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects in the Capital
Improvement Element needed to maintain adopted levels of service for public facilities. In the event
that impact fee collections are inadequate to maintain adopted levels of service, the County must
provide supplemental funds from other revenue sources in order to build needed facilities. The
following impact fees will be applicable to this project:
Park Impact Fee:
· Libraries Impact Fee:
· Fire Impact Fee:
· Road Impact Fee:
· Correctional Facility:
· Radon Impact Fee:
· B.C.A.I. hnpact Fee:
· EMS Impact Fee:
$578.00
$180.52
$0.15 per square foot under roof
$1,755.00 per 1,000 square feet
$1.0920 per square foot
$0.005 per square foot under roof
$0.005 per square foot under roof
$132.00 per 1,000 square feet
The total amount of impact fees for the commercial/medical area is $204,793. It should be noted that
because impact fees vary by housing type and type of commercial development, and because this
approval does not provide this level of specificity as to the actual size and type of use, the total impact
fees quoted above is at best raw estimates. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the project at build-
out will have maximized their authorized level of development. Other fees will include building permit
review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's sewer and water system when
required. Building permit fees and utility fees have traditionally offset the cost of administering the
community development review process, whereas utility fees are used on their proportionate share of
impact to the County system. Finally additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorum tax
rates. The revenue that will be generated depends on the value of the improvements. At this point in
time staff has not developed a method to arrive at a reasonable estimate of tax revenue based on ad
valorem tax rates.
Nevertheless, it should be appreciated that not withstanding the fiscal impact relationship, development
takes place in an environment of concurrency management. When level of service requirements fall
below adopted standards, a mechanism is in place to bring about a cessation of building activities.
Certain LOS standards apply countywide and would therefore bring about a countywide concurrency
determination versus roads that may have local geographic concurrency implications.
AGENDA I'rE-I~
APR 2 q 2001
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed-Use area as designated on the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management (GMP). This designation allows for residential and
certain non-residential uses including community facilities and commercial uses. The Office and In-fill
Commercial Sub-district is intended to allow low intensity office commercial or in-fill commercial
development on small parcels within the Urban Mixed-Use District. Based on staff's review, the
proposed additional commercial uses may be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It
should be noted that this PUD amendment petition does nothing to impact any consistency relationship
with the GMP if the BCC finds that the project is consistent with the Office and In-fill Commercial
Sub-district Criteria. Petitions deemed to be consistent with all provisions of the GMP can't have an
adverse impact. This petition was reviewed for consistency and was found to be consistent with all the
applicable provisions of the GMP. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be
subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.1 and 3.15 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
This amendment has been approved by the Environmental staff subject to a gopher tortoise
relocation/management plan to be submitted at the time of the next development order submittal. Due
to the fact that no wetlands exist on site, no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Services Department Environmental and Engineering staffs have reviewed the
petitioner'~ proposed amendment and have recommended approval. Since no EIS is required, this
petition was not required to go before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition on April 5, 2001. They voted (6
to 0) to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval subject to staff stipulations contained in the PUD document. Since staff has not received any
objections to this petition, this item has been placed on the Summary Agenda.
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Services Staff has referred this petition to all appropriate County Agencies for their review
and recommendation. Based upon their analysis, staff recommends approval of Petition PUD-96-1 (2)
subject to the conditions of approval as described the PUD document and attached to the Ordinance of
Adoption and Exhibits made a part of this executive summary.
4
APR 2 q 200!
PREPARED BY:
RAY BE~O~S, ~RINCIPAL PLANNER
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
4. It.O(
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
/~t~~ ~GER
~I~SAN MURRAY,
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
R(SBEI~T J. MULHERE, AICP, DIRECTOR
PLA , ~~~~~PARTMENT
NoRM/~N FEDER, 3,ICP, ADMINISTRATOR
TRA~PORTATION DIVISION
APPROV~By~~
PUD-96-1 (2)/EX SUMMARY/RVB/rb
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
5
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~t 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DATE:
MARCH 15,2001
PETITION NO: PUD-96-1 (2), VETERANS PARK COMMONS PUD
COMPANION ITEM: PUD-97-13 (1)
AGENT/APPLICANT:
Agents: Mr. William Hoover
Hoover Planning & Development, Inc.
3785 Airport Road, Suite B-1
Naples, Florida 34105
Owner:
Centre at Veterans Park, LLC
5455 Jaeger Road
Naples, Florida 34109
Mr. Andrew Solis
Price, Siket & Solis, LLP
2640 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, Florida 34105
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the south side of Naples-Immokalee Road (CR-846)
and west of Veterans Park Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (See
iljustration on following page.)
REQUESTED ACTION:
This petition seeks to amend the currently approved Veterans Park Medical Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the purposes of adding 1.82-acres, revising Section 3.2.A. 1 (d) of
the PUD Document to eliminate the outdated Commercial Under Criteria language that
limited the general office uses to 25,000 square feet and changing the name of the PUD
from Veterans Park Medical to Veterans Park Commons.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The currently approved Veterans Park Medical PUD allows for support medical fac
such as physicians' offices, medical clinics and pharmacies as permitted in the [
EXHIBIT "A"
I
I
i!
'ii
lll~lf Il It IJltttJ
tlllJllll
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. The PUD document also
allows commercial uses found in the C-1/T zoning district and includes professional
office, medical uses, business offices and institutional uses consistent with the
Commercial Under Criteria (CUC) provisions that previously contained the FLUE. Due
to changing market conditions, the petitioner is requesting to add Tract "A" (1.82-acres)
fi.om the adjacent Veterans Park Center PUD to allow low intensity commercial uses. As
a result, there is a companion petition to amend the Veterans Park Center PUD (PUD-97-
13) to eliminate Tract "A", which reduces the acreage of the PUD by 1.82-acres. Today,
the CUC provision no longer exists in the FLUE and has been replaced by the Office and
In-fill Commercial Sub-district that provides for low intensity office commercial or in-fill
commercial development.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Existing Conditions: As iljustrated on the aerial photograph below, the subject site is
partially developed and is zoned PUD.
Surrounding:
North:
East:
South:
West
- Immokalee Road & developed single family subdivision zoned
RSF-3.
- Developed ALF/commercial, Zoned: Surrey Place PUD.
- Cocohatchee River & undeveloped medical offices, Zoned:
Northside Medical PUD.
- Partially developed medical offices, Zoned: Veterans Park
Center PUD.
APR 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
This petition has been distributed to the appropriate jurisdiction review entities for review
of the PUD for consistency with the current Growth Management Plan (GMP) and they
find the following:
Future Land Use Element: The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed-Use area
as designated on the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management
(GMP). This designation allows for residential and certain non-residential uses including
community facilities and commercial uses. The Office and In-fill Commercial Sub-
district is intended to allow low intensity office commercial or in-fill commercial
development on small parcels within the Urban Mixed-Use District. These parcels must
be located along arterial and collector designated roadways where residential
development, as allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be compatible or
appropriate. The Office and In-fill Commercial (OIC) criteria must be met for any project
utilizing this sub-district.
The proposed rezone petition complies with the following criteria.
1. The site abuts a collector or an arterial road. Immokalee Road is an arterial road.
2. The site must be less than twelve acres in size. The site is approximately 5.02 acres
in size.
3. The site abuts commercial zoning on one or both sides. The BCC previously
determined that the adjacent Surrey place PUD is commercially zoned.
4. The parcel was not created to take advantage of the Office and In-fill Commercial
provisions. The parcel existed prior to this application for a PUD amendment.
o
The project is served by central public water and sewer facilities. The site is within
the County's water and sewer district and these central utilities are available in
this area.
o
The project will be compatible with existing and permitted future land uses on
surrounding properties. The proposed PUD Amendment is compatible with the
adjacent uses in the Surrey Place PUD that includes the following uses. A
nursing home, adult living facility (ALF), child-care centers and office uses,
which was previously determined by BCC to be commercial in nature. The
subject PUD Amendment allows office or low intensity commercial" such as the
C-1 zoning district uses (e.g., professional and business offices, banks, and a
child care center) plus two uses from the C-2 district, both of which are
medically related (drug stores and home health care services). Because these uses
are comparable, this criterion is met.
APR 2 2001
For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting one side, commercial
zoning used pursuant to this subsection shall only be applied one time to serve as a
transitional use and will not be permitted to expand. "This is the first request at this
location for a rezone to commercial utilizing the OIC Sub-district criteria. As to
providing a transition from the Surrey Place PUD to the east and from the
Veteran's Park Center PUD to the west, a downward transition from the
abutting Surrey Place PUD can be made. For example, Tract A of the Surrey
Place PUD allows a nursing home, ALF, and child care facilities along with
office uses in Tract B. [Since the proposed PUD Amendment allows medical uses
are (e.g., medical offices & pharmacy), then a transition may oeeur.]
A maximum of 250 acres may be rezoned utilizing the Office and In-fill Commercial
Sub-district. This criteria is met since only 74 acres have used this provision to
date.
The proposed rezone petition complies with the following criteria if the Board of County
Commissioners makes the following interpretations.
The depth of the proposed site does not exceed the depth of the abutting commercial
parcels. The depth of the subject site is irregular, as the southerly boundary
follows a creek; it varies from 300' on the west to 650' on the east, closest to
Surrey Place PUD. Surrey Place PUD is more rectangular in shape but also has
some irregularity in depth; it varies from 400' on the west, closest to the subject
site, to 550' closer to the middle of the PUD, to 600' on the east side. If the
average depth of each parcel is considered, then this criterion could be met.
The project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial, except for land
abutting commercial zoning on both sides; the project uses may include those uses of
the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district. The abutting property to
the west (Tract B of Veterans Park Center PUD) is zoned for public facilities and
institutional uses. It should be noted that these uses are allowed by the FLUE
anywhere in the Urban designated area and are not considered commercial uses.
The property to the east (Tract A of Surrey Place PUD) permits three uses -
nursing home, ACLF, and child care center - uses allowed by the FLUE
anywhere in the Urban designated area and not considered commercial uses in
the FLUE. However, past BCC action deemed the Surrey Place PUD to be
commercial. Therefore, based solely upon the previous BCC action, the subject
site can be deemed to abut commercial zoning on one side. As a result, the site is
"limited to office or low intensity commercial" as opposed to being eligible to
"include those [uses] of the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district."
The PUD provides for C-1 zoning district uses (e.g., professional and business
offices, banks, child-care center) plus two uses from the C-2 district, both of which
are medically related - drug store and home health care services. Considering ~ast
BCC action, this criterion is met.
APR 2 A. 2001
Based on staff review of the approved land uses on the adjacent and nearby properties,
the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the Office and In-fill Commercial
criteria contained in the FLUE of the Collier County GMP subject to the Board of County
Commissioners making the above referenced findings.
Transportation Element: The traffic impact review indicates that there is no significant
difference in the site-generated trips from the currently approved PUD versus the
proposed amendment. As a result, the proposed change will not exceed the significance
test on Immokalee Road (CR-846) within the project's radius of development influence
(RDI). In addition, CR-846 is currently a 4-lane arterial road fronting the project. The
current traffic count for this segment is 33,417 AADT, which results in LOS "D"
operation. It should be noted that this segment is currently being improved to 6-lanes by
late 2002.
Applicable Elements: Staff review indicates that this petition has been designed to
account for the necessary relationships dictated by the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Mitigation measures and stipulations have been developed (where appropriate) to ensure
consistency with the GMP during the permitting process. Development permitted by the
approval of this petition is subject to a concurrency review.
This review is subject to the provisions of Section 3.15 of the Collier County Land
Development Code, Adequate Public Facilities, at the earliest or the next to occur of
either Final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit applicable to this
development. Therefore, this proposed PUD amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the GMP. Staff has concluded that no level of service standards will be
adversely affected by this amendment. Appropriate miti'gation measures and stipulations
will assure that the County's interests are maintained. Consistency with the goals,
objectives and policies of other applicable elements of the GMP and level of service
relationships are to be achieved by stipulations and/or development commitments made a
part of the approval of this development order.
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staffs 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. However, Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code requires the
following. If during the course of site cleating, excavation or other construction activity
an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area
necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County
Code Enforcement Department contacted.
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
This petition was reviewed by the appropriate staff responsible for the oversight of the
above referenced areas of critical concem. This includes a review by the Community
Development Environmental and Engineering staff, and the Transportation Services
Division. These reviews help shape the content of the PUD Document and cause
development commitments to be formulated to achieve GMP and LDC requirements.
This amendment has been approved by the Environmental staff subject to a gopher
tortoise relocation/management plan to be submitted at the time of the next development
order submittal. Due to the fact that no wetlands exist on site, this petition was not
required to go to the Environmental Advisory Council. The Transportation Services Staff
has recommended approval subject to the elimination of the northern driveway
connection to Veterans Community Park Drive while the southern driveway must be
moved approximately 70 feet to the north.
EVALUATION:
The purpose of this petition is to amend the Veterans Park ~ Commons PUl)
even though the process is one ofrezoning the land from "PUD" to "PUD". The intent of
this type of zoning procedure is to achieve a level of administrative convenience by
avoiding the requirement to track amendments to the original document in order to
understand the totality of the regulations as they apply to this PUD zoning district.
Because of this reason, the required findings for standard and PUD rezones do not apply
to this petition. Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that when the property was
initially rezoned, the decision to approve the subject PUD was based upon a
preponderance of evidence and conditions which supported the required findings for PUD
rezoning actions. Nevertheless, staff has evaluated the proposed amendment and has the
following comments.
The evaluation by professional staff should typically include an analysis of the project's
relationship to the community's future land use plan. This analysis is made whether or not
the proposed amendment would be consistent with the Collier County Growth
Management Plan in all of its related elements. Other evaluation considerations should
include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infrastructure,
and compatibility with adjacent land uses. This consideration usually dealt with as a
function of analyzing the relationship of the rezoning action to the long-range plan for all
future land uses. The most important facet of the rezoning action is that it constitutes a
legislative statement that authorizes the use of land for a specific development strategy,
provided the development of the land can go forward. It may not affect the timing of
development because of subsequent permitting requirements.
Traffic Circulation and Impact -
amendment to the existing PUD will not have a significant impact on Immokak
by virtue of the fact that vehicular site generated trips will not exceed 5% of the I.
Staff has identified the fact that the proposed
¢ Road ~
3S ,,~a,~A rr~
APR 2 2001
design capacity. Furthermore, it should be appreciated that all future development is
subject to actions that may be taken as a result of application of the County's Concurrency
Management provisions. The Transportation Services Staff has recommended approval
subject to the elimination of the northern driveway connection to Veterans Community
Park Drive while the southern driveway must be moved 70 feet to the north.
Relationship to Existing Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies
specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship
of the proposed zoning action to the surrounding properties. The permitted uses within
the subject PUD are similar to the health service uses approved in the Surrey Place PUD
to the east and the Veterans Park Center PUD to the west. To the south of the subject site
is the Cocohatchee River and the Northside Medical Plaza PUD. The property to the
north across Immokalee Road is approved for residential uses. To improve the
relationship and compatibility with the adjacent RMF-6 zoned land, this PUD provides a
Type "D" landscape buffer (15 feet wide) along the northern property line and a 10 foot
wide Type "D" buffer along Veterans Community Park Drive to the east.
In addition, the maximum height of structures is 45 feet, which is the same height
allowed in the currently approved PUD to the west and similar to the Surrey Place PUD
to the east that limits building heights to 40 feet in Tract "B". The PUD Master Plan
provides 1 primary land use tract that is accessed from Veterans Community Park Drive.
To ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, the commercial and medical office
structures are subject to the Architectural and Site Design requirements of Section 2.8 of
the LDC and the common architectural theme standards contained in the PUD requiring a
unified theme. The general development standards include Front Yard setbacks that are
similar to the adjacent PUD zoning. With respect to compatibility issues, staff is of the
opinion that the subject petition is consistent with the GMP and is' also compatible with
other approved commercial and medical/health service land uses in the area.
Relationship to Future Land Use Element: With respect to the matter of compatibility
with the FLUE, this is an evaluation whose primary focus is the relationship of the
proposed zoning action to the FLUE. In the case at hand, and based upon the FLUE, we
have an expectation that the land will be used consistent with the Urban Mixed-Use
District. This district permits nonresidential land uses consistent with the Office and In-
fill Commercial Sub-district. The amended PUD Document also includes the same
intensity of medical uses that was approved when the property was originally rezoned to
PUD. Regarding the matter of timing, urban commercial development has been approved
and constructed within this area while water supplies are also available to this site. Since
this petition is only an amendment to the existing PUD Zoning District, the proposed
changes will not increase the impacts to the Collier County North Wastewater Treatment
Plant. It should be noted that all development must comply with surface water
management requirements invoked at the time of site development plan review. After
considering the availability of community infrastructure and services it is clear that the
development of the subject property is timely and consistent with the FLUE to the GMP.
A~A ITEM
APR 2 2001
PREPARED BY:
RAY l~l ~'I.OWS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
//~NT PLANNING SECTION
':- '-""x~RONA~ ~'.'~qO, AICP, MANAGER
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
R6BEI~T J. MULHE-~,, ~CP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE
PROVED BY: f~
J(~IN M. DUNNUCi<, III, INTERIM ADMINISTRATO
CaMMUNrr¥ ~V. ^m> ~NmONM~W~ SVCS.
DATE
Staff Report for the April 5, 2001, CCPC meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
RVBIrb/STAFF REPORT/PUD-96-1 (2)
· af. aE~A IT~
~.. 17,,4
APR 2/~ 2001
PUD AMENDMENT - VETERANS PARK MEDICAL PUD
PETITION NUMBER
DATE
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
FOR
PUD AMENDMENT/DO AMENDMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CURRENT PLANNING
Name of Applicant(s) THE CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK, LLC
Applicant's Mailing Address 5455 Jaeqer Road
City Naples State Florida Zip 34109
Applicant's Telephone Number: Res.: N/A Bus.:
Is the applicant the owner of the subject property?
X Yes No
(a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name
beneficiaries below.
(b) If applicant is corporation other than a public
corporation, so indicate and name officers and major
stockholders below.
X (c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or
other business entity, so indicate and name principals
below.
X (d) If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded,
and list all other owners, if any.
(e) If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and
indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease.
(f) If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of
contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address
below.
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B
(If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.)
2. Name of Agent Andrew I. Solis Firm Price, Siket & Solis, LLP
Agents Mailing Address 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 115
City Naples State Florida Zip 34105
Telephone Number: Res.: N/A Bus.: 261-4673
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
3. PUD ORDINANCE NAME AND NUMBER: Veterans Park Medical PUD No. 96-33
4. 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.
property is odd-shaped, submit five (5) copies of survey (1" to 400'
scale).
If
THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CORRECT LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IF QUESTIONS ARISE CONCERNING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AN
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION SHALL BE REQUIRED.
SECTION 26 TOWNSHIP 48 South RANGE 25 East
East one-half (E ½) of the East ½ (E ½) of the Northwest one quarter
(NW 1/4) of the Northwest one quarter {NW 1/4) North of Horse Creek
all in Section 26, Township 48 South, Ranqe 25 East, less East 75 feet
and North 100 feet lyinq North of Horse Creek, Collier County, Florida.
5. Address or location of subject property.
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). The Centre at Veterans Parkf LLC owns Tract A of the
Veterans Park Center PUD which is beinq added to this PUD.
The leqal description of said Tract A is attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
9e
TYPE OF AMENDMENT:
X..A. PUD Document Language Amendment
B. PUD Master Plan Amendment
C. Development Order Language Amendment
DOES AMENDMENT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: X Yes
No If no, explain:
HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST
YEAR? IF SO, IN WHOSE NAME? NO
PETITION ~: DATE:
AGENI)A I1
APR 2 2001
10.
HAS ANY PORTION OF THE PUD BEEN X SOLD AND/OR X
DEVELOPED? ARE ANY CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE AREA SOLD AND/OR
DEVELOPED?
Yes. X No. IF YES, DESCRIBE: (ATTACH
ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY).
See Exhibit A
AFFIDAVIT
I, George Ryan, Jr., as Trustee of the George Ryan, Jr. Trust, and
as Managing Partner of The Centre at Veterans Park, LLC being first duly
sworn, depose and say that The Centre at Veterans Park, LLC is the owner
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, and 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. We understand this application
must be completed and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. We
further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any
matters regarding this Petition.
NOTE: SIGNATURES OF ALL OWNERS ARE MANDATORY.
State of ~lorida
County of Collier
The .foregoing Application was acknowledged before me this ~7
day of ~~' , 2000 by George Ryan, Jr., as Trustee of the
George Ryan,__Jr. Trust and as Mana~inq Partner of The Centre at Veterans
Park, LLC, o 6-- sp rsonal known to. or ro uce
as identification and who did (did not) take an
oath.
(Signature of Notary Public)
~.~ Expires ~i115, 2001
~' ~ NOT~Y PUBLIC
co .. on SC $9
My Co~ission Expires: ~-~-0~
PUD\DO APPLICATION/md/4128
AGENDA ITEM
2 2001
EXHXBXT ~
The Veterans ~ark Medical PUD has been subjected to a Declaration
of Condominium and divided into Units - Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 has
been sold in its entirety to Southern Community Bank. Southern
Community Bank's consent and authorization for the filing of this
application is attached hereto. Unit 2 is owned entirely by the
Applicant.
EXHIBIT
AGENDA ITEId
APR 2 2001
I, .3-'~5-L ~z-. con tT'7-g-~4cc_, as ~a. ~/c¢ ~ a~ of Sou~
~u~ B~ a Florida ~o~6o~ ~ o~ of U~t 1, ofC~ a V~s P~k a
~o~u~ lo~ ~ the V~s P~k M~i~ P~, h~by ~odze ~drew I. Sol~,
Esq., of the law ~ ofP~, S~ & So~s, ~P, m sub~ the ~h~ ~pli~on ~cnd~g
~e V~e~ns P~k Medi~ P~ ~d to ~p~ ~ ~y ~b~c h~gs on b~of Sou~h~
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ·
_ . The foregoing instmme~vas acknow).edged before me ~his ~ day of . ,
~-LF'D~-~ ~ 2000, by J~)e/ c~. /c)/~,~-'/:e~l/, as ~te. ff~c/- /~~ of
Southern Communit7 Bank, Who is _personally kno~___._to me_/or who has produced
as identification.
Seal)
...... ~'""",, KIMBERLY ANNE GRATFON
MY COMMISSION # ~ 681888
~:x:~:.','."; EXPI~8: November 16, 2001
;:~.. ,~,,;:,'
~7,,,? ,,.,,, Bonded Thru Notary ~ Undontwiters
Name of Acknowledger Typed, Primed or Stamped
My Commission expires: I
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
']'bi~t)oc.mentPrepnredl~yflndRetu~to!
Price, siket & Sells, LLU
R. Scott Price, Esquire
2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 115
Naples, FL 34105
*** 2608130 OR: 2652 PG: 3055
R[CORD~D ill O[[ICIA~ ~BCORD$ of COI,~I[R COUHT¥, [~
03/20/2000 at 0?:3§AH DWIGHT K. BROCK,
COH~ 1200000,00
Rig Fl! 6,00
DOC-JO 8%00,00
ReCn:
~6~0 GOhDIN GRT[ Pl~l ~115
NAPLE~ FL 34105 3203
I'.,'rcl ID Number: OO167360007
Warranty Deed
This Indenture,' Madethis /~' dayof /~ ~ ,~0/7 ^.O.. Between
The Centre at Veterans' Park, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
and George Ryan, Jr., Individually
',,r me County of Collier , State of Florida , grantors, ~d
Southern Community Bank, a corporation existing under the laws of the
State of Florida
~d,os¢ address is~ 250 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801
st. se or Florida , grantee.
of me County of Orange ,
Witnesseth met file GRANTORS, for and in consideralion oftl~ sum of
........................ TEN DOLLARS ($10) ....................... DOLLARS,
nod Giber good and valuable consideralion to GRANTORS in bend paid by GRANTEE. Ihe rcccipl whereof is hereby acknowledged, have
granted, bm'gained ~nd sold to thc said GRANTEE and GRANTEE'S heirs, successors and assigns forever, lhe following described I.nd, situate,
lying ~d being in the County of Collier Slate of Florida to wil:
Unit 1, The Centre at Veterans' Park, a commercial condominium,
according to the declaration thereof recorded in O.R. Book2652 ,
Page ~30~----' Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Subject to current taxes, easements and restrictions common to the
subdivision.
.~BC
and tile grantors do hereby fully W~Ul'anl die lille to said bad. and will defend the same ~g~.inst lawfid claims of all p~rsons wbomsocver.
In Witness Whereof, file grantors I,ave hereunto scl their hands and seels the day .nd ~ first above ~wittcn.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence:
Wi tness
The CeD~re _at Vgterans' Park, LLC
By:~ ~ (Seal)
~f~gid Sold~avini-Clapper
Manager -'
George Ryan, Jr., Individually
P.O. Address:
(Corporate Seal)
STATE OF Florida
COUNT~ OF Collier ~ ~ ~000 by
The foregoing instrument ,vas .ck, lmvledged b~l'ore me ,his /5~L day of
Brigi~. SoldaVini~Clappe~bManager of The Centre at Veterans' Park, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of' the 6ompany, and
George Ryan, Jr., individually
I~ is personally kn0xx~ Io me or he has prmJuced his
AGENDA ITt"
APR 2 2001
MEMBEIRS OF CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK, LLC
Brigid Soldavini
James F. Paradis
George Ryan, Jr. Trust
George Ryan, Sr., as Trustee
D. Barry Davis
Andrew Briskar
Judith Thompson Trust
ForSure, LLC
William Richardson
Michael Richardson
Deborah Kuper
Pat and Emily Joyce
Rebecca Mulzer
EXHIBIT
APR 2 q 2001
~etn:
PRICE $IKET ET AL
2640 GOLDEN GATE PKWY #I15
NAPLES FL 34105 3203
ZbUS±Z'/ OR: 2652 PG: 2998
RECORDBD in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, PL CONS
03/20/2000 at 07:35AM DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK REC FEE
DOC-. 7 o
2800O00.00
15,00
19600,00
WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED is made on this ../('~'~day of March, 2000, between RD2 PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida general partnership, whose post office address is: 13124 Valewood Drive, Naples,
FL 34119-8505 (the "Grantor"), and THE CENTRE AT VETERAN'S PARK, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company and GEORGE RYAN, Jr., as tenants in common (the "Grantees"),
whose post office address is: 5455 Jaeger Road, Naples, FL 34109.
The Grantor, in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and
other good and valuable considerations to said Grantor in hand paid by the Grantees, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said
Grantee and Grantees' heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following described property,
situated, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to wit:
The East one-half (El/2) of the East one-half (El/2) of the Northwest
one-quarter (NW ]fi) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW ~/~) North
of Horse Creek all in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, LESS the East 73 feet and North 100
feet lying north of Horse Creek.
AND
A parcel of land situated and being in the West one-half (WV2) of
the East one-half (E'A) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW 'fi) of the
Northwest one-quarter (NW '/~) of Section 26, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference.
Tax Folio Numbers: 00167360007 and 00167720207.
SUBJECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2000 and subsequent
years; covenants, easements and restrictions of record; and existing
zoning and government regulations; provided however the foregoing
shall not prevent Grantees' intended use of the Property for
medical/business purposes.
And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same
against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
C:\KRJ\RD2Partne rship
Warranty Deed
EXHIBIT
(Page I of 2)
This Instrument Prepared By:
Kenneth R. Johnson, Esq.
Goodlette. Coleman & Johnsc
4001 Tamiami Trail North, S~
Naples, FL 34103
P.A. '
i,e 3~pR 2 ti 2001
OR: 2652 PG: 2999
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor has caused this instrument to be duly
executed and delivered on the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
RD2 PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida general partnership
aymond P. De.&ngdi{s,
General Part~-~-~
By: ~~'~~~_._~
Raymond J. DeAngelis,
General Partner
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me on this /~day of
March, 2000, by Raymond P. DeAngelis and Raymond J. DeAngelis, ( ,~ ) who are
personally known to me or ( ) who produced their respective driver's license as
identification, as the general partners of RD2 PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership, on
behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public/
Print Name:
State of Florid~ at Large
My Commission Expires:
(Notary Seat)
C:\KRJ\RD2Parmership
Warranty Deed
(Page 2 of 2)
,,,~:~;~":,. KENNETH n. JOHNSON
11~:~ MY COMMISSIONf~CC726994 I'
~ %';...~:~,. ~,~',,"' EXPIRES: Apd116, 2~t~
il ~'~'~
~ ~ No~ Pu~ ut ~~'-
APR 2 ~ 2001
*** 0l: 2652 PG: 3000
EXHIBIT "'A"
(Legal Descriptiot0
COMMI~-NCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14'12" EAST ALONG TIlE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26'A DI~itI'A~NCE OF 696.09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00
DEGR-LTES 45'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO A POINT ON'THE NORTH ~
OF PARCEL DF_.SCR.IBF. D IN O.R. BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, PU]~ LIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE CONTINIJE ALONG TIlE NORTH LINE OF SAID
DESCRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
TFI'ENCE NORTH 89 DEGRL:rES 14'12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29.62 FEET TO THE POiNT
OF BEGINNiNG OF THE PAKCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH
LINE OF SALT) PARCEL DESCRIBED IN O.K. BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, SOUTH 15 DEGREES
17'59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 26.55 FEET; THENCE SOUlWrI 01 DEGREE 10'24" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 68..55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 42'47' BAST, A DISTANCE OF
50.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGKEES 2T53" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 63.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 62 DBGI~ ]::.I::S 43"21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
22 DEGREES 33'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES
09'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 45'48~ EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF TIlE EAST
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWF_ST ONE-QUAP, TEK OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER.
OF SAID SECTION 26; TIqE-NCE ALONG TIlE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF
TILE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHIVEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTIIW~EST ONE-
QUAKTF~ OF SAID SECTION 26, NORTH, 01 DEGREE 11'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
421.72 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 14'12" WEST, X DISTANCE OF 180.85 FEET
TO A POINT OF THE NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED iN O.IL BOOK 1458, PAGE
1300, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIE. K COUNTY, FLOKIDA; THENCE CON'rlNUE A_LONG
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DESCRIBED PARCF_L. SOIYI'H 00 DEGtLEF..S 45'48" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 5fk00 FEET, THENCE SOU~H 89 DEGREES 14'12' WEST, A D1STANCE OF
80.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AGENDA ITl
,,,,._l _
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT "C"
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED AND BEING IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF
OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST DNE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNT~, FLORIDA, AND I~EING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SEC:'.TION 26. TO~,VNSHIP 48 SOUTH.
RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST, AI~ONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 26, A DISTANCE OF 696.09 FEET: THkNCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45' 48" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL. SOUTH 00
DEGREES 45' 4'8" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1~9 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST,
A DISTANCE'OF 29.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 14511, PAGE 1300, SOUTH 15 DEGREES I?' 59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 26.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREE 10' 24' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 68.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18
DEGREES 42' 47" EAS~, A DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET; THENCE SO, UT~ 54 DEGREES 27' 53" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 63.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 43' 2::I: EAST, A DISTANCE OF
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 33' I 1" EAST, A DISTANCE OF ?1L94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
50 DEGREES 09' 23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 45' 41~"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26, NORTH 01 DEGREE i I' 49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 4~ 1.72 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89
DEGREES 14' 12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 188.115 FEET TO A POI '.NT ON THE NORTH LrNE OF A
PARCEL DESCRIBED rN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG !THE NORTH LINE OF :SAID
DESCRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45' 48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET,"~I-IENCE
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1~0.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJE~T TC~'EASEMENTS. RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 26. TOWNSHIP 48 SOt
25 EAST. COLLIER COUlqTY, FLORIDA AS BEING: NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EA
APR 2 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 01-__
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 MAP NUMBERED 8526N
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM
"PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS "VETERANS PARK COMMONS", FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), APPROXIMATELY
258 FEET WEST OF VETERANS PARK DRIVE, IN
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 5.02+ ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
ORDINANCE NUMBER 96-33, AS AMENDED, THE
FORMER VETERANS PARK MEDICAL PUD; AND
BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, William Hoover of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc. and Andrew I. Solis of
Price, Siket & Solis, LLP, representing The Centre at Veterans Park, 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
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The Zoning Classification of the herein described real property located in Section 26, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed fi.om "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development in accordance with the PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is
incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered
8526N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is
hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
Ordinance Number 96-33, as amended, known as the Veterans Park Medical PUD, adopted on
June 25, 1996, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
SECTION THREE:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
2001
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, this __ day of _, 2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
Marjor~'M~ Stud~ht
Assistant County Attorney
g/admm/PUD-96-01 (2)/RB/cw
BY:
JAMES D. CARTER, PhD., CHAIRMAN
-2-
APR 2 ~ 2001
VETERANS PARK COMMONS PUD
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR:
THE CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK LLC
DBA VETERANS PARK COMMONS
501 GOODLETTE ROAD N., SUITE 105
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
PREPARED BY:
WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP
HOOVER PLANNING & DEV., INC.
3785 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE B
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105
AND
ANDREW I. SOLIS
PRICE, SIKET & SOLIS, LLP
2640 GOLDEN GATE PKWY., SUITE 115
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105
DATE FILED
DATE REVISED
DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC
DATE APPROVED BY BCC
ORDINANCE NUMBER
Exhibit "A"
November 6, 2000
March 12, 2001
AGENDA
APR 2 ~ 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION
SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN
SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
PAGE
i
ii
1
2
4
6
10
AGE~I:)A I'rE.M
_.
APR 2 ~ 2001
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "C"
PUD MASTER PLAN
PUD WATER MANAGEMENT/UTILITY PLAN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
AGEb~A ITL
~P~ 2 q
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The development of approximately 5.02 acres of property in Collier County, as a
Planned Unit Development to be known as the Veterans Park Commons PUD will be in
compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan. The commercial facilities of the Veterans
Park Commons PUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development
regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following
reasons:
The subject property is within the Urban Residential - Mixed Use Designation as
identified on the Future Land Use Map, which permits commercial land uses.
The subject property further qualifies for commercial uses via the Office and In-
fill Commercial Sub-District of the Urban - Mixed Use District in the Future Land
Use Element since its average depth is approximately equal to the average
depth of the abutting Surrey Place PUD, that has commercial uses.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection
between Immokalee Road and Veterans Park Drive. This strategic location
allows the site excellent access for the location of mixed commercial land uses,
as permitted by the Future Land Use Element.
The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community
facilities and services permits the development's intensity of land uses as
required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element.
The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future
surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations
including the Growth Management Plan.
All final local development orders for this project are subject to Division 3.15,
Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code as set
forth in Policy 3.1 of the Future Land Use Element.
AGENDA ITEM.
APR 2 ~ 2001
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the
property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be
developed under the project name of Veterans Park Commons PUD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property totals 5.02 acres and is located within Section 26,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. A complete legal
description is provided within Exhibit "C".
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is owned by:
The Centre at Veterans Park LLC, d/b/a Veterans Park Commons, 501
Goodlette Road North, Suite 105, Naples, Florida 34102, except for the
northeast corner (Unit 1 of the Centre at Veteran's Park, a commercial
condominium according to the declaration thereof recorded in O.R. Book 2652,
page 3004, Public Records of Collier County, Florida.) The northeast corner is
owned by Southern Community Bank, 250 North Orange Avenue, Orlando,
Florida 32801.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Immokalee
Road and Veterans Park Drive (unincorporated Collier County), Florida.
The subject property is currently vacant and zoned PUD for commercial
land uses. The subject property consists of the 3.2-acre Veterans Park
Medical PUD and the 1.82-acre Tract "A" of the Veterans Park Center
PUD. The intended land uses are also being modified to allow additional
professional offices to be developed.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The site's only significant natural feature is Horse Creek, whose approximate
centerline defines the parcel's southern property boundary. Except for the
northern bank of Horse Creek the property has generally been cleared of natural
AGENDA ITEIVl
APR 2 ~ 2001
1.6
1.7
vegetation. Most of the site was previously developed as Fogg's Nursery. The
north bank of Horse Creek is vegetated with a variety of trees and understory
including palmettos.
The site has the following designation relative to flooding - FEMA FIRM Flood
Zone AE (Special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 year flood, based
elevation of 11 NGVD).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Veterans Park Commons PUD is intended to be developed primarily for a
professional office park.
The Master Plan is iljustrated graphically on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. A
Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreage is shown on the
plan.
SHORT TITLE
This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Veterans Park Commons
Planned Unit Development Ordinance".
3
AGENDA ITE~
/7,4,
APR 2 ~t 2001
SECTION II
2.1
PURPOSE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
2.2
The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project
plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the
respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project
relationships.
GENERAL
Regulations for development of the Veterans Park Commons PUD shall
be in accordance with the contents of this document, PUD-Planned Unit
Development District, applicable sections and parts of the Collier County
Land Development Code and Collier County Growth Management Plan in
effect at the time of local final development order or building permit
application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental
standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier
County Land Development Code shall apply.
Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as
the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in
effect at the date of adoption of this PUD.
All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting
restrictions for the development of the Veterans Park Commons PUD
shall become part of the regulations, which govern the manner in which
the PUD site may be developed.
Unless specifically waived through any variance or waiver provisions from
any other applicable regulations, the provisions of those regulations not
otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect.
Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a
concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15 Adequate Public
Facilities of the Collier County Land Development Code, at the earliest, or
next, to occur of either Final Site Development Plan approval, Final Plat
approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development.
4
AGENDA ITEK,
APR 2 4 2001
2.3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES
The project Master Plan is iljustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD
Master Plan.
Minor modifications to Exhibit "A", may be permitted at the time of Site
Development Plan approval, subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of
the Collier County Land Development Code or as otherwise permitted by
this PUD Document.
In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A",
easements such as (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established
and/or vacated within or along the property, as may be necessary.
2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development
Plan. Except as otherwise provided within this PUD Document, any
division of the property and the development of the land shall be in
compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the platting laws of the
State of Florida.
The provisions of Division 3.3, Site Development Plans of the Land
Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all
platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division 3.3 prior to
the issuance of a building permit or other development order.
Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural
improvements regarding any dedications and the methodology for
providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities.
2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN
Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 2.7.3.5 of the
Land Development Code.
AGENDA I~
~ 1'7..-
!
APR 2 ~ 200!
3.1
3.2
3.3
SECTION III
COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the
Commercial Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The project is intended to be developed as a professional office park.
PERMITTED USES
No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures:
1. Automobile parking (group 7521).
2. Business services (groups 7311, 7313, 7322 - 7331, 7338, 7361,
7371, 7372, 7342 - 7376, 7379).
3. Child day care services (group 8351).
4. Civic, social and fraternal associations (group 8641).
5. Depository institutions (groups 6011-6099).
6. Drug stores (group 5912).
7. Educational services (groups 8211 - 8231).
8. Engineering, accounting, research, management and
services (groups 0781, 8711 - 8721, 8741 - 8743, 8748).
Health services (groups 8011 - 8049, 8082).
related
Insurance carriers, agents, and brokers (groups 6311 6399,
6411).
6
AGENDA ITF_J
APR 2 z~ 2001
Bo
3.4
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Legal services (group 8111).
Museums and art galleries (8412).
Non-depository credit institutions (groups 6141 - 6143).
Personal services (groups 7221 - 7261 except crematories, 7291).
Physical fitness facilities (group 7991).
Real estate (groups 6531 - 6541).
Any other commercial use or professional service, which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
Accessory Uses:
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and
Permitted Uses within this PUD Document.
incidental to the
Caretaker's residence, subject to Section 2.6.16 of the Land
Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this
Ordinance.
Conditional Uses:
Mixed residential and commercial uses as described in Section
2.2.12.3.7. of the Land Development Code in effect as of the date
of adoption of this .Ordinance.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Minimum Lot Area:
Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
B. Minimum Lot Width:
One hundred (100) feet.
C. Minimum Yards:
(1) Principal structures:
7
A~A ITF-~
APR 2 4 200!
Eo
Ho
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet plus one (1) foot for each
foot of building height over thirty-five (35) feet.
(2) Accessory Structures:
Setbacks shall be as required by Division 2.6.2 of the Land
Development Code in effect at time of building permit application.
Minimum Distance Between Principal Structures:
Twenty (20) feet.
Minimum Floor Area:
One thousand (1000) square feet for the principal structure on the first
habitable floor.
Maximum Height:
Forty-five (45) feet.
Off-Street Parkinq and Loadinq Requirements:
As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code
in effect at the time of building permit application.
Open Space Requirements:
A minimum of thirty (30) percent open space of the gross area for the
entire PUD shall be devoted to open space, as described in Section
2.2.20.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
8
Bufferinq Requirements:
(1) In order to facilitate the retention of existing vegetation/trees, rows
of parking may contain more than ten (10) parking spaces
AGENDA ITEM
!
APR 2 2001
Side Yard - Ten (10) feet.
Rear Yard - Twenty (20) feet.
Yards Abutting PUD Boundaries - Twenty (20) feet.
Jo
uninterrupted by a landscaped island, provided a maximum
average of ten (10) parking spaces between landscaped islands is
maintained in each site development plan permitted through Collier
County.
(2)
Sidewalks, pedestrian walks, and bike paths may occur within
required buffers, however the width of the required buffer shall be
increased by the same amount as the width of the paved surface of
the sidewalk, pedestrian walk, or bike path.
(3)
The twenty-five (25) foot Buffer "A" required for the south property
line, which partially includes Horse Creek, shall maintain existing
vegetation to the extent allowed by the proposed development site
grading and drainage constraints. This buffer area, as now exists,
is heavily vegetated and may be utilized as an open space amenity
for passive uses, including: observation decks/platforms, seating
and picnic areas/pavilions, and similar uses. This buffer shall
minimally meet the requirements for a Buffer "A~ as described in
Section 2.4.7.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Signs:
Signs shall be permitted as described in Section 2.5 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
ti.~htinq:
Lighting shall be designed so that glare does not extend off-site onto
neighboring residential properties or onto adjacent rights-of-way.
Common Architectural Theme:
All lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure
shall be similar in design throughout the site.
9
APR 2 ~ 2001
SECTION IV
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
4.1
4.2
4.3
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the development of
this project.
GENERAL
All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site
Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local
laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically
noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County
Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the
PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns shall be
responsible for the commitments outlined in this document.
The developer, his successor or assignee shall follow the PUD Master Plan and
the regulations of this PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications
as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor
or assignee in title shall be subject to any commitments within this agreement.
PUD MASTER PLAN
Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan iljustrates the proposed development and is
conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries, or
special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be
varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site
Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5
of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be
made from time to time.
All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be
granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service
utilities and all common areas in the project.
10
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT
A Site Development Plan shall be submitted per County regulations in effect at
time of site plan submittal. The project is intended to be completed in one or two
phases.
A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time
limits pursuant to Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code.
B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted
pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development
Code.
ENGINEERING
Except as otherwise provided within this PUD Document, this project shall
be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final
construction documents are submitted for development approval.
If the property is subdivided into three (3) or more parcels, a plat shall be
required.
PLANNING
Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during
the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a
historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the
minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately
stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted.
WATER MANAGEMENT
The developer shall remove all exotics, debris, trash, and other significant
impediments to the flow of waters for the total width and length of Horse
Creek with the project boundary.
TRANSPORTATION
The project shall not have direct access onto Immokalee Road. Access
points shall be limited to Veterans Park Drive or cross-accesses through
adjoining parcels.
11
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
4.9
Arterial level street lighting shall be provided where the Project's access
intersects with Veterans Park Drive, prior to the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
If a deceleration lane is deemed appropriate by the Collier County
Development Services or Transportation Services Staff during the site
plan review process, such deceleration lane shall be constructed by the
Developer prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy.
A "fair share" contribution toward a traffic signal at the intersection of
Veterans Park Drive and Immokalee Road shall be required, if and when
a signal system is deemed warranted by Collier County. Any signal
system shall be owned and operated by Collier County.
ENVIRONMENTAL
This project shall comply with the environmental sections of the Collier
County Land Development Code and the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of
final development order approval.
An exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan shall be provided at
the time of site development plan or plat/plans submittal, in accordance
with Section 3.9.6.6.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as
amended.
The petitioner shall retain a minimum of 15% of the existing native
vegetation on-site or mitigate according to Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier
County Land Development Code, as amended.
A gopher tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted, at the
time of the next development order submittal, in accordance with Section
3.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended.
The project's environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the
State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and applications
and shall be subject to review and approval by Collier County Planning
Services Sections Staff.
Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least 15 feet
landward from the edge of the wetlands in all places and averaging 25
feet from the edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible,
structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida
12
APR 2 ~, 2001
Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and
approval by Collier County Planning Services Section Staff.
13
APR 2 ~ 2001
EXHIBIT"A"
m
EXHIBIT "A"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PETITION PUD-97-13 (1), MR. WILLIAM HOOVER AND ANDREW I. SOLIS, REPRESENTiNG
THE CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK, LLC, REQUESTiNG AN AMENDMENT TO THE
VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD HAViNG THE EFFECT OF REMOViNG TRACT "A" AND
REDUCiNG THE PROJECT ACREAGE FROM 8.76 ACRES TO 6.94 ACRES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND APPROXIMATELY
258 FEET WEST OF VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK DRIVE iN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
COMPANION ITEM: PUD-96-1 (2)
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners consider an application to rezone the subject site from
PUD to PUD for the purpose of amending the Veterans Park Center Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Ordinance Number 97-80 as noted above.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The currently approved Veterans Park Center PUD has two development tracts. Tract "A" allows for
support medical facilities such as physicians' offices, medical clinics and pharmacies as permitted in
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. Tract "B" allows public
facilities (Fire Station) and institutional uses. Due to changing market conditions, the petitioner is
requesting to remove Tract "A" from the Veterans Park Center PUD and add it to the adjacent Veterans
Park Commons PUD to allow low intensity commercial and medical office uses utilizing the same
development standards. As a result, there is a companion petitiOn to amend the Veterans Park Medical
PUD (PUD-96-1) to add Tract "A" subject to the Office and In-fill Commercial Sub-district criteria.
The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district)
on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this
designation permits essential services, safety service facilities, and community facilities. FLUE Policy
5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. The remaining land area (Tract
"B") is currently developed with a fire station facility. The definition of"safety service facility" in the
Land Development Code includes fire stations. Based upon these findings, staff concludes the
proposed uses allowed by this amendment are consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
3_
The traffic impact review indicates that there is a slight reduction in the site-generated trips from the
currently approved PUD due to the elimination of Tract "A". As a result, the proposed change will not
exceed the significance test on Immokalee Road (CR-846) within the project's radius of development
influence (RDI). In addition, CR-846 is currently a 4-lane arterial road fronting the project. The
current traffic count for this segment is 33,417 AADT, which results in LOS "D" operation. It should
be noted that this segment is currently being designed to be improved to 6-lanes.
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 & 2001
FISCAL IMPACT:
This amendment is only to eliminate Tract "A" and reducing the project acreage by 1.82 acres. These
changes will not increase' the intensity of the development and will reduce its impacts on County
facilities. Therefore, this amendment by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on the County. The
fiscal impact for this development was determined at the time the property was originally rezoned to
PUD. In addition, the County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impact of each new development on public facilities. These fees are used to fund projects in
the Capital Improvement Element needed to maintain adopted levels of service for public facilities. In
the event that impact fee collections are inadequate to maintain adopted levels of service, the County
must provide supplemental funds from other revenue sources in order to build needed facilities.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district)
on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this
designation permits essential services, safety service facilities, and community facilities. FLUE Policy
5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. The remaining land area (Tract
"B") is currently developed with a fire station facility. Based on staffs review, the proposed changes
are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It should be noted that this PUD amendment petition
does nothing to impact any consistency relationship with the GMP. Petitions deemed to be consistent
with all provisions of the GMP do not have an adverse impact. This petition was reviewed for
consistency and was found to be consistent with all the applicable provisions of the GMP.
Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under
the provisions of Division 3.1 and 3.15 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
This amendment to the Veterans Park Center PUD has been approved by the Environmental staff
subject to a gopher tortoise relocation/management plan to be submitted at the time of the next
development order submittal. Due to the fact that no wetlands exist on site, no Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Services Department Environmental and Engineering staffs have reviewed the
petitioner's proposed amendment and have recommended approval. Since no EIS is required, this
petition was not required to go before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition on April 5, 2001. They voted (6
to 0) to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval subject to staff stipulations contained in the PUD document. Since staff has not received any
correspondence objecting to this petition, this item has been placed on the Summary Agenda. ~ IlF~
APR 2 q 21]1
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Services Staff has referred this petition to all appropriate County Agencies for their review
and recommendation. Based upon their analysis, staff recommends approval of Petition PUD-97-13 (1)
subject to the conditions of approval as described the PUD document and attached to the Ordinance of
Adoption and Exhibits made a part of this executive summary.
PREPARED BY:
RAY B~LLOWS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
REVIEWED BY:
~L]SAN MURRAY~AGER
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
NORI~ FED~i~,tA~P, ADMINISTRATOR
TRAN~ORTATION DIVISION
JOinT/J4. r~NNUCr, m, INTEmM ADMn'~SrR~TOR
CO~U'~T¥ DEV. XN-D ENVmONMENZ~ SVCS.
PUD-97-13 (1)/EX SUMMARY/RVB/rb
DATE
DATE
~DATE
DATE
DATE
3
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 4 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DATE:
RE:
MARCH 15, 2001
PETITION NO: PUD-97-13 (1), VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD
COMPANION ITEM: PUD-96-1 (2)
AGENT/APPLICANT:
Agent: Mr. William Hoover
Hoover Planning & Development, Inc.
3785 Airport Road, Suite B-1
Naples, Florida 34105
Mr. Andrew Solis
Price, Siket & Solis, LLP
2640 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, Florida 34105
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
Owner: Centre at Veterans Park, LLC
5455 Jaeger Road
Naples, Florida 34109
The subject property is located on the south side of Naples-Immokalee Road (CR-846)
and west of the Veterans Park Commons PUD in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range
25 East. (See iljustration on following page.)
REQUESTED ACTION:
This petition seeks to amend the currently approved Veterans Park Center Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the purposes of removing Tract "A" consisting of 1.82-acres.
This tract will be incorporated into the adjacent Veterans Park Commons PUD in order to
allow the combined properties to utilize the same development standards.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The currently approved Veterans Park Center PUD has two development tracts. Tract "A"
allows for support medical facilities such as physicians' offices, medical clinics and
pharmacies as permitted in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
1
;rOwt~A ~TEM
APR 2 2001
Pg.
PROPOSED PUD MASTER PLAN
I
I
,!
_J
EXHIBIT "A "
AGENDA ITEM
.o. /?~
.APR 2 ~ 2001
Management Plan. Tract "B" public facilities (Fire Station) and institutional uses. Due to
changing market conditions, the petitioner is requesting to remove Tract "A" from the
Veterans Park Center PUD and add it to the adjacent Veterans Park Commons PUD to
allow low intensity commercial and medical office uses utilizing the same development
standards. As a result, there is a companion petition to amend the Veterans Park Medical
PUD (PUD-96-1) to add Tract "A subject to the Office and In-fill Commercial Sub-
district criteria.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Existing Conditions:
As iljustrated on the photograph below, the Tract "A" is
undeveloped and included into the Veterans Park Commons PUD
while Tract "B" contains the Fire Station Training Facility and is
zoned PUD.
Surrounding: North:
East:
South:
West
- Immokalee Road & developed single-family subdivision zoned RSF-3.
-Undeveloped medical office & C-1/T commercial, Zoned: Veterans
Park Commons PI_TD.
-North Naples Community Park, Zoned: "P" Public Use.
-Partially developed medical offices, Zoned: "SW Professional
Health Park Center PUD".
APR 2 2001
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
This petition has been distributed to the appropriate jurisdiction review entities for review
of the PUD for consistency with the current Growth Management Plan and they find the
following:
Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this designation permits essential services,
safety service facilities, and community facilities. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land
uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. The remaining land area (Tract "B") is
currently developed with a fire station facility. The definition of "safety service facility"
in the Land Development Code includes fire stations. Based upon these findings, staff
concludes the proposed uses allowed by this amendment are consistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: The traffic impact review indicates that there is a slight
reduction in the site-generated trips from the currently approved PUD due to the
elimination of Tract "A". As a result, the proposed change will not exceed thc
significance test on Immokalee Road (CR-846) within the project's radius of
development influence (RDI). In addition, CR-846 is currently a 4-lane arterial road
fronting the project. The current traffic count for this segment is 33,417 AADT, which
results in LOS "D" operation. It should be noted that this segment is currently being
improved to 6-lanes.
Applicable Elements: Staff review indicates that this petition has been designed to
account for the necessary relationships dictated by the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Mitigation measures and stipulations have been developed (where appropriate) to ensure
consistency with the GMP during the permitting process. Development permitted by the
approval of this petition is subject to a concurrency review. This review is subject to the
provisions of Section 3.15 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Adequate
Public Facilities, at the earliest or the next to occur of either Final SDP approval, final
plat approval, or building permit applicable to this development. Therefore, this proposed
PUD amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the GMP. Staff has
concluded that no level of service standards will be adversely affected by this
amendment. Appropriate mitigation measures and stipulations will assure that the
County's interests are maintained. Consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of
other applicable elements of the GMP and level of service relationships are to be
achieved by stipulations and/or development commitments made a part of the approval of
this development order.
APR 2 2001
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staffs 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. However, Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code requires the
following. If during the course of site cleating, excavation or other construction activity
an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area
necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County
Code Enforcement Department contacted.
STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES~ TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
This petition was reviewed by the appropriate staff responsible for the oversight of the
above referenced areas of critical concern.. This includes a review by the Community
Development Environmental and Engineering staff, and the Transportation Services
Division. These reviews help shape the content of the PUD Document and cause
development commitments to be formulated to achieve GMP and LDC requirements.
This amendment has been approved by the Environmental staff subject to a gopher
tortoise relocation/management plan to be submitted at the time of the next development
order submittal. Due to the fact that no wetlands exist on site, this petition was not
required to go to the Environmental Advisory Council. The Transportation Services Staff
has recommended approval.
EVALUATION:
The purpose of this petition is to amend the Veterans Park Center PUD even though the
process is one of rezoning the land from "PUD" to "PUD". The intent of this type of
zoning procedure is to achieve a level of administrative convenience by avoiding the
requirement to track amendments to the original document in order to understand the
totality of the regulations as they apply to this PUD zoning district. Because of this
reason, the required findings for standard and PUD rezones do not apply to this petition.
Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that when the property was initially rezoned, the
decision to approve the subject PUD was based upon a preponderance of evidence and
conditions which supported the required findings for PUD rezoning actions.
Nevertheless, staff has evaluated the proposed amendment and has the following
comments. The evaluation by professional staff should typically include an analysis of
the project's relationship to the community's future land use plan. This analysis is made
whether or not the proposed amendment would be consistent with the Collier County
Growth Management Plan in all of its related elements. Other evaluation considerations
should include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infi'astructure, other
infrastructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. This consideration usually d .o~*
with as a function of analyzing the relationship of the rezoning action to the long-ra tge
4
APR 2 2001
plan for all future land uses. The most important facet of the rezoning action is that it
constitutes a legislative statement that authorizes the use of land for a specific
development strategy, provided the development of the land can go forward. It may not
affect the timing of development because of subsequent permitting requirements.
Relationship to Existing Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies
specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship
of thc proposed zoning action to the surrounding properties. The permitted uses within
thc subject PUD are compatible with the health service uses approved in the adjacent
projects in the area. To the south of the subject site is the N. Naples Community Park.
The property to the north across thc Cocohatchee River is Tract "A" that will bc
combined into the Veterans Park Commons PUD. In addition, the development standards
including the maximum height of structures remains as currently approved. The revised
PUD Master Plan provides 1 primary land use tract that is accessed from Veterans
Community Park Drive. To ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, the fire training
facilities will remain centrally located on the site as previously approved. With respect to
compatibility issues, staff is of the opinion that thc subject petition is consistent with the
GMP and is also compatible with other approved commercial and medical/health service
land uses in the area.
Relationship to Future Land Use Element: With respect to the matter of compatibility
with the FLUE, this is an evaluation whose primary focus is the relationship of the
proposed zoning action to the FLUE. In the case at hand, and based upon the FLUE, we
have an expectation that the land will be used consistent with the Urban Mixed-Use
District. This district permits nonresidential land uses including community facilities
such as fire stations. The proposed PUD Document only eliminates Tract "A" from the
project. The existing fire station training center use still remains. Regarding the matter of
timing, it should be appreciated that urban commercial development has been approved
and constructed in this area while water supplies are also available to this site. Since this
petition is only an amendment to thc existing PUD Zoning District, the proposed changes
will not increase the impacts to the Collier County North Wastcwater Treatment Plant.
All development must comply with surface water management requirements invoked at
the time of SDP review. After considering the availability of community infrastructure
and services it is clear that the development of the subject property is timely and
consistent with the FLUE to the GMP. Lastly, due to the fact that no wetlands exist on
site, this petition was not required to go to the Environmental Advisory Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUD-
97-13 (1) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval
subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated into the PUD
Document.
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
Lastly, due to the fact that no wetlands exist on site, this petition was not required to go to
the Environmental Advisory Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUD-
96-1 (2) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval
subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated into the PUD
Document.
PREPARED BY:
RAy ~WS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
:/c~~ Pt~a, am~ S~CnON
BY:
RC~t~..t~ F. 1~1qo, AICP, MANAGER
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
ROMP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
J(~-IN M. DUNNUCK, Ill, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR
C~MMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS.
Staff Report for the April 5, 2001, CCPC meeting.
CO~R COUNTY.P__LANNING COMMISSION:
RVB/rblSTAFF REPORT/PUD-96-1
APR 2 z~ 2001
PUD AMENDMENT -
VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD
PETITION NUMBER
DATE
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
FOR
PUD AMENDMENT/DO AMENDMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CURRENT PLANNING
Name of Applicant(s) THE CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK, LLC
Applicant's Mailing Address 5455 Jaeqer Road
City Naples
State Florida Zip 34109
Applicant's Telephone Number: Res.: N/A Bus.:
Is the applicant the owner of the subject property?
X Yes No
(a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name
beneficiaries below.
(b) If applicant is corporation other than a public
corporation, so indicate and name officers and major
stockholders below.
X
(c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or
other business entity, so indicate and name principals
below.
(d) If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded,
and list all other owners, if any.
(e) If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and
indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease.
(f) If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of
contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address
below.
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and A-1
(If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.)
2. Name of Agent Andrew I. Solis Firm Price, Siket & Solis, LLP
Agents Mailing Address 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 115
City Naples State Florida Zip 34105
Telephone Number: Res.: N/A Bus.: 261-4673
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
3. PUD ORDINANCE NAME AND NUMBER: Veterans Park Center PUD Ord. 97-80
4. 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. If
property is odd-shaped, submit five (5) copies of survey (1" to 400'
scale}.
THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CORRECT LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. IF QUESTIONS ARISE CONCERNING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AN
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION SHALL BE REQUIRED.
SECTION 26 TOWNSHIP 48 South RANGE 25 East
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT
5.
Address or location of subject property Property is located on
south side of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road) approximately
258 feet west of Veterans Park Drive.
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). SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C
7e
8e
9e
TYPE OF AMENDMENT:
X A. PUD Document Language Amendment
B. PUD Master Plan Amendment
C. Development Order Language Amendment
DOES AMENDMENT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: X Yes
No If no, explain:
HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST
YEAR? IF SO, IN WHOSE NAME? NO
PETITION #: DATE:
AGENDA
No.
/
APR 2 2001
10.
HAS ANY PORTION OF THE PUD BEEN X SOLD AND/OR X
DEVELOPED? ARE ANY CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE AREA SOLD AND/OR
DEVELOPED?
X Yes. No. IF YES, DESCRIBE: (ATTACH
ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY).
The North Naples Fire Station and Administration Center is
located on Tract B.
AFFIDAVIT
I, George Ryan, Jr., as Trustee of the George Ryan, Jr. Trust, and
as Managing Partner of The Centre at Veterans Park, LLC, being first
duly sworn, depose and say that The Centre at Veterans Park, LLC is the
owner 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, and 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. We understand this application
must be completed and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. We
further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any
matters regarding this Petition.
NOTE: SIGNATURES OF ALL OWNERS ARE MANDATORY.
~E~O ~ AG~--NT
State of Florida
County of Collier
The .for, egoing Application was acknowledged before me this ~~
day of 0~O ~' , 2000 by George Ryan, Jr., as Trustee of the
George Ryan, Jr. Trust and as Managing Partner of The Centre at Veterans
Park, LLC,~o is personally known to me~r who has produced
as identification and who did (did not) take an
oath.
(Signature of N~tary Public)
NOT~ PUBLIC
Co~ission tC~&~/~
My Co~ission Expires: ~ q~ ~(
PUD\DO APPLICATION/md/4128
AGENDA ITEA4
APR 2 2001
MEMBERS OF CENTRE AT VETERANS PARK, LLC
Brigid Soldavini
James F. Paradis
George Ryan, Jr. Trust
George Ryan, Sr., as Trustee
D. Barry Davis
Andrew Briskar
Judith Thompson Trust
ForSure, LLC
Will/am Richardson
Michael Richardson
Deborah Kuper
Pat and Emily Joyce
Rebecca Mulzer
EXHIBIT
APR 2/~ 2001
Retn:
PRICE SIKET ET AL
2640 GOLDEN GATE PKWY ;115
NAPLES FL 34105 3203
2608127 OR: 2652 PG: 2998
RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, PL CONS
03/20/2000 at 07:35AM DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK RBC FEH
DOC-,70
WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED is made on this /(~day of March, 2000, between RD2 PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida general partnership, whose post office address is: 13124 Valewood Drive, Naples,
FL 34119-8505 (the "Grantor"), and THE CENTRE AT VETERAN'S PARK, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company and GEORGE RYAN, Jr., as tenants in common (the "Grantees"),
whose post office address is: 5455 Jaeger Road, Naples, FL 34109.
The Grantor, in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and
other good and valuable considerations to said Grantor in hand paid by the Grantees, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said
Grantee and Grantees' heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following described property,
situated, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to wit:
The East one-half (Et/2)` of the East one-half (El/:) of the Northwest
one-quarter (NW 'A) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW IA) North
of Horse Creek all in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, LESS the East 73 feet and North 100
feet lying north of Horse Creek.
AND
A parcel of land situated and being in the West one-half (WV2) of
the East one-half (E~A) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW '/;) of the
Northwest one-quarter (NW ¼) of Section 26, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference.
2800000.00
15,00
19600,00
Tax Folio Numbers' 00167360007 and 00167720207.
SUBJECT TO: real estate taxes for the year 2000 and subsequent
years; covenants, easements and restrictions of record; and existing
zoning and government regulations; provided however the foregoing
shall not prevent Grantees' intended use of the Property for
medical/business purposes.
And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same
against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
C:\KRJ\RD2Parmership
Warranty Deed
(Page I of 2)
This Instrument Prepared By:
Kenneth R. Johnson, Esq,
Ooodlette, Coleman & Johnson
4001 Tamiami Trail North. Sui
Naples. FL 34103
p.A. No.~
30o APR 2 200'
OR: 2652 PG: 2999
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor has caused this instrument to be duly
executed and delivered on the day and year first above written. :
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
RD2 PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida general partnership
By: ?
Raymond~ P. De3,ng(l~s,
General Part~~'-~
By: ~~nd~ng~el s,
General Partner
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me on this ?~day of
March, 2000, by Raymond P. DeAngelis and Raymond J. DeAngelis, ()() who are
personally known to me or ( ) who produced their respective driver's license as
identification, as the general partners of RD2 PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership, on
behalf of the partnership.
State of Florida at Large
My Commission' Expires:
(Notary Seal)
C:\KRI\RD2Pa rtnership
Warranty Deed
(Page 2 of 2)
.... ~,,. K~N~t4' FL JOHNSON'
.=: :.:. MY COMMISSION # CC 726994
~:' :~-'= EXPIRES: April 16, 2002
'q~:~;~ ~ded rnn~_No~a~ Put~ Un~m
APR 2 20
OR: 2652 PG: 3000
EXHIBIT "A"
fLegal DescriptionJ
CO~CING AT THE NOR/HWEST COKNER OF SAID SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14'12" EAST ALONG THE
NORTH LLNE OF SAID SECTION 26'A DI~IZANCE OF 696.09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00
DEGREF~ 45'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO A POINT ON'THE NORTH LINE
OF PARCEL DES CKIB~ IN O.P,. BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, PUB LlC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLOR/DA; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTIff LI]N~. OF SAID
DESCRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
TI=iENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14']2" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 29.62 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING OF THE PA. KCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING TI-IE NORTI-I
LINE OF SA[II PARCEL DESCR_[BED IN O.K. BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, SOUTH 15 DEGKEES
17'59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 26.55 FEET; q-r-IENCE SOUT/4 01 DEGRF~ 10'24" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 68..55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH ! 8 DEGRF. l:~S 42'47" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
50.69 FEET; TH_ENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 2T5Y' FAST, A DISTANCE OF 63.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 62 DEG1R ~.I::S 43"2 I" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.05 FEET: THENCE SOUTH
22 DEGREES 3Yl 1" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGKEES
09'23" EAST, A DISIANCE OF 35.36 FEINT; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 45'48" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF g9.66 FEET TO TIKE EAST ~ OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF TI_-LE EAST
ONE-FIA LF OF THE NO RTITWES T ONE-QUAP. TEK OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTEK
OF SATl~ SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG TI{.E EAST LINE OF TI-[E WEST ONE-HALF OF
THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTt-IAVEST ONE-QUARTEP, OF THE NOKTIIW~ST ONE- '
QUAKTEK OF SAID SECTION 26, NORT~ 01 DEGREE l]'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
42] .72 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 14'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF ! 8g.g5 FEET
TO A POINT OF THE NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL DESCKIBED iN OiL BOOK 1458, PAGE
1300, PUBLIC RECORJDS OF COLL -IF_~ COUNTY, FLOR/DA; THENCE CONTINTJE ALONG
THE NOR. TH LINE OF SAID DESCR/BED PARCEL, SOLrTTt O0 DEGKEF~S 45'48" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 5~.00 FEET, THENCE SOUI~H 89 DEGREES ]4'12" VEST, A D1STANCE OF
80_38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT "B"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VETERANS PARK
CENTER PUD
E R
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED AND BEING IN THE WEST OHS.HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF
OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ~)NE-QUARTER OF SECTION
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNT~, FLORIDA. AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SEC~TION :26. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH.
RANGE 25 EAST. THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 1.1' 12" EAST, AI~ONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 26, A DISTANCE OF 696.09 FEET: TRi~NCE SOUTI~! 00 DEGREES 45' 48" EAST. A
DISTANCE OF I$0.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1458. PAGE 1300, PUBLIC RECORDS 0F COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID D~-$CRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00
DEGREES 45' 4'8'"EAST, A DISTANCE OF $0.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST,
A DISTANCE'OF 29.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNI~qG OF THE PARCEL HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, SOUTH 15 DEGREES 17' 59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 26.55 FEET:
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREE 10' 24" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 6.8.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18
DEGREES 42' 47" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET; THENCE SOOJT}~ 34 DEGREES 27' 53" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 63.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 43' 2~:1'' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.05
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 33' i I" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.94 FEET; THENCE SOU~-
50 DEGREES 09' 23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 45' ~
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF Of THE EAST ONE.
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26, NORTH 01 DEGREE I I' 49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 42 !.72 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89
DEGREES 14' 12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 188.115 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF A
PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300. PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE CONTINUE ALONG iTHE NORTH LINE OF 'SAID
DESCRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45' 48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET,'~HENCE
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 80.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJEdT T(~' EASEMENTS. RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 26, TOV~NSHIP'48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING: NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST. ·
T " "' E 6 4 E RE .
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED AND BEING IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF
OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUT'
RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST. ALONG THE NORTH,LIlN~
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE DE. CRI~
1-3 APR 2 h 20
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300. PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA.
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED: THENCE CONTINUE
AI~ONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45' 48" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 29.62
FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD
BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300, SOUTH 15 DEGREES 17' 59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 26.55 FEET: THENCE
SOUTH 01 DEGREES 10' 24" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 68.55 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 42'
47" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 27' 53" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 63.15 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 43' 21" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 78.05 FEET; THENCE'
SOUTH 22 DEGREES 33' I I" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 78.94 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES 09'
23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 45' 48" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 99.66 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF T~E
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26.
SOUTH 01 'DEGREES I I' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 745.98 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
WEST ONE-HA, LF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE ·
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
WEST ONE-HA~LF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 52" WEST. A
DISTANCE OF 391.82 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EASTONE-
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWES~ ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26, NORTH 01 DEGREES ! 0' 24" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1166.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89 DEGREES '14' 12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 32.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
..
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
BEAR:INGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING: NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST.
APR 2 2001
EXHIBIT "C"
The petitioners also own the Veterans Park Medical PUD, that is legally described
The East One Half (E ½) of the East One Half (E ½) of the Northwest One
Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest One Quarter (NW 1/4), North of Horse Creek,
All in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East less the East 73 Feet and
North 100 Feet Lying North of Horse Creek.
APR 2 4 200~ ]
ORDINANCE NO. 01-
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 MAP NUMBERED 8526N
AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSiFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE
VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (C.R. 846), APPROXIMATELY 258 FT. WEST
OF VETERANS PARK DRIVE, IN SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL
OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-80, AS AMENDED,
THE FORMER VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Bill Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., and Andrew I.
Solis of Price, Siket & Solis, LLP, 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
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The Zoning Classification of the herein described real property located in Section 26, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development in accordance with the PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is
incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered
8526N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is
hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
Ordinance Number 97-80, as amended, known as the Veterans Park Center PUD, adopted on
December 9, 1997, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in
its entirety.
SECTION THREE:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
-3.-
AGENDA ITEM
1
APR 2 2001
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, this __ day of ,2001.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
MarjoritM. Student
Assistant County Attorney
gtadmintPUD-9?- 13( l)/RB/im
BY:
JAMES D. CARTER, PhD., CHAIRMAN
-2-
APR 2 ~ 200f
VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR:
FIRE CHIEF JAMES TOBIN
NORTH NAPLES FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT
1780 IMMOKALEE ROAD
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110
PREPARED BY:
WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP
HOOVER PLANNING & DEV., INC.
3785 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE B
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105
AND
ANDREW I. SOLIS
PRICE, SIKET & SOLIS, LLP
2640 GOLDEN GATE PKWY., SUITE 115
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105
DATE FILED
DATE REVISED
DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC
DATE APPROVED BY BCC
ORDINANCE NUMBER
November 6~ 2000
December 7~ 2000
Exhibit "A"
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
SECTION I
SECTION II
SECTION III
SECTION IV
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
PUBLIC SERVICE AREAS PLAN
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
PAGE
1
2
3
4
6
8
12
AGENDA ITEM
,,,. /7.R__.
APR 2 zt 2001
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "C"
PUD MASTER PLAN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PUD MASTER SITE PLAN
2
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The development of approximately 6.94 acres of property in Collier County, as a
Planned Unit Development to be known as the Veterans Park Center PUD will be in
compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan. The public service facilities of the Veterans
Park Center PUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development
regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following
reasons:
The subject property is within the Urban Residential - Mixed Use Designation as
identified on the Future Land Use Map, which permits public service land uses at
this location.
The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community
facilities and services permits the development's intensity of land uses as
required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element.
The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future
surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations
including the Growth Management Plan.
All final local development orders for this project are subject to Division 3.15,
Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code as set
forth in Policy 3.1 of the Future Land Use Element.
3
AGENDA ITL
APR 2 ~ 2001
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the
property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be
developed under the project name of Veterans Park Center PUD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property totals 6.94 acres and is located within Section 26,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. A complete legal
description is provided within Exhibit "D".
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is owned by:
The North Naples Fire & Rescue District, 1780 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida
34110.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA
Ao
Bo
The subject property is located 700 feet southwest of the intersection
between Immokalee Road and Veterans Park Drive (unincorporated
Collier County), Florida.
The subject property is currently zoned PUD for commercial and public
facility land uses and has been partially developed for a North Naples
Fire Station on 6.94-acre Tract "B". The remaining land within the
existing PUD is 1.82 acres (described as Tract "A"). Those 1.82 acres
are proposed to be removed from the subject PUD and incorporated into
an abutting PUD to the north entitled the Veterans Park Commons PUD.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The site's only significant natural feature is Horse Creek, whose approximate
centerline defines the parcel's northern property boundary. The site is generally
vegetated. The site likely includes wetlands along Horse Creek, which may
have been partially created/maintained by the Big Cypress Basin Structure, that
is located near the intersection between Horse Creek and the southern rights-of-
way for Immokalee Road. The subject property supports a variety of trees and
understory vegetation including palmetto, oaks, and pine.
4
AGENDA ITEM
APR"-2~O01
1.6
1.7
The site has the following designation relative to flooding - FEMA FIRM Flood
Zone AE (Special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 year flood, base
elevation of 11 NGVD).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Veterans Park Center PUD is intended for public facilities and has been
developed for a North Naples Fire Station.
The Master Plan is iljustrated graphically on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. A
Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreage is shown on the
plan.
SHORT TITLE
This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Veterans Park Center Planned
Unit Development Ordinance".
5
AGENDA ITEM'
APR 2 ~ 2001
· SECTION II
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
2.1
2.2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project
plan of development, relationships, to applicable County ordinances, the
respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project
relationships.
GENERAL..
Regulations for development of the Veterans Park Center PUD shall be in
accordance with the contents of this document, PUD-Planned Unit
Development District, applicable sections and parts of the Collier County
Land Development Code and Collier County Growth Management Plan in
effect at the time of local final development order or building permit
application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental
standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Collier
County Land Development Code shall apply.
Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as
the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in
effect at the date of adoption of this PUD.
All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting
restrictions for the development of the Veterans Park Center PUD shall
become part of the regulations, which govern the manner in which the
PUD site may be developed.
Do
Unless specifically waived through any variance or waiver provisions from
any other applicable regulations, the provisions of those regulations not
otherwise provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect.
Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a
concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate
Public Facilities of the Collier County Land Development Code at the
earliest, or next, to occur of either final site development plan approval,
final plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this
development.
6
ITEM
APR 2 2001
2.3
2.4
2.5
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES
Ao
The project Master Plan is iljustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD
Master Plan.
Minor modifications to Exhibit "A", may be permitted at the time of Site
Development Plan approval, subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of
the Collier County Land Development Code or as otherwise permitted by
this PUD Document.
In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A",
easements such as (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established
and/or vacated within or along the property, as may be necessary.
RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development
Plan. Except as otherwise provided within this PUD Document, any
division of the property and the development of the land shall be in
compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the platting laws of the
State of Florida.
The provisions of Division 3.3, Site Development Plans of the Land
Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all
platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division 3.3 prior to
the issuance of a building permit or other development order.
Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural
improvements regarding any dedications and the methodology for
providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities.
AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN
Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in Section 2.7.3.5 of the
Land Development Code.
7
AGENDA i
APR 2 2001
SECTION III
PUBLIC SERVICE AREAS PLAN
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the
Commercial Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The project is intended to be developed for public facilities.
PERMITTED USES
No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures:
Fire station facility, including an administrative center and 4-story
training tower.
Any other public use or service, which is comparable in nature with
the foregoing uses.
B. Accessory Uses:
Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the
Permitted Uses within this PUD Document.
2. Essential services and facilities.
C. Conditional Uses:
Other public facilities and institutional uses not listed as Permitted
Uses within this PUD Document.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Minimum Lot Area:
Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
Minimum Lot Width:
8
APR 2 ~ 2001
One hundred (100) feet.
Minimum Yards:
(1) Principal structures:
(a) Front Yard - Fifty (50).
(b) Side Yard - Fifty (50) feet.
(c) Rear Yard - Fifty (50) feet.
(2) Accessory Structures:
Setbacks shall be as required by Division 2.6.2 of the Land
Development Code in effect at time of building permit application,
except accessory structures exceeding a height of thirty-five (35)
feet shall have minimum setbacks of seventy-five (75) feet from all
PUD boundaries.
Minimum Distance Between Principal Structures:
None or a minimum of ten (10) feet with unobstructed passage from the
front to rear yards.
Minimum Floor Area:
One thousand (1000) square feet for the principal structure on the first
habitable floor.
Maximum Hei.qht:
Thirty-five (35) feet for principal structures and fifty (50) feet for accessory
structures.
Common Architectural Theme:
Structures shall have a common architectural theme, inclusive of common
use of materials and colors, as established by the development of the first
structure.
9
A C_.~.~A ITEM
APR 2 200!
SECTION IV
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the development of
this project.
GENERAL
All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site
Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local
laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically
noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County
Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the
PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns shall be
responsible for the commitments outlined in this document.
The developer, his successor or assignee shall follow the PUD Master Plan and
the regulations of this PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications
as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor
or assignee in title shall be subject to any commitments within this agreement.
PUD MASTER PLAN
Ao
Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan iljustrates the proposed development and is
conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries, or
special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be
varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site
Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5
of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be
made from time to time.
All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be
granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service
utilities and all common areas in the project.
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT
10
4.5
A site development plan shall be submitted per County regulations in effect at
time of site plan submittal. The project is intended to be completed in one or two
phases.
The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time
limits pursuant to Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code.
Monitorin.q Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted
pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development
Code.
PLANNING
Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the
course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or
archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area
necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier
County Code Enforcement Department contacted.
4.6
TRANSPORTATION
Ao
The project shall not have direct access onto Immokalee Road. Access
points shall be limited to Veterans Park Drive or cross-accesses through
adjoining parcels.
Arterial level street lighting shall be provided where the Project's access
intersects with Veterans Park Drive, when required by Collier County
Transportation Division staff.
Arterial level lighting shall be provided at all PUD access points from or to
public rights-of-way, when required by Collier County Transportation
Division staff.
The end-user of this PUD shall be responsible for the cost of design,
purchase and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Veterans
Park Drive and Immokalee Road. This improvement shall be made
concurrently with the development of the public facility and its funding
shall be provided to Collier County prior to Final Site Development Plan
approval. Collier County shall maintain and operate this traffic signal.
The proposed traffic signal shall benefit Veterans Community Park and
the public service facilities.
11
APR 2 ~ 2001
4.7
In partial consideration for the above commitment, Collier County shall
provide a nonexclusive fifty (50)-foot ingress/egress, landscaping and
maintenance easement along the north property line of Veterans
Community Park adjacent to and from their common property line to
Veterans Park Drive. This driveway shall serve as the access to the
proposed public service facility. The improvements shall include a traffic
control system at the intersection of the access easement and Veterans
Park Drive.
The end-user of the public service facility shall be responsible for the
development and maintenance of all improvements within this easement
and such improvements shall be subject to the approval of the Collier
County Parks and Recreation Department.
Additionally, the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District shall
develop, concurrently with the development of the public service facility,
an appropriate sidewalk/bike lane parallel and east of Veterans Park
Drive. The sidewalk/bike lane will commence at Immokalee Road and
terminate at the Veterans Community Park's gated entrance.
LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
4.8
4.9
In order to facilitate the retention of existing vegetation/trees, rows of
parking may contain more than ten (10) parking spaces uninterrupted by
a landscaped island provided that an average of ten (10) parking spaces
are maintained within the overall development.
Sidewalks, pedestrian walks and bike paths may be placed within
required buffers. However, the width of the required buffer shall be
increased by the width of the paved surface of the sidewalk, pedestrian
walk or bike path.
Co
The developer shall seek to retain trees, which are not in conflict with the
proposed land uses and their associated regulatory requirements.
SIGNS
Monumental signs/community identification signage may be developed at all
project entrances, in addition to the signs permitted within Division 2.5 of the
Land Development Code.
WATER MANAGEMENT
12
AGENDA ITEM
APE
4.10
The developer shall remove all exotics, debris, trash, and other significant
impediments to the flow of waters for the total width and length of Horse Creek
with the project boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL
This project shall comply with the environmental sections of the Collier
County Land Development Code and the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan at the time of final
development order approval.
An exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan shall be provided at
the time of site development plan or platJplans submittal, in accordance
with Section 3.9.6.6.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as
amended.
The petitioner shall retain fifteen (15) percent of the existing native
vegetation on-site or mitigate, according to Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier
County Land Development Code.
A Gopher Tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted, at the
time of the next development order submittal, in accordance with Section
3.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended.
Eo
The project's environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the
State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and applications
and shall also be subject to review and approval by Collier County
Current Planning Section Staff.
Fo
Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15)
feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and
averaging twenty-five (25) feet from the landward edge of the wetland
preserves. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall
be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental
Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Collier
County Current Planning Section Staff.
Go
The petitioner is encouraged to accommodate the maximum amount of
xeric oak habitat, which is compatible with the proposed development.
Specifically, consideration should be made to adjust the location of the
lake and infrastructure shown on the Master Site Plan, Exhibit "C" to this
PUD Document. The adjustment can minimize the impacts to the active
13
APR 2 ~ 2001
4.11
4.12
Gopher Tortoise burrows, which appear to share habitat with the property
located east of the subject parcel.
POLLING PLACES
Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 of the Land Development Code, provision shall be
made for' the future use of building space within common areas (if provided) for
the purposes of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place.
An agreement providing for such a use as a polling place shall be recorded in
the official records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, which shall
be binding upon any and all successors in interest that acquire ownership of
such common areas including, but not limited to: condominium associations,
homeowners' associations, or tenant associations. This agreement shall provide
for said community recreation, public building, public room, or similar common
facility to be used for a polling place, if determined to be necessary by the
Supervisor of Elections.
NOISE CONTROL
The training facility shall not utilize fire or smoke outside any structures.
Training outside the structures, on the grounds of the facility, shall be
limited to the hours between 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. and shall be
conducted in compliance with the Collier County Noise Ordinance
requirements, Ordinance No. 93-77, as amended.
B. The fire station shall have no outdoor sirens.
The Fire District shall install automated traffic signals at the intersections
of the fire station driveway and Veterans Park Drive and at Veterans Park
Drive and Immokalee Road, subject to Collier County Transportation
Division review and approval. The signals will allow remote activation by
emergency vehicles, allowing movements to be made in a safe and quiet
manner. Sirens and horns shall not be utilized unless determined by the
vehicle operator as necessary.
Sirens and horns shall not be utilized on Immokalee Road until the
emergency vehicle has passed the assisted living and nursing home
facilities located at the southeast comer of Veterans Park Drive and
Immokalee Road.
Eo
Any future EMS or other vehicles, which may utilize this public facility
shall abide by the standards within this Subsection.
14
AGENDA ITEId
/.7
APR 2 ~ 2001
PROPOSED PUD MASTER PLAN
'1,
, II
E'XHIBIT
"A '
A~.J~DA ITE. I~
APR 2 q 2001
EXHIBIT "B"
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED AND BEING IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF
OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 26.
TOWNSHIP 411 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLOKIDA. AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26. TOWNSHIP 411 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 26, A DISTANCE OF 696.09 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45' 41~" EAs'r, A
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1458, PAGE 1300. PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA.
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED: THENCE CONTINUE
A-12ONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 45' 411" EAST. A
DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1~9 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST. A DISTANCE OF ~29.62
FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD
BOOK 145g, PAGE 1300, SOUTH [5 DEGREES 17' 59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 26.55 FEET: THENCE
SOUTH 01 DEGREES I 0' 24" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 68.$5 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 111 DEGREES .12'
47" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 27' 53" EAST. A DISTANCE
OF 63.15 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 43' 2 I" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 711.05 FEET: THENCE
SOUTH 22 DEGREES 33' I i" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 711.94 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES 09'
23" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 35.36 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 45' 411" EAST. A DISTANCE
OF 99.66 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF ThE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION '.6:
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26.
SOUTH 01 ~DEGREES I I' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 745.98 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
WEST ONE-HA~LF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26, SOUTH 119 DEGREES 23' 52" WEST. A
DISTANCE OF 331.112 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-OUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWES¥ ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 26, NORTH 01 DEGREES 10' 24" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1166.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89 DEGREES 14' [2" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 32.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE
25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING: NORTH 89 DEGREES 14' 12" EAST.
AC, F. NDA ITEM
APR 2 2001
PARK ENTRANCE
EXHIB! T "C "
..J
)Al
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
V-2000-37, D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,'
REPRESENTING JOHN R. WOOD, REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 9.8 FEET FROM
THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SETBACK FROM AN OFF-SITE PARKING LOT TO 5.2
FEET, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1115 AIRPORT ROAD, FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 4-7, BLOCK D, NAPLES VILLAS, IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
OBJECTIVE:
That the community's interests are maintained in a commercial development.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioner requests a 9.8-foot variance from the required 15-foot setback from an off site
parking facility. :
The petitioner wishes to renovate and expand an existing retail building. An off-site parking
agreement currently exists on the residential parcel to the east, also owned by the petitioner.
The Code requires a 15-foot setback from a residential lot used for off-site parking. The purpose
of this regulation is to ensure that if the off-site parking is not used at some time in the future, a
house on the residential lot would be adequately separated from the commercial building. In this
case, the expansion of the building would require the use of the off-site parking, therefore the lot
could not revert to residential use unless the building were removed. Removal of the building
would also remove the encroachment.
The Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition at its April 5, 2001 meeting. Stating
that the proposed improvements are in harmony with the intent of the Code, the CCPC voted 7 to
0 to forward petition V-2000-37 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval.
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.
APR 2 ,~ 2001
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:
There is an existing off-site parking agreement. In addition, the proposed building will require
all of the off-site parking, therefore the parcel cannot revert to residential use unless the building
is removed. Therefore, this petition is in harmony with the intent of the Code. Therefore,
Planning Services staff recommends that the BZA approve Petition V-2000-37.
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED B~.:
SUS M , 1
INTERIM CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
RdBER~J. MULHERE, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE
DATE
APPROVED BY:
ERiMM. DUNNUCK, III DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
executive summaryN-2000-37
2
AGENDA iTEM
NO. ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DATE:
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
SUBJECT: PETITION V-2000-37
AGENT/APPLICANT:
OWNER:
John R. Wood
PO Box 1109
Naples, FL 34106
AGENT:
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests a 9.8-foot variance fi-om the required 15-foot setback fi-om an off site
parking facility.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 1115 Airport Road at the southeast comer of the intersection of
Airport Road and Hibiscus Street.. ^a~.oA ~'ra~~'-~
/ PR 2 4 2001
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner wishes to renovate and expand an existing retail building. An off-site parking
agreement currently exists on the residential parcel to the east, also owned by the petitioner.
The Code requires a 15-foot setback from a residential lot used for off-site parking. The purpose
of this regulation is to ensure that if the off-site parking is not used at some time in the future, a
house on the residential lot would be adequately separated from the commercial building. In this
case, the expansion of the building would require the use of the off-site parking, therefore the lot
could not revert to residential use unless the building were removed. Removal of the building
would also remove the encroachment.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Subject:
Existing retail store; zoned C-4 and RMF-6
Surrounding: North -
East -
South -
West -
Hibiscus Street ROW, across which is a gas station; zoned
C-4
Single-family house; zoned RMF-6
Convenience store; zoned C-4
Airport Road ROW, across which is undeveloped property
zoned C-4
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staffs 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, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or waiver is not required.
EVALUATION FOR IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ENVIRONMENT:
Approval of this variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation or the
environment.
2
AGENDA ITEM
NO. ,
ANALYSIS:
Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code grants the authority to the Board of Zoning
Appeals to grant variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the
provisions of Section 2.7.5.6.1 through 2.7.5.6.8, which are general guidelines to be used to
assist the Commission in making a determination. Responses to the items in Section 2.7.5.6 are
as follows:
Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved?
Yes. There is an existing 2,400 square foot building on the property and the easternmost
lot was previously (1980) approved for off-site parking.
e
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of
the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the
subject of the variance request?
No. The petitioner wishes to renovate the building, bringing the landscaping and
architecture up to the current Code to the greatest extent possible.
Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Land Development Code work
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant?'
No. There is no land-related hardship, since a retail building and parking exists on the site.
Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety, and welfare?
No. The existing business is a reasonable use of the land. However, the requested
variance will allow the petitioner to renovate the existing building, bringing the
landscaping and architecture up to the current Code to the greatest extent possible.
So
Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege
that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in
the same zoning district?
Yes, the granting of this variance will allow the petitioner to have a smaller separation
between a building and parking lot that permitted for off-site parking.
APR 2, & ?.001
3
Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare?
Yes. The Code requires a 15-foot setback from off-site parking to protect the single-family
house if the residential property ever reverts back to residential use. In this case, however,
the proposed building will require all of the off-site parking, therefore the parcel cannot
revert to residential use unless the building is removed. That is in harmony with the intent
of the Code.
o
Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the
goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses,
etc.?
Yes. The Code requires a 15-foot setback from off-site parking to protect the single-family
house if the residential property ever reverts back to residential use. In this case, however,
the proposed building will require all of the off-site parking, therefore the parcel cannot
revert to residential use unless the building is removed. That is in harmony with the intent
of the Code. In addition, a 15-foot landscape buffer is required between the off-site parking
lot and the residence to the east.
8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth
Management Plan.
EAC RECOMMENDATION:
The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally hear variance petitions.
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
There is an existing off-site parking agreement. In addition, the proposed building will require
all of the off-site parking, therefore the parcel cannot revert to residential use unless the building
is removed. Therefore, this petition is in harmony with the intent of the Code. Therefore,
Planning Services staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition V-2000-37 to the BZA with
a recommendation for approval.
AGENDA ITEM
NO. ~
APR g 4 2001
PREPARED BY:
F~~~SC~, AIC
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
RONALD F. NINO, AICP
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
DATE
DATE
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP
PLANNING SERVICES 'DIRECTOR
DATE
APPROVED BY:
JOI~[N M. DUNNUCK II DATE
IN'I~RIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
Petition Number: V-2000-37
Tentatively scheduled for the April 10, 2001 BZA meeting.
Collier County Planni
G~a~ we. XdE, ci~
ommission:
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 4 2001
pg. ~
VARIANCE PETITION
(VARIANCE FROM SETBACK (S) REQUIRED FOR A PARTIcUL~
Petition No.
Commission District:
Date Petition Received:
Planner Assigned:
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
.GENERAL INFORMATION.
Petitioner's Name: John R. Wood
Petitioner's Address: P.O. Box 1109
Naples, F1 34106
Telephone:
, _597-5419
Agent's Name: D. Wa ne Arnold AICP
Agent's Address: 3800 Via Del Re
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Telephone: (94I) 947-1144
Application for Variance Petition -8/98
Page 1 of 8
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
APR 2 6 2001
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104
PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional
sheets if necessary)
Name of Homeowner Association: N/A
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip.
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City State ~ Zip,
'Name of Master Association:
Mailing Address
N/A
City State ~ Zip
Name of Civic Association:
Mailing Address
N/A
City State ~ Zip
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal Description of Subject Property: See attached survey
Subdivisioni Naples Villas Unit Lot (s)
Section 1 Twp. 50 Range 25
4-7
Property I.D. #
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Block (s) D
Page 2 of I
AGENDA ITEM
"°.
APR 2 2001
Metes & Bounds Description:
Address of Subject Property: _1.115 Airport Road
(If different from Petitioner's address)
Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Parcel: C-4 and RMF-6
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
ZONING
C-4
C-4
LAND USE
N
S
'W
C-4
RMF-6
Shell gas station
7-11 convenience store
, Airport Road ROW
.. Single-family Home
Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property:
Front: 25'
Side: 15'
Rear: N/A
Applicaiion for Variance Petition - 8/98
Comer Lot: Yes [5~ No 1--]
Waterfront Lot: Yes
No [~
Page 3 of
AGENDA ITEM
"°'/7
APR 2 6 200'~
Nature of Petition
Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is
proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from
25' to 18'; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built
(include building permit number (s) if possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing
encroachment came to be; etc.
_Existing site contains a 2,400 sq. ff. retail building. Off-site parking petition was approved in
1980 on Adjacent RMF-6 zoned parcel, also owned by applicant.
Applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing structure. The off-site parking
requirements require a 15' setback from an off-site parking lot. With proposed addition, the
structure will be located approximately 5.2 feet from off-site parking lot, necessitating the
variance of 9.8 feet.
The new addition will undergo site plan review and is subject to substantial compliance with
new building architectural and landscape standards.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 4 of
NO,
APR 2 ~ 2001
Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their recommendation to the
Board of zoning Appeals, and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its determination to approve or
deny a variance petition by the below listed criteria (1-8). (Please address this criteria using additional pages if
necessary.)
1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved.
The site has been previously improved and the off-site parking facility has been
approved and utilized since 1980. The site has existing improvements including paved
parking and 2,400 sq. fi. retail building.
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of
the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the
subject of the variance request.
The off-site parking facility is existing. Given the location of the existing building, building
improvements which will enhance the viability of the site will not be possible without thc,
variance.
Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue
hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant.
.Yes, if the newly adopted 15' setback from an off-site parking lot is literally appliecl.
building improvements will be limited and the viability of the property will be limited.
Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or
welfare.
Yes, the requested 9.8' variance is the minimum necessary to permit appropriate architectural
improvements the structure including new roof line and architectural details.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 5 of 8
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
APR 2 4 2001
Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is
denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning
district.
No, the property is unique in that an off-site parking agreement was approved nearly 20 years
ago and theoff-site clearly functions as a single commercial site, even though the site is
partially zoned C-4 and RMF-6.
Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and
not be njurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Yes, the variance will permit an expansion to existing facility. The expansion will
necessitate eompliancewith current landscaping requirements"and commercial architectural
and site design standards.
Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc.
Presumably, the 15' building setback from an off-site parking lot was initiated to protect
nearby residential properties. The adjacent residence is protected by an existing 6' high fence
with 15' wide landscape buffer. The expanded commercial building will be approximately 60'
from the adjacing residential property.
Will granting the variance be consistent with the growth management plan.
Yes, the variance and continued use of the subject site for retail with off-site parking is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 6 of 8
AGENDA iTEM
APR 2 & 2001
VARIANCE PETITION
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION
PACKET!
RE Q UIREMEN TS # o
COPIES REQUIRED
1. Completed Application 15
2. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 1
3. Pre-application notes/minutes 15
4. Survey of property, showing the encroachment 1
(measured in feet)
5. Site Plan depicting the following: 15
a) All property boundaries & dimensions
b) Ail existing and proposed structures 0abeled as such)
c) North arrow, date and scale of drawing
d) Required setbacks & proposed setbacks
6. Location map depicting major streets in area for 1
reference
7. Application fee and Data Conversion Fee, checks shall -
be made payable to Collier County Board of Commissioners
8. 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 the delay of processing of this petition.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
ate ¢
Page 7 of 8
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 4 2001
Q GRADY MINOR
~RADY MINO~ ?,E,
AI~ W. MENOI~ P.E,
~ DF.~,N $1v~rH, P.E.
DAV~ W. SCHMI'IT, p,F..
MICHAEL J.
941 947 0375 03/08 '01 16:51
(2. GRAD¥ lV OR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Civil Eng;J~,ee~s · L~md Su.rveyor$ · Planners
March 2, 2001
NO.100 01/O2
D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P,
RT~tC V. SANDOVAL, P$.M.
THOMAS CH]~RNFSK¥, P.$.M.
ALAN v. RCrS-~M.AN
Mr. Fred R¢is~.
Collier County Planning D~p. artment
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, F1 341.04
RE: V-2000-37, Wood Vm-ianc~, I 115 Aixp. oft Road
Dear Mr. Rdschl:
You had. requested bff'om~tion clarifying ownership of the subject prop~ty. Thc
Property i.s owned by Wanda R. Wood Trust. The sole b~n.eficiary ofth.c Trust is Wanda
K. Wood.
I have enclosed a copy of an exe,~ute, d authorization form sign.exl by Ms. Wood. Please
contact m.e if you require any additional information.
Sincerely, ~
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
C: Wan.da Wood
John. R~ Wood
(941) 947-1144 · FAX (941) 947-g375 · F-Mail: engin~rJng~gradymJnor..com
3800 Via Del. Rey · Bonita Springs, Florida. 343.34
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
APR 2 4 2001
Q GRADY MINOR 941 947 0375 03/08 '01 16:51 N0.100 02/02
7;)rp~Ol or P~n~ct 3ram~ of Owner
yon~ ol ~orar~
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
t7&
APR 2 ~: 2001
To: Collier County Planning Department
Collier County Commission
Re: Variance to allow Wood Building to expand 20 feet to the East
My name is Kevin Keyes and I am the owner of the property that adjoins the property
belonging to Wanda R. Wood, Trustee on the east side of her property. I have a single-
family residence on my lot and use it as a rental property.
From the attached drawing, the new addition to the existing building will be 55 feet from
my fence which is on the west side of my property. If the new addition is located as
~~ng, IhavenoobjectiontotheCountygrantingthevariance.,,~~'~"~/~"/ t---/,'~,7~,_, /7 ~, _. ?
I~evin KeverJ/~'/' ' ' Date ( //c/-t/Jr44_ I.~, ,~
AGENDA ITEM
No,
t7
/ PR g 4 2001
To: Collier County Planning Department
Collier County Commission
Re: Variance to allow Wood Building at 1115 Airport Rd. to expand 20 feet to the East
My name is~- ]~,Jt~r~--'- and I am the owner of the property that adjoins the
property belonging to Wanda R. Wood, Trustee on the south and east sides of her
property. I have a residential duplex on my lot and use it as a rental property and only
approximately 15 feet of my property adjoins the Wood property.
If the new addition is located as drawn on the attached drawing, I have no objection to
the County granting the variance.
Date 5- t L~ o!
AGENDA ITEM
No.,,.
/74--
APR g 4 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-2000-
37, FOR A VARIANCE 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 granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of
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 9.8 foot variance from the required 15 foot
setback from an off-site parking lot to 5.2 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit
"A", in a "C-4" Zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact
that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all apphcable matters
required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations
of said 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 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 V-2000-37 filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor &
Associates, P.A., representing John R. Wood, with respect to the property hereinafter
described as:
Lots 4-7, Block D, Naples Villas, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 7 of the
Official Records of Collier County, Florida
be and the same hereby is approved for a 9.8 foot variance i~om the required 15 foot setback
from an off-site parking lot to 5.2 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the
"C-4" Zoning District wherein said property is located.
-1-
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 2001
BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-2000-37 be
recorded in the minutes of this Board.
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:
Marjoite M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
G:/V-2000-37/FR/im
JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
-2-
AGENDA ITEM
No,
/7
APR 2 4 2001
II
~, 1' ~1~ t1~ 'tn
Exhibit "A"
A,G ENDA ITEM
APR 2 & 2001
Sheet 1 of 2
VAC 00-0:20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PETITION VAC 00-020 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S
AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 15' WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AND PORTIONS OF THE 15' WIDE COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT IN
TRACT M-2R, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF "CRYSTAL LAKE TERRACES AT EAGLE
CREEK REPLAT" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 28, PAGES 72 THROUGH 74, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
OBJECTIVE: To adopt a Resolution to vacate a portion of the 15' wide Drainage Easement and
portions of the 15' wide County Utility Easement in Tract M-2R as described above.
CONSIDERATIONS: Petition VAC 00-020 has been received by the Planning Services
Department from WilsonMiller, Inc. as agent for the petitioner, Eagle Creek Properties, Inc.
requesting the vacation of the above-described easements to accommodate proposed construction
of a condominium building. Letters of no objection have been received from Collier County
Engineering Review, Collier County Stormwater Management and Collier County Public
Utilities. Zoning is PUD.
FISCAL IMPACT: Planning Services has collected a $1,000 "Petition to Vacate" fee from the
petitioners which covers the County's cost of advertising, recording and processing the Petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Adopt the Resolution for Petition VAC 00-020 for the vacation of the above described
portion of the 15' wide Drainage Easement and portions of the 15' wide County Utility
Easement in Tract M-2R; and
2. Authorize the execution of the Resolution by its Chairman and direct the Clerk to the Board
to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Official Records: and
3. Request the Clerk to the Board to make appropriate marginal notes on the recorded plat.
AGENDA iTEM
No._
APR 2 2001
Sheet 2 of 2
VAC 00-020
PREPARED BY:
Rick Grigg, P.S.M.
Planning Services
DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
Thomas E. KuckT~.E.
Engineering Review Manager
Planning Services Department Director
APPROVED BY: ~'~J_~
Jo~i~VM. Dunnuck, III, Interim Administrator
Cdlnmunity Development & Environmental Services
DATE: 05. ~O' o t
DATE:
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 4 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION FOR PETITION VAC 00-020 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A
PORTION OF THE 15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND PORTIONS
OF THE 15' WIDE COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT IN TRACT M-2R,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "CRYSTAL LAKE TERRACES AT
EAGLE CREEK REPLAT" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 28, PAGES 72
THROUGH 74, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSI-ffP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 177.101, Florida Statutes, Wilson Miller Inc., as agent for the
petitioner, Eagle Creek Properties, Inc., does hereby request the vacation of a portion of the 15' wide Drainage
Easement and portions of the 15' wide County Utility Easement in Tract M-2R, according to the plat of
"Crystal Lake Terraces at Eagle Creek Replat", as recorded in Plat Book 28, Pages 72 through 74, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida; and
V~-IEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of the 15'
wide Drainage Easement and portions of the 15' wide County Utility Easement in said Tract M-2R, as more
fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and
Vq]-IEREAS, the granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient
access of other property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following be and is hereby vacated:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated hereto.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to record a certified
copy of this Resolution in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, and to make proper notation of this
vacation on the recorded plat as referenced above.
This Resolution is adopted this __ day of , 2001, after motion, second and
majority vote favoring same.
DATED:
ATI'EST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legal
Pamck G. White, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
James D. Carter, PLO., Chairman
AGENDA ITEM --
A?R26 200'
Wiisd Mil r
New Dlrec~f°ns In Planning, Design & F.~Olnee~ng
EXHIBIT "A"
SHEET I OF 4
VAC 00-020
Legal description
Portion of 15' Drainage Easement (D. E.) to be vacated being a part of
Tract M-2R according to the Plat of Crystal Lake Terraces
· at Eagle Creek Replat as recorded in Plat Book 28,
pages 72-74, Collier County, Florida -
All that part of Tract M-2R according to the plat of Crystal Lake Terraces at Eagle Creek
Replat as recorded in Plat Book 28, pages 72-74, of the Public Records of Collier
Cobnty, Fl°dda being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Tract M-2R;
thence along the Northeasterly line of said Tract M-2R, South 54°20'32- East 198.35 feet;
thence leaving said northeasterly line and along.the boundary of the D. E. as recorded in O.R.
Book 1715, pages 1395 through 1398 of the Public Records of Collier County, Flodda, South
35°39'28- West 35.56 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence leaving said D. E. boundary South 55°12'19- East 113.06 feet;
thence South 08°55'59- East 65.16 feet;
thence South 32°56'30~ West 119.13 feet;
thence North 44°51'02' West 15.35 feet;
thence North 32°56'30- East 110.15 feet;
thence North 08°55'59- West 53.04 feet;
thence North 55°12'57- West 84.06 feet;
thence North 31°50'00' West 24.67 feet;
thence North 35°39'28- East 5.21 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Bearings are based on the northeasterly line of said Tract M-2R being South 54°20'32' East.
Certificate of authorization #LB-43.
WilsonMiller, Inc.
Registered Engineers and Land Surveyors
Re .~2j~;aloney, P.S.M.~)
Not valid unless embossed with the Professional's seal.
Naples Fart Myers Sarasota Bradentan Tampa
3200 Bailey Lane. Suite 200 Nap/es. F/or/da 34105-8507 941-649-4040 ~ 941-643-5716
www. wil$onmiller, corn
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
APR 2 & 2001
4
~,GENDA ITEM
17 ,~
APR g ~ ZOO1
EXHIBIT
VAC O0 - C
.Wii nMiller
F..XHIB IT "^"
"'" .. SHEET 3 OF 4
Leg.a.I Description v^c oo-o2o
portion of 15' Collier County Utility Easement (C.U.E.), to be vacated, being a part of
Tract M-2R, Crystal Lake Ten'aces at Eagle Creek Replat,
Plat Book 28, pages 72-74, Collier County, Florida
All that part of Tract M-2R according to the plat of Crystal Lake Terraces at Eagle Creek Replat as recorded in Plat
Book 28, pages 72-74, of the Public Records of Collier County, Flodda, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Tract M-2R;
thence along the boundary of said Tract M-2R, South 01°01'55' West 164.19 feet;
thence leaving said boundary and along said 15' C.U.E. according to said plat in the following two described
courses:
1) South 88'58'05' East 29.00 feet;
2) South 44'25'12' East 38.76 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence leaving said 15' C.U.E. South 88'05'30' East 1.36 feet;
thence South 01'54'30" West 21.33 feet;
thence North 88°05'30" West 0.69 feet to the boundary of said 15' C.U.E. and a point hereinafter referred to as
Point 'A';
thence along said 15' C.U.E. in the following two described courses:
1) North 01'54'29' East 20.69 feet;
2) North 44°25'12- West 0.93 feet to the Point of Beginning.
ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
Commencing at the aforementioned Point 'A";
thence along said 15' C.U.E. in the following two described courses:
1) South 01'54'29' West 13.67 feet;
2) South 88'05'31' East 93.44 feet;
thence leaving said 15' C.U.E. North 01°54'29' East 13.67 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence North 01'54'30' East 1.33 feet to said 15' C.U.E,
thence along said 15'C.U.E. South 88°05'31- East 42.67 feet;
thence leaving said 15' C.U.E. South 01°54'30" West 1.33 feet;
thence North 88°05'30- West 42.67 feet to the Point of Beginning;
ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
Commencing at the aforementioned Point 'A';
thence along said 15' C.U.E. in the following three described courses:
1) South 01°54'29' West 13.67 feet;
2) South 88'05'31' East 155.35 feet;
3) South 53'07'59' East 16.05 feet;
thence leaving said 15' C.U.E. North 36°52'01' East 11.67 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence North 36'52'01' East 3.33 feet to a point on said 15' C.U.E.;
thence along said 15' C.U.E. South 53°07'59" East 42.67 feet;
thence leaving said 15' C.U.E. South 36'52'01' West 3.33 feet;
thence North 53°07'59' West 42.67 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Subject to easements and restrictions of record,
Bearings are based on the westerly line of said Tract M-2R being South 01°01 '55" East,
Certificate of authorization #LB-43.
WilsonMiller, Inc.
Registered Engineers and Land Surveyors
Re~ -92 i /
Not valid unless embossed witi~.~r, dfessionars seal.
AGENDA ITEM
No,
APR 2 4 2001
Pg.
Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradenton Tampa
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Flor/da 34105-8507 941-649-4040 ~ 941-643-5716 ~
www. wilsonmiller, corn
I ,
I
'14
~<
~ · I~' ~.E-
~r~' ' .............
- I ~ / ~ ' '
. / '.~ ~ m
· AGENDA ITEM
No. ~
7.-3
APR 2 4 2001
p~..~_./.___
SHEET 4 OF
--~ VAC 00-02(
b
>-
7
8
9
i0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ATTACHMENT B
PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF pLATS OR PORTIONS
OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND [EXCEPT FOR VACATION OF
PLAT AND SIMULTANEOUS REPLAT]
Petitioner (Owner): ~A¢~ ~/l[g~- P~.o,'t~.T~S,
Address: /~'OI ~A. fsC,~ Ct~.~. ~ Telephone:~)
City/State: N~P~{ j ~L Zip Code:
Agent: ~l&$~l~,
Address: ~ ~%~ ~Z ~IT8 1~
City/State: ~af~$, fL : Zip Code:
Address of Subject Property: ~%~6~0~
City/State: ~Afc6~ , p~ ~[Zip~ Code:
Locat ion: Section ~ Township Range
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
Legal Description: Lot I~-~{~, Block Unit
Subdivision: C~.~'.%TAL (./~,.~ '~U. ZJ%C4~, ,9%- F~~~
Pla~ Book L~ Page(s)
Reason for Request: qAc%~{~ O~ 0~,.%.1~%C1~ ~ASem~7 ~2
Current Zoning: ~.O. Does this
affect density? ~d
I Hereby Authorize Agent Above to Represent Me for this
Petition:
35 /'~nature of Petitioner, (OwnFr)
38
39 Print Name
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
No
Yes /
(Title)
Please see "Policy and Procedure of Vacation and Annulment" for
the list of supportive materials which must accompany this
petition, and deliver or mail to:
Transportation Services
Collier County Government Complex
Naples, FL 33962
Telephone: (941) 774-8494
*(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of
beneficiaries.
If applican~ is a corporation-s4~her ~h ~-pu~l'ic
corporation, indicate the name of officers and major
stockholders.
If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or
other business entity, indicate the name of principals.
List all other owners.
Page 4 of 4
AQENDA ITEM
NO.
APR g 2001
Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CDPR1103- Official Receipt ~/~ ~ (~:) _~ ~,,,~
! Trans Number
!Date Post Date
227866 i 10/16/2000 12:58:51 PM 10/16/2000 I MS 77040
Payment Slip Nbr
EAGLE CREI~K PROPERTIES, INC
New or Exist: N
Payor · EAGLE CREEK
Fee Information
Fee Code ! Description GL Account
12TRVC I REVACCT/VAC EASEMENT-ROW 10116361032910000000
Amount i Waived
$1 ooo.oo i
$1ooo,oo I
Total
Payments
Payment Code Account/Check Number
· CHECK 7927
Memo:
Check No. 7927
VAC-00-020
Eagle Creek Properties, Inc.
Total Cash
Total Non-Cash
Total Paid
Amount
$1000.00
$o.oo 1
$1 ooo.oo
$1 ooo.oo
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT
Cashier/location: GARRETT S / 1
User: SPANGLER T
Print,
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR g 4 2001
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
APR 2 4:2001
~,-/~
,/
I
I
I
!
!
VAC
SITE
! I
CRYS'.
/---ex~STtNG C.U.E.
.~ PAGES 1444-1449
. ~ ~ / / '
: EX I ST I NO - '-'x~0 x
~--- D.E../ /~.~ 89'20 ~2
'-'-~ i~_. -, ~R~'~. - "~
I= ............'~ ~15-. ~ .~ '
/ PORTION OF DRAINAGE~ /~1/ i' ~ ~ '~ O~z ,~
I ..___L;j/ , , ~.
~' // '..
. ~.,, ~ '..
====='='"'~ N D A ITEM
NO.
APR g 4 2DO1
WilsdnMiller
September 1, 2000
Mr. Stan Chrzanowski
Collier County Engineering Dept. - Utilities
2800 S. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FI 34104
Subject: Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces
Easement Vacation
Letter of No Objection Request
Dear Mr. Chrzanowski:
RECEIVED
WILSON MILLER
0 5
po//&
FOL[)Et[ #
DELIVERY
WilsonMiller, Inc. represents Eagle Creek Properties, Inc. and is applying to Collier County for
the vacation of a drainage easement and portions of Collier County utility easements within
Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces. As part of the Collier County Vacation Petition
process, a letter of no objection is required from utility providers; therefore, we are requesting a
letter of no objection to include with the Easement Vacation Petition submittal.
I have enclosed a copy of a general location map and site plan of Eagle Creek Tract M-2,
Crystal Lake Terraces and a detailed exhibit identifying the easements. If you have no
objection to this request, please either sign the form provided or respond directly to me in
wdting. Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 649-4040.
Sincerely,
nd J. Piacente
Senior Project Designer
No Objection Authorization
I have reviewed the enclosed materials and offer no objection to the vacation of the portion of
easements within the project in which Collier County Utilities has an interest, as shown on the
attachee/~lal skel~and descdp.tib~n.
Authorized Agency~ignature
enc.
24"x 36" Plat for Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces /::~B
8.5" x 11" Legal Sketch and Description for easements to be vacated
8.5" x 11" Location map
8.5" x 14" Master Site plan
Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradenton Tampa
3200 Bailey Lane. Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105-8507 941-649-4040 ~ 941-643-5716
www. wil$onmiller, corn
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 2001
September 1, 2000
Mr. John Boldt, Director
Collier County Stormwater
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Bldg. H, 3'd Floor
NaPles, FL 34112
WiisdnMiller
New ~ " " ' ' ~ En (nee. ring
DELIVERY
Subject: Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces
Easement Vacation
Letter of No Objection Request
Dear Mr. Boldt:
WilsonMiller, Inc. represents Eagle Creek Properties, Inc. and is applying to Collier County for
the vacation of a drainage easement and portions of Collier County utility easements within
Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces. As part of the Collier County Vacation Petition
process, a letter of no objection is required from utility providers; therefore, we are requesting a
letter of no objection to include with the Easement Vacation Petition submittal.
! have enclosed a copy of a general location map and site plan of Eagle Creek Tract M-2,
Crystal Lake Terraces and a detailed exhibit identifying the easements. There is an existing
drainage easement in place that is recorded in O.R. Book 1715, Pages 1395-1398, as shown
on the attached survey sketch. No drainage structures were constructed within the platted
drainage easement to be vacated. II~ you have no objection to this request, please either sign
the form provided or respond directly to me in writing. Your prompt attention to this request is
appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at 649-4040.
Sincerely,
Senior Project Designer
No Objection Authorization
I have reviewed the enclosed materials and offer no objection to the vacation of the
easements within the project in which Collier County Stormwater has an interest, as shown on
the attached legal sketch and description.
/~'thodzed Agency Sig" -' nature'
Eric.
24" x 36" Plat for Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces
8.5" x 11" Legal Sketch and Description for easements to be vacated
8.5" x 11" Location map
8.5" x 14" Master Site plan
Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradenton Tampa
3200 Bailey Lane. Suite 200 Naples, F/or/da 34105-8507 941-649-4040 ~ 941-643-5716 ~
www. wilsonmiller, corn
AGENDA ITEM
No.
APR 2 4 200I
September 21, 2000
Ms. Barbara Olko
Collier County Public Utilities
3301 E. Tarniami Trail
Admin Bldg., 3"~ Floor
Nap!.e.s, FI 34112
I l nMiller
00 SEP 22 Pt-1 3: It 0
Subject: Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces
Easement Vacation
Letter of No Objection Request
Dear Ms. Olko:
WilsonMiller, inc. represents E~gle Creek Properties, Inc. and is applying to Collier County for
the vacation of a drainage easement and portions of Coil'~' County utility easements within
Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces. As part of the Collier County Vacation Petition
process, a leffer of no objection is required from utility providers; therefore, we are requesting a
letter of no objection to include with the Easement Vacation Petition submittal.
I have enclosed a copy of a general location map and site plan of Eagle Creek Tract M-2,
Crystal Lake Terraces and a detailed exhibit identifying the easements. If you have no
objection to this request, please either sign the form provided or respond directly to me in
writing. Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 849-4040.
Sincrerely,
Raymond J. Piacente
Senior Project Designer
No Objection Authorization
-I have reviewed the enclosed materials and offer no objection to 'the vacation of the portion of
easements within the project in which Collier County Utilities has an interest, as shown on the
attj~ched legal sketch and description.
Authorized Agency Signature
Enc.
24" x 36" Plat for Eagle Creek Tract M-2, Crystal Lake Terraces
8.5" x 11" Legal Sketch .and Description for easements to be vacated
1~.5" x 1 1' Location map
8.5'x 14" Master Site plan
AGENDA ITEM
NO,
APR 2 zt 2001
09/13/2000
Owl~er
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
: Eagle Creek Properties Igc
: 740 Waterford Dr #255 Naples 34113
: 0004 Res,Condominium
: WATER.FORD PLACE CONDOMINIUM BLDG
: R-255
Folio # : 81194700028
Strap # : 705990 R 2556B03
Lot Acres :
Lot Sq Ft :
Own er
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
: Caliendo Gennaro D
: 740 Waterford Dr #256 Naples 34113
: 0004 Res,Condominium
: WATERFORD PLACE CONDOMINIUM BLDG
: R-256
Folio
Strap
Lot Acres :
LOt Sq Ft :
: 81194700044
: 705990 R2566B03
OwneF
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
: Landis Diane P Tr
: 740 Waterford Dr #257 Naples 34113
: 0004 Res,Condominium
: WATERFOKI~.. PLACE CONDOMINIUM BLDG
: R-257
Folio
Strap
Lot Acres :
LOt Sq Ft :
: 81194700060
: 705990 R 2576B03
Owller
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
: Vandoom F Morgan & Mary E
: 740 WaterfordDr #258 Naples 34113
: 0004 Res,Condom
: WATERFORD PLACE CONDOMINIUM BLDG
: R-258
Folio #
Strap #
Lot Acre~ :
Lot f. gq Ft :
: 81194700086
: 705990 R2586B03
Oi4~er '
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
: Gutzwiller F W & Mary E
: 740 WaterfordDr #263 Naples 34113
: 0004 Res,condominium
: WATERFORD PLACE CONDOMINIUM BLDG
: R-263
Folio #
Strap #
Lot Acres :
Lot Sq Ft :
: 81194700183
: 705990 R 2636B03
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
: Butikofer Ferdinand & Helen
: 740 Waterford Dr 11267 Naples 34113
: 0004 R. es, condominlxlm
: WATERFORD PLACE CONDOMINTOM BLDG
: R-267
Folio #
Strap #
Lot dcre. s :
Lot,gcl Ft :
: 81194700264
: 705990 R 2676B03
Owner
Site
Land Use
Legal
Legal
: Nicolaisen Tr Jon A
: 740 Waterford Dr #270 Naples 34113
: 0004 Res,Condominium
: WATERFORD PLACE CONDOMINIUM BLDG
: R-270
Strap #
Lot Acres :
Lot Sq Ft :
: 81194700329
: 705990 R 2706B03
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 4 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PETITION V-2000-40, ON THE LEVEL BUILDERS REPRESENTING JOHN M. AND
GENEVIEVE A. LENTOVICH REQUESTING A 5.5-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 30-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINES TO
24.5 FEET FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5278 TREETOPS DRIVE AND IS
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS UNIT 101, BUILDING I, WOODGATE AT NAPLES
WITHIN THE TREETOPS PUD. TREETOPS PUD IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3
MILES SOUTH OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals consider an application for a setback variance
from the property boundary lines in the "PUD" Planned Unit Development district while
maintaining the community's best interest.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioner is proposing to screen an existing concrete slab, a corner of which
encroaches 5.5 feet into the required 30-foot setback from the tract boundaries. The
slab measures 117 square feet in area and a 15.12 square foot triangular shaped
corner of it encroaches into the required setback. The Treetops PUD, unlike most other
PUDs and the Land Development Code for regular residential zoning districts does not
contain reduced setbacks for accessory structures. Most PUD Documents and the LDC
allow accessory structures to be placed with a 10-foot setback.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This request will have no fiscal impact.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
This petition was reviewed by the Environmental Staff of Current Planning Section.
Their review comments did not indicate any environmental issues. Furthermore, since
there were no environmental concerns with this site, this project did qualify for
exemption from the EAC review.
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of
historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning commission reviewed V-2000-40 on April 5, 2000 and by a
unanimous vote recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve this petition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommended that the CCPC forward this
recommendation for approval.
petition to the BZA with a
PREPARED BY:
CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph.D., AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
~~NAGER
DATE
R BO~E T J~~. Mu~AIICP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES
DATE
APPROVED BY:
JOl-/(~ M. DUNN0CK, Ill, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE
cOIMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2
ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
AGENDA ITEM 7-B
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVI, SlON
February 26, 2001
PETITION V-2000-40
AGENT/APPLICANT:
Owner:
AGENT:
John M. and Genevieve A. Lentovich
5278 Treetops Drive Unit# 101
Naples, FL. 34113
On The Level Builders
2740 Bayshore Drive, Unit # 5
Naples, FL. 34112
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests a 5.5-foot variance from the required 30-foot setback from the
property boundary lines, to 24.5 feet.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 5278 Treetops Drive and is further described as Unit
101, Building I, Woodgate at Naples within the Treetops PUD. Treetops PUD is located
approximately 3 miles south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road on the east side Tamiami
Trail East, in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
APR2 2001 /
The petitioner is proposing to screen an existing concrete slab, a corner of which
encroaches 5.5 feet into the required 30-foot setback from the tract boundaries. The
slab measures 117 square feet in area and a 15.12 square foot triangular shaped
corner which encroaches into the required setback. The Treetops PUD, unlike most
other PUDs and the Land Development Code for regular residential zoning districts
does not contain reduced setback for accessory structures. Most PUD Documents and
the LDC allow accessory structures to be placed with a 10-foot setback.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Subject property:
Residential condominium, zoned PUD
Surrounding:
North - Commercial development, zoned C-4
East - Vacant, zoned C-3
South - Single family residences, zoned RSF-4
West - Vacant, zoned '%" Agricultural
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, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or
waiver is not required.
TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS:
Approval of this variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation or
the environment.
ANALYSIS:
Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code grants the authority to the Board of Zoning
Appeals to grant variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and
utilizes the provisions of Section 2.7.5.6.1 through 2.7.5.6.8, which are general
guidelines to be used to assist the Commission in making a determination. Responses
to the items in Section 2.7.5.6 are as follows:
Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar
to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building
involved?
AGENDA ITF. JM
/'7
APR 2 ~ 2001
No, The parcel in question is a large multi-family parcel. The building, however
was built with an angle, which will cause the proposed screened lanai to encroach
into the required setback.
Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from
the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the
property, which is the subject of the variance request?
Yes, as discussed above, the building was built with an angle and the existing
concrete slab is partially within the setbacks. The applicant wishes to screen the
lanai, like most other units within the development. However, because of the way
the building was placed within the property, this unit requires a variance.
Will a literal interpretation of the. provisions of this Land Development Code
work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant?
There is no land-related hardship. However, due to the configuration of the
building on the site, the applicant cannot screen their lanai like all other units
throughout the development.
Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which
promote standards of health, safety and welfare?
No, as discussed above a variance is not necessary to make possible the
reasonable use of the land.
eo
Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special
privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings,
or structures in the same zoning district?
Yes, this variance will allow the petitioner to encroach into the required setback;
however, most units already have a similar screened lanai, and this one will not be
any different that other lanais in the development.
Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose
of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare?
No, granting of this variance will reduce the amount of the required yard, which will
not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. However, the
reduced setback is for a very small portion of the structure, and the rest of the
structure will have greater setback than required.
AGE]qDA iTEM
APR 2 2001
Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate
the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes,
golf courses, etc,?
No, however, a screened lanai is not an opaque structure and will not completely
block the view like with a building expansion.
h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth
Management Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward this petition to the BZA with a
recommendation for approval, as the requested variance will allow this
property owner to enjoy dghts that other property owners in the
neighborhood enjoy.
AGENDA ITF~
APR 2 200!
PREPARED BY:
Chahram Badamtchian, Ph.D., AICH'
Principal Planner
RoRA-L-bV~
CURRENT
~IINO, AICP
=LANNING MANAGER
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE
DATE
DATE
APPROVED BY:
JO . ~)u~UCK III, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE
COI~IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Petition Number: V-2000-40
Staff Report for March 15, 2001 CCPC meeting.
NOTE: This Petition has been tentatively scheduled for the April 10, 2001 BZA Hearing.
Collier County Plar)z~ng Commission:
CAR'S' WRAGE, CHAIRMAN t
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
17~'
APR 2 & 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
RELATING TO PETITION N-UMBER V-2000-
40, FOR A VARIANCE 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 granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of
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 5.5 -foot variance from the required 30 foot
setback from property boundaries to 24.5 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A",
in a PUD 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 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations
of said 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 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 V-2000-40 filed by On The Level Builders, Inc. representing John and
Genevieve Lentovich, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Exhibit "B'
be and the same hereby is approved for a 5.5-foot variance from the required 30 yard setback
from property boundaries to 24.4 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the
PUD Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
1-This variance is only for the screened porch as shown in Exhibit "A"
2-The screened porch shall not be converted into a living/air-conditioned area.
BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-2000-40 be
recorded in the minutes of this Board.
APR 2 2001
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this ~ day of
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
,2001.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Marj~rie(l~. Student
Assistant County Attorney
G:/V-2000-40/CB/ow
JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
-2-
AGENDA ITEM
NO.
APR g A 2001
\
\
25,3.?6
EXHIBIT "A"
V-2000-40
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
pg ~NOTE: PF
' PE
- les,' section II,. a, Condominium;
TreetoPs of Nap~=' '~-,. i~n~r of Sect/on 32,
commencing at the North £/4 ~ ...... .
. 0 South, Range 26 East, collier countY,
Townsh. lP 5 . -f said Section 32, '
Florida;_ ~e North line ~ t
+~ence al°ng.u~-, ~=t 403.99 ~ee ;_.~m SectiOn 32,
. -z e o~
thence lut~,~"%4,, West ll2'_z~'~[~,~8 feet; '
c~th 0°'~e -~o ~'-26" ~es~-~
~nce North ~ ~ 00" West 141.00 feet .to. the
thence South 45'-16'' '
p'o~NT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described;
thence south 44"'44'-00" Zast 136.00 feet;
thence South 38~-21'-35" East 208.49 feet;
thence South 38"-22 ' -00" West 19.66 feet;
51o_38,_00- East 157.03 feet;
thence South 9~_04,_00,, East 253.76 feet
thence South 3
to the Northwesterly line of Trail Acre's
according to the plat thereof as recOrded'
in plat Book 3, page 50, collier County
public RecordS, collier CountY, FlOrida; id
tb. ence along the Northwesterly lime of sa
Trail AcreS, South 59"-5'6'-00" West 577.11
feet; 39~_04,_00. WeSt 350.97 feet;
thence North ·
thence North 0~-07'-08" East 427 04 feet;
thence South 89-~-52'-52" ~ast 62.56
thence North 45"'16 ' -00" East 227.00 ~eet
to the point of Beginning;
being a part of the North 1/2 of ~ectiOn 32, Town-
ship 50 South, Range 2.6 East, collier CouhtY,
;
Florida;
subject to easements and restrictiOnS
containing B 12 acres more or less-
EXHIBIT "B"
V-2000-40
17-
APR 2 4 200f
VARIANCE PETITION
~ 0- 4 0 "~
Pef~on No. Date Pe~on Received: ........................
Commission District:
Planner Assigned: Chahram Badamtchian
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 1 of
AGENDA l'i'~
.APR 2 ~ 2001
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104
PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional
sheets if necessary)
~ame of Itomeowner Association:
Mailing Address °~-o~ '~- City
Name of Homeowner Association:
Mailing Address
City State __ Zip.
Name of HOmeowner Association:
Mailing Address City. State __ Zip.
Name of Master Association:
Mailing Address City State __ Zip
Name of Civic Association:
Mailing Address City State __ Zip
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal Description of Subject Property:
Subdivision: c~xl~c
Unit
Lot (s) Block (s)
Section ,~ Twp.
Metes & Bounds Description:
Application for Variance Petition - 8~98
Property I.D. #
Range
Page 2 o:
APR. 2 ~ 2001
8
P~.~
Address of Subject Property:
(If different from Petitioner's address)
Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Parceh 0-~31,~ V'~O ~ ~ t,3kk..,'Y'~_ .~,
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
ZONING
LAND USE
NO--q-
Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property:
Front:
Comer.Lot: Yes I~ No ['-]
Side:
Waterfront Lot: Yes [-] No [--I
Rcar:
Application for Variance Petition = 8/98
Page
AGENDA
ofsAP~ 2 ~ 2001
Nature of Petition.
Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is
proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers,, i.e. reduce front setback from
25' to 18'; when property owner purchased-property; when' existing principal structure was
built (include building permit nnmber (s) if possible); why encroachment is neCessary;, how
existing encroachment came to be; etc.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 4
AGENDA ITEI~
rs APF~ 2 ~ 2001
Please note that staff and the. Collier County Planning Commi~ion shall be guided in their recommendation to the
Boaxd of zoning Appeals, and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its'determination to approve or
deny a variance petition by the below listed eritcri~ (I-8). (Please address this eriteri~ using additional p~iges if
nece.~m'y.)
I. Arc there'special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and
characteristics of thc land, structure, or building involved.
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from thc action of the applicant
such as pre-existing conditions relativc to the property which/s the subject of the variance request.
Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of ~ zoning code work unnecessary and undue
hardship on the apphcant or create practical difficulties on the applicant.
Will the variance, ff granted, be the minimum variance that will make poss~le the reasonable use of
the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page 5 of
APR 2 2001
Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by
these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district.
Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be
injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the.public welfare.
Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc.
Will granting the variance be consistent with the growth management plan.
Application for Variance Petition - 8/98
Page
A~.NDA
APR 2 2001
of 8
--dc~nspou
SCOPE OF WORK:
Bottom slab to be raised To 3" below existing sliding glass door thres
size of foundation to be approx. 14'x 9'
Bottom floor to be 4"x4" P.T. post set in simpson boots, deck to be 2'
16" o.c. with 2"x10" rim joist,.decking to be 5/8" t@g plywood subfloc
glued and screwed.
Both floors to be screened in as per collier county code.
AOENDA IT~
APR 2 200f
WOODGATE AT NAPLES
5000 Treefop_s DriVe
Nople~, Florido 33~62
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PETITION CU-2000-19, GERALD L. KNIGHT, ESQ. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
REPRESENTING FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON A
PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "E" ESTATES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD AND 1-75,
APPROXIMATELY 8 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-951) WITHIN THE
INTERSTATE 1-75 R.O.W., IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH AND RANGE 28
EAST. THE SITE CONSISTS OF 36,000 SQUARE FEET.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals consider an application for a Conditional Use
permitting a communications tower in the "E" Estates zoning district while maintaining
the community's best interest.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications tower with an
overall height of 265 feet, per Section 2.6.35. of the Land Development Code for an "E"
Estates zoned property within the 1-75 ROW. The conditional use will enable the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) to operate the Sunpass and Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) programs. The ITS includes a variety of components such
as real-time traffic data collection and variable message signs. The variable message
signs provide motorists with information regarding a variety of roadway conditions such
as congestion, detours, maintenance and construction work sites and roadway status.
The tower will also accommodate several future cell-phone antennas. In 2000, the Land
Development Code was amended to provide for four (4) towers within the 1-75 r.o.w, in
Collier County for the FDOT to accommodate their Intelligent Transportation System
designed for all interstates within the State of Florida.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This petition is for a communications tower for the State of Florida, and as such, it is
exempt from any impact fee payment. It is not anticipated that the addition of this tower
the site will have any negative fiscal impact for the County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
The subject property is designated Estates (Estates-Mixed Use District, Residential
Estates Subdistrict) on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan. The Conditional Uses subdistrict of the Estates-Mixed Use District
provides that" Essential Services Conditional Use shall be allowed anywhere within the
Estates Zoning District.
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
This petition was reviewed by the Environmental Staff of Current Planning Section.
Their review comments did not indicate any environmental issues. Furthermore, since
there were no environmental concerns with this site, this project did qualify for
exemption from the EAC review.
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, a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment was
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed CU-2000-19 on April 5, 2000 and by
a unanimous vote recommended that the Board of Zoning appeals approve this petition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation to the CCPC was to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning
Appeals with a recommendation for approval
PREPARED BY:
CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph.D., AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
fNTERIM CURREN~AGER
~Y, AIC /~
I~OB-EF~T J. MUL'R~RE, AICP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING SERVICES
DATE
DATE
JC~IN M. DUNNUCK, Ill, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE
C~MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2
AGENDA ITE~
APR 2 ~ 2001
AGENDA ITEM 7-.~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
OWNER/AGENT:
owner:
Agent:
MEMORANDUM
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
February 26, 2001
PETITION NO: CU-2000-19
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
CIO Lodestar Tower Inc., A Spectrasite Company
218 US Highway #1, Suite 300
Tequesta, FL. 33469
Gerald L. Knight, Esq.
Holland & Knight, LLP
One East Broward Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use for a communications
tower on a parcel of land zoned "E" Estates.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Everglades Boulevard and
1-75, approximately 8 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) on Interstate 1-75, in
Section 31, Township 49 South and Range 28 East. The site consists of 36,000 square
feet.
3_
AGENDA ITEJ~
APR 2 ~ 200~
I
A~A ITF_.~
APR
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications tower with an
overall height of 265 feet, per Section 2.6.35. of the Land Development Code for an "E"
Estates zoned property within the 1-75 ROW. The conditional use will enable the Flodda
Department of Transportation (FDOT) to operate the Sunpass and Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) programs. The ITS includes a variety of components such
as real-time traffic data collection and variable message signs. The vadable message
signs provide motorists with information regarding a variety of roadway conditions such
as congestion, detours, maintenance and construction work sites and roadway status.
The tower will also accommodate several future cell-phone antennas.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Existing:
Surrounding:
-Interstate 75 road ROW.
North - Vacant, zoned "E" Estates.
East - Vacant, zoned "E" Estates.
South -1-75
West - Vacant, zoned "E" Estates.
GROVVTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is designated Estates (Estates-Mixed Use District, Residential
Estates Subdistrict) on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan. This designation permits non-residential uses including conditional
uses and essential services.
The LDC was amended on June 14, 2000, (Ordinance 2000-43) to add Section
2.6.35.7. pertaining to communications towers in the Alligator Ally (I-75) right-of-way.
This Section of the LDC was further amended, as was Section 2.6.35.6.3., on
December 12, 2000 (Ordinance 2000-92). This Conditional Use application is submitted
pursuant to Section 2.6.35. of the LDC.
Other applicable elements of the GMP for which a consistency review was made are as
follows:
Transportation Element: Ingress and egress to the site will be from Everglades
Boulevard. The ITE Trip Generation manual indicates that this site will generate 5 to 10
trips on a weekday. Based on this data, the site-generated traffic will not exceed the
significance test standard (5 percent of the level of service LOS "C" design volume) any
County road. In addition, the site-generated trips will not lower the LOS below the
adopted LOS "D" standard for any segment within the project's radius of development
influence (RDI).
AC_~A ITEM
APR 2 ~ 2001
Therefore, this project is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation
Element (TE).
Conservation Element: This petition was reviewed by the Environmental Staff of
Development Services and found to be consistent with the Conservation Element of the
GMP.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Current Planning staff has coordinated a comprehensive evaluation of this land use
petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. This
evaluation is intended to provide an objective, comprehensive overview of the impacts
of the proposed land use change, be they positive or negative, culminating in a staff
recommendation based on that comprehensive overview. The below listed criteria are
specifically noted in Section 2.7.4.4. of the Land Development Code thus requiting staff
evaluation and comment, and shall be used as the basis for a recommendation for
approval or denial by the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners.
Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are
listed under each of the criterion noted below, and are categorized as either pro or con
as the case may be, in the opinion of staff. Staff review of each criterion is followed by a
summary conclusion culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance or
compliance with mitigation.
a. Consistency with this code and Growth Management Plan.
Pro: The site in question is zoned "E" and is located within the 1-75 ROW.
Communications towers are permitted as Conditional Use within the 1-75 corridor
provided they are being used mostly for governmental purposes. The subject
property is designated Estates (Estates-Mixed Use District, Residential Estates
Subdistrict) on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map of the GMP.
Con; None.
Summary Conclusion (Findin.as):
The use in question is permitted within the 1-75 ROW. This request is deemed to
be consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan.
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.
Pro: The tower site will be accessed from Everglades Boulevard.
-3-
Con: N/A.
Summary Conclusion (Findings):
Adequate ingress and egress to the
Boulevard.
site will be provided from Everglades
The effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in
relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects:
Pro:
Neighboring properties are mostly undeveloped. This tower should have minimal
impact on neighboring properties.
Con: This tower will be visible from some distance and some neighboring
property owners may consider this visual degradation of the area.
Summary Conclusion (Findings):
The proposed tower will not generate any noise, dust, glare or odor in the area.
Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
Pro: This property is surrounded on all sides by vacant properties.
Con: N/A.
Summary Conclusion (Findings):
The Parcel in question is surrounded on all sides with vacant properties. The
existing site is within the Interstate 75 right-of-way. The erection of this tower
within the 1-75 ROW should not have a major effect on the compatibility of the
existing land uses of this site with adjacent properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition CU-2000-19 to the BCC with a
recommendation for approval.
-4-
AGENDA IT_F~ ~
APR 2 ~ 2001
PREPARED BY:
CHAi-IRAM BADA-Ml~C~I'AN, Ph.D., AICP
P/~INCIPAL PLANNER
R )NALD F. NINO, AICP, MANAGER
CURRENT PLANING SERVICES
DATE
DATE
ROBERT J. MOERERE, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
PLANNING SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
JOl--I~ M. DUNNUCK Ill, INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE
COlV~MUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Petition Number: CU-2000-19
Staff Report for March 15, 2001 CCPC meeting.
NOTE: This Petition has been tentatively scheduled for the April 10, 2001 BZA Hearing.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Staff report for the, k~ch 1,2001 CCPC meeting.
~Thi~,Petition has ~. t.e~t,a~ively 27,
GAFf' WP~GE, CH,~IRMAN ~
-5-
AGENDA ITEM
APR ~ & 2001
RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT '
OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER IN THE "E" ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2.6.35.6.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 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 oft. he 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
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use in an "E"
Zone for a communications tower 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 Gerald L. Knight, Esq. of Holland & Knight, LLP, representing Lodestar
Tower, 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 a Conditional Use in the "E" Zoning District for a
communications tower 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.
-1-
A~A IT~
APR 2 200!
Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and incorporated by referc-nee herein.
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
BY:
JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency:
Marj~ri~M. S~dent,
Assistant County Attoney
g:/admin/CU-2000~ 19/RESOLUTION/CB/cw
-2-
AGENDA ITEM
APR 2 & 2001
ARTICLE II
LEGAL DESCRIPTIOIA
All that lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in
Section .31, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County,
Florida, the some being o portion of the oreo commonly known os
Interstate Route 75 at Mile Mark 92.5 (Collier County) and being
more particularly described by metes and bounds os follows, viz.:
COMMENCE at the Southwest Corner of Section 31, Township 49 S'outh,
Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, having for its coordinates
a Northing of 661692.75 feet and an Easting of 47400.3.25 feet;
thence S89'45'28"E for 1196..32 to the South One-quarter
corner of sold Section .31; thence N89'42'O4"E for 2569.84 feet;
thence NOO'17'56"W for 57.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING
of the parcel of land hereinafter described, said Point of Beginning
also being the most Southeasterly Corner of the Subject Property,
having for its coordinates a Northing of 661758.69 feet and
on Eosting of 477769.06 feet (The Preceding and following
coordinate values being based on the North American Datum (NAD)
1983/1990 adjustment for the State Plane Coordinate System of the
Florida East-Zone.); thence S89'57'40"W along the Southerly Boundary
Line of the Subject Property for 45.00 feet to the most
Southwesterly Corner of the Subject Property, having for its
coordinates o Northing of 661758.66 feet and an Easting of
477724.06 feet; thence NO0'02'20"W along the Westerly Boundary
Line of the Subject Property for 80.00 feet to the most
Northwesterly Corner of the Subject Property, having for its
coordinates a Northing of 661838.66 feet and on Easting of
477724.01 feet; thence N89'57'40"E along the Northedy Boundary
Line of the Subject Pr:operty for 45.00 feet to the most
Northeasterly Corner of the Sub~ect Property, having for its
coordinates a Northing of 6618,38.69 feet and on Easting of
477769.01 feet; thence S00'O2'20"E along the Easterly Boundary
Line of the Subject Property for 80.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said Parcel contains .3,600 square feet or 0.08 acres, more or
less, by calculation.
EXHIBIT "B"
CU-2000-19
AGENDA ITF_..M
APR
.51.6'
91 .1'
r r~l
I'rl
Z
-r-r-J
I L
L__
[
I F
_LL.~
t
I
I
I
J
o
~D
o
z
EXHIBIT "C"
0U-2000-19
AGEI~A ~T.~
APR 2 4 200!
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl
CU-2000-19
This approval is conditioned upon the following stipulations:
Planning Services:
The Current Planning Manager, may approve minor changes in the location,
siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this
conditional use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this
conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of
this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application,
and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of
submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review and Approval, of
the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance (91-102), as amended.
EXHIBIT "D"
AGE.NDA
09/19/00~1'.331FA~;941,~3696~
COLLIER C0 C0~'UNITY
~ UUZ
Datc Petition Received:
?ctition Nc.:
Commissien Disu'ict: Planner Assi~ed: _
AB~STAFF
Nmnc of Applicant(s)
Applicant's Mailing Address
City Tequesta
Applicant's Telephone #
Lodestar Tower Inc., A S ectrasite Corn an
218 US Highway #1, Suite 300
S~tc FL Zip 33469
561-748-9381
561-789-9300 Fax#
Gerald L. Knight,
Name of Agent
One East
Ag~t's Mailing Addr~s
City Fort Lauderdale
Esq Firm
Agent's Telephone #
Holland & Knight, LLP
Broward Boulevard
State FL
954-525-1000 Fax#
Zip 33301
954-463-2030
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104
PHONE (941) 403-2400FFAX (941) 643-6968
~?~LE.Q.~ PUBLIC BEAN.lNG FOR CONDITIONAL USE - 6/98
AGENDA ITFr. L~
APR 2 ~ 2001
,GE I OF 15 -
09/19/00 11:33 FAX 9418436988 COLLIER CO COI[EI.INITY DBV
_ i
Complete th~ following for all.Association(s) affiliated with this petition.
sheets if n~cessary)
(Provide additional
t~O03
Name of Homeowner Association;
Mailing Address
City State Zip
Namt: of Homeowner Association:...
Mailing Address
City State: Zip_
Nam,: of Homeown~ Association:
Mailing Address
City State ,, Zip
Name of Master Association:
Mailing Address
City State: ~ Zip
Name of Civic Association:
Mailing Address
City Stat~ Zip.
o
Disclosure of Interes! Information: SEE ATTACHMENT
If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety,
tenancy in common, Or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as
well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentag~ of Ownership
~FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL US~I - 6P)8
PA(
AGENDA ITE~
No.~
APR 2 200!
o9/lg/O0
11:~3 FAX 94~1643596B
COLLIER CO COMMI~ITY BEV
~ uu~
bo
If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the benefici~ies of the u'ust with
the percentage of interest.
Pcrccnmgc of lmtcrcst
Nam~ ~nd Address
do
If thc property is in the name of a GBNBKAL or LIM1TBD PAKTNBKSHIP, list thc
name of the general md/or limited partners.
Namc and Address percentage of Owncr~2ip
If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a
Corporation, Trustcc, or a Partncrship, list thc names of the contract purchasers
below, including thc officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners.
.... Perccntagc of Ownc~hip
N~nc and Address
Date of Contract:_
~~BL1C HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE - $d9~
PA(
APR 2 ~ 2001
~.30F 15
'09/19/00 11:34 FA~ 9416436968 COLLIER CO C0gh'UNITY DEV ~ouo
If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all
individuals or o~ccrs, if a corporation, partnership, or ~'ust
Name and Addre~
Date subject property acqu'?ed ( ) leased (I~: 3/25/9.gTerm oflcase
If, Petitioner h~s option to buy, indicate date of option: _
terminates: , or anticipated closing date
30 yr./~.
and date option
Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase subsequent to
the da~e of application, but prior to thc date of the final public hcarin§, it is thc
responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental
disclosur~ of interest form.
~ql:,ailed legai description of the property_ covered by the application: (If space is
inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more th~ one zoning
district, include separate legal description/'or property involved in each district. Applicant
shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months,
maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting.
NOTE: The applicant is responsibI¢ for supplying thc correct legal description. If
questions arise concerning thc legal description, an engineer's certification or scaled survey
may be required.
Section: ___3..1~. ~ Township: 49 Range: 9~.
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book__ Page #:
Propc~y I.D.#: Not available
Me'res & Bounds Description: SEE ATTACHED
Siz.~ofproperty: 45 fl.X 80 fl. = Total Sq. Ft. 3,600 Acres .08 Acres
_A~tdress/gener"ilocation of subject property: Tha .~_4±~ ~ ~ c~n~] ] y ].~-~a
northwest corner of Everglades ROad and 1-75 at Mile Mark 92.5 (ColLier
at t
County)
FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE -
PA(2
APR 2 2001
Og/lg/O0
[.,UL,.L,I,E*-~ %.AJ ~,.UmmUJq4 .t J[ U.C,'~
A.Oj.~Le~tzonin~_ and land use:
Zoning
Land use
lq · Estate
Estate
E_~t~_te
E__Estate
W_E~state
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
sepia-ate page).
Sea'ion:
Township: _ Range:
Lot:
Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book ._ Page #:
Property I.D.#:
Mel~s &BoundsDcscription: FDOT t, wn~ ,a.~o,~m' 1-75 right-of-way
~.~Lc~of Conditional Use: This application is requesting conditional use # 2.6.3 5.6. 'of
the Estate district for cr~s or uss) telecommunication tower ...
Pre:lent Use of the Property: Vacant
8. F.,~fl~atioa 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,
staffs recommendation to thc 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 w~ll not adversely affect the public interest and that the
specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met, mad
tha~: further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the
following matters, where applicable. Please provide detailed response to each of the
cri~;erion listed below. Specify bow and why the request is consistent
(A~taeh additional pages as may be necessary). ~_.J.~_
A~-~-~"; l?._Oa PUBLIC H£A..RING I~OR CONDITIONAL USE- ~/" PAOI -~ 0~(~ 2 ~ 200I
'09/~9/00 ~1:34 FAX 9418436968 COLLI;R CO COKM'UNITY D~¥
Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code
-~nd-'Growth Management PI~ (include inform-~fion on how thc request is consistent
with the applicable section or portions of the future land use
cleroent):
SEE ATTACHMENT
b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and
· . proposed structure-thereon-with particular rc£erence to' automotive and pedestrian
,~;afety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe:
Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to
noise, glare, economic impact and odor:
d. Describe the site's and the proposed .use's compatibility with adjacent properties and
other properties in the district:
--e~-Pleasc provide any additional-information which you may feel is relevant to this
request.
~.~~FOR PL'~L]C H£ARIN(~ FOR CONDITIONAL USE -
PAGE
~lqr .
APR 2 2001
COLLIER CO CO~NITY DE¥ [~008
09/19/00
10.
11.
i1:'34 FAI 9416436968
B_~K~.tigJnn~ The County is legally precluded fi.om enforcing deed restrictions,
how.~er; many communities have adopted' such restrictions. You may wish to contact the
civic: or property owner~ association in the area for which this usc is bein§ requested in
order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existin§ deed restrictions.
·. · · To your knowledge, has a public
heating been held on this property within the last ),car? If so, what w~ the nat'ur~ of that
hearing?
~.~tional Submittal requirement~ In addition to this complct~ application, the
folk)wing must bc submitted in o}~ler Ior your application to be de~rn~ sufficient, unless
othea'wise waived during the prcapplicafion meeting.
a. A copy of the pre-application meeting notes;
b-:-~levca"(11)-copies of-a-24"-x 36"-conceptual site plan [and one reduced 8W' x 11"
copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, dc~picting the
followin§ [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 e~rcss (including pedestrian
ingress and egress to the site and thc 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
disable],
· locations of solid waste (refuse) containers and service fimctiou areas,
· required yards, open space and preserve areas,
· proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existin§ utility services to the
site),
·proposed and/or existing landscapin~ and buffering as may be required by the
County,
· location of all signs and lighting includin~ a narrative statement as to the type,
....... character, and-dimensions' ~such- as height, area, etc.);
c. An Environmental Impact Statement (ELS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land
Development Code (LDC). "-'~~ ~..~
~~_~'OR l~URLIC I-IEARING FOR C'ONDrFIONA, L I/~E - 6~
PA'
'09/19/00 11:35 FAX 9416436968 COLLIER CO C0}~'UNITY DEV ~009
Whether or not an 'ElS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken
within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall
be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their
bouna~ries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Depsrtmemt of
Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System.
Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches);
A Traffic Impact Statemmt'~TIs), unless waived at the pre-application meeting;
A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located
within an area of historical or m-chaeological probability
application meeting);
Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and
identified during the pre:application meeting, including but not limited to any required
state or federal permits.
APPLICATIO?~ FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE .~Dg
pA¸
APF~ 2 ~, 200i
See attached correspondence
being first duly sworn, depose and say that weYI
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 beat of our knowledge and belief. ):Ve./I
understand ;hat the information requested on this application must be complete, and accurate and
that the contlent of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered.
Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is de~fmed complete,: and all required
information has been submitted.
As property owner We~I further authorize
as our/my re. presentative in any matters regarding this Petition.
to act
Signature of Property Owner
Signature of Property O~er
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name qf Owner
day of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
19~, by __ who is personally known to me oP. has produced
as identification.
State of Florida
County of Collier
(Signature of Notary Public - State of
Florida)
pUBLIC HEARING FOR CO~i'OlTIONAL USE - 6198
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public,)
APR 2 q 2001
PAG 5 OF
LEGAL DE$C/IIfTION,
All that lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in
Section .31, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County,
Florida, the same being o portion of the oreo commonly known os
Interstate Route 75 at Mile Mod< g2.5 (Collier County) and being
mare particularly described by metes and bounds as follows, viz.:
COMMENCE at o Florida Department of Transportation Monument
stamped "1 75 90 A2g" approved by the Notional Geodetic Survey.
hovings for its coordinates o Northing of 661509.89 feet and on
Easting of 477852.58 feet; thence N18'.35'22'W for 262.44 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel of land hereinafter described,
said Point of Beginning also being the most Southeasterly Corner of
the Subject Property, having for its coordinates a Northing of 661758.69
feet and on Easting of 477769.06 feet (The Preceding and following
coordinate values being based on the North American Datum (NAD)
lgs`3/19g0 adjustment for the State .Plane Coordinate System of the
Florida East Zone.); thence S69'57'40"W along the Southerly Boundary
Line of the Subject Property for 45.00 feet to the most
Southwesterly Corner of the Sub~ect Property. having for its
coordinates o Northing of 661758.66 feet and an Eosting of
477724.06 feet; thence NOO'O2'20"W along the Westerly Boundary
Line of the Subject Proper'l~y for 80.00 feet to the most
Northwesterly Corner of the Subject Property, having for its
coordinates o Northing of 661636.66 feet and on Easting of
477724.01 feet; thence N89'57'40"E along the Northerly Boundary
Line of the Subject Property for 4,5.00 feet to the most
I,Iortheosterly Corner of the Subject Property, having for its
coordinates a Northing of 661838.69 feet and on Eosting of
477769.01 feet; thence S00'02'20"E along the Easterly Boundary
Line of [he Subject Property for 80.00 feet to the POINT OF'
BEGINNING.
C_,oid Parcel contains 3,600 square feet or 0.OB acres, more or
less. by calculation.
AGENDA ITE~
APR
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
Florida
Department of Transportation
TI~OMAS lr, BARRY, JR.
SECRETARY
June'15,1999
SUBJECT:
Leasing of DOT Sites for Commercial Wireless Facilities - Lodestar/Florida
Department of Transportation 30-Yeai' Agreement
To Whom It May Concern: "
This correspondence is to let you know about the Florida Department of Transportation's
30-year contract with Lodestar Towers, Inc. to develop wireless facilities within the
Department's rights-of-way. This contract was executed by the Department on March 25, 1999.
It will ~be Lodestar's responsibility to identify, inventory, coordinate, advertise, market, and
negotiate wireless sites to the wireless industry' for over 2,000 miles of the Department's limited
access fights-of-way. Lodestar's principal responsibility will be to represent the Department's
interests as a wireless general manager in these wireless endeavors. This contract is being
administered by Lodestar's Project Manager, Mr. Dale Perryman, who may be reached at 218
U.S. Highway #1, Suite 300, Tequesta, Florida, 33469 or by telephone at (561) 748-9300. Mr.
Perryman's fax number is (561) 748-8555.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions about the Florida
Department of Transportation/Lodestar Towers, Inc. contract, or Mr. Perrymaa if you should
have any questions about wireless sites.
SineCUre. p~/
e~ste~rH. Ch , .E.
ITS Director
Florida Department of Transportation - Turnpike District
CHC/er
Turnpike District
1211 Governor's Square Boulevard, Suite 100 o
www.clol:.s~;al;e.fl.u $
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
APR 2 ~ 2001
(850) 921-0973
(~ RECYCLED pAPER
01/10/00 MON 16:20 FAX 954 427 2945 Karen J. Kelly
OO2
V~htm~ 1, Iss'.~e 2
Traffic Management Centers
on drawing board
In the world of J. ntelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS), Traffic Management Centers
(TMC) are to traffic engineers what NASA's
Mission Control is ~o astronauts -- the nerve
center.
As ITS moves from the conceptual phase to
implementation in South Florida, a number of
transportation agencies have TMCs on the
drawing board.
FDO~Fs District Four in Fort Lauderdale is
planning a Vwo-story T/VIC on Commercial
Bou]evard in Fort Lauderdale where FDOT and
Broward County Tr2~qc Engineering w~ be co-
located. The project will be funded with federal,
state and county dollars and is targeted ~o be
operational in 2005. FDOT is considering
building an interim TMC at the District Four
headquarters if necessary.
Florida's Turnpike District planz to build a
TMC at its Pompano Beach Turnpike. Operations
Center with Florida Highway Patrol and the
Office of Toll Operations planning to be onsite.
The Turnpike TMC is scheduled to be part½ally
operatio~l thi~ Novem]~r.
FDOT District Six in Miami recently moved
into an interim TMC housed at the District Six
headquarters with plans for the permanent TMC
to go to construction in FY 2001-02. Florida
Highway Patrol will be co-located with FDOT at
the Mi~ rnq TMC.
Once built, the TMCs will give South Florida
tra6qc managers a physical location to monitor
tr~tqqc conditions, respond to incidents and
coordirmte ITS p~ograms.
'~he TMC ~ be a command center
sorts," said Rory Sa~to~-, District Six
Opera~ionz Engineer. ~?qe will have real-time
TMC_~ vxm~uad o~ I-,~.~ p~
Distdzt Four's TMC will house Bfoward ~ T~c
APR 2 q 2001
Karen J. Kelly ~003
01/10/00 MON 16:23 FAX 954 427 2945
South Florida gets electronic tolls
Florida DOT ' clearly maxked for
kicked off its much- ~ · . SunPass users only,
a~aited SunPass pass through toll
electronic toll collec- plazas a~ speeds up to
tion system in April at ~5 rmilesper hour
six plazas in Broward without beln__g re-
and Palm Beach quired to stop to pay a
counties. In June, toll.
Sun_Pass moved into ~ [ £ (~ ~ R 0 N ! ~ ~ 0 [. L (: 0 L ~ [ ~ ~ [ 0 N The new high-tech
1Vlianfi. Dade County system is comprised of
at wll plazas on small, pocket-sized
Gratigny Parkway ,,
($.R. 924), Dolphin Expressway (S.R. $~6)~ "~ransponders which attach to the inside of cam
Airport Expressway (S.R. 112), Don Shula (S.R. ' windshields, tran.~mitting and receiving sign~)~
874) and the Florida's Turnpike Extens/on. between each toll facility. As a motorist ap-
By the end of the year, alt t~ll plazas on proaches a toll plaza, the SunPass transponder '
South Florida's expressways ~ be using processes the toll transact/on as the motorist
SunPass, becoming part of 117 Wll plazas state- continues through the Su_nPass toll
wide that will have S,_mPass by the end of 2000. SunPass transponders cost $25 anal require a
The system will enable motorists to save minimum ope~n!ng balance of $25. Transponders
time and money while creating more e/~icient, are warrantled against manufacturing problems
tess congested roadways. $,,nPass allows motor- or defects for 90 days after the date of purchase.
ists W pass through ~o11 plaza lanes w/thout To get into the fast ~ne and save time a~cl
having W st~p while tolls, are electronically money with SunPass ca]] 1-888.TOLL-FLA or
deducted from customers' prepaid accounts. A visit www. S, mPass.com-
single dedicated lane processes up to 1,800
vehicles per hour ~ 300 percent.more than a
conventional wll lane.
Tampa toll roads, including the Veterans and
Sunshine Skyway Bridge Expressways, are
p~nned for conversion beginning in November
and continuing througheut 2000. Orlando area
toll roads are scheduled to be operational by the
end of summer 2000.
Frequent users of'Sun_Pass will receive a 10
percent rebate after 40 or more transactions are
made each month on Florida's 'Turnpike. Less
than two trips per day on average are required
~o receive the discount. Similar discounts will be
available on select toll roads throughout Florida. Signs of thc Tim~ ~ FDOT's ~c M~ssage
(DMS) at th~ Golden Olsd~s In~-r~hm~ (6GI) im
'~is is a $38.6 million projecl~ designed to Dsde Co~nty are operational, providing motorims with
benefit everyone by m~ldng toll road driving lraffic updates on c~mdifio~s in and around the int~2mm~c.
easier and more convenient," said Deborah Four major highways, lnterstsie 95, Florida's'fumpike,
Stemle, FDOT director of toll operations. ~By the Palm~tw ~xpressway ami U~. 441, ~r~v~e at (3GL ITS
year 2000, S~nlnass will be operational on more Adrai~istrator Arvind l~umbhoj~ar said the C_~I signs ar~
than 450 toil lanes throughout Florida." one of the first elements of a comprehensive SunC. nfide
9un_Pass combines 90 declicated and B6~ ' int~iB$emt Transportation System (IT~) that will deliver
traf~c information to motorists in Sol.,th
mixed-use lanes. The 90 dedicated lanes are AC~J~DA
APR 2 200!
01/10700 ~0~ 16:25 FA~ 9S4 427 294S ~aren J. Kell~ ~004
SunGuide Service
expands coverage
Patrol
areas.
Floric~ DO~i's regional SunGu/de
service patrol program, started in
1995, is expanding.
Service patrols are operating on
Interstate 95 and the Dolphin
pressway (State Road 836) in Mi-mi
gnd will be added to the P-lmetto
Expressway (State Road 826) this
The Miami-Dade Expressway
Authority (MDX) plans to add service
patrols on the Don Shula Expressway
(State Road 874), Snapper Creek Expressway (State Road 878), Airport
Expressway (State Road 112) and Gratigny Paxkway (State Road 924) later
this year,
FDOT and MJ3X, partners in the SunGuide service patrol program in
Miami-Dade, are operating eight truck~ with plans to expand to 21 trucks by
the end of 1999.
FDO~Fs Fort Lauderda]e office is running service patrols on Interstate 95,
Interstate 595 and Interstate 75 in Broward and Palm Beach counties with
plan~ to expand the service to/nterstate 95 in Martin, St. Lucie ~md Indian
"We are running 15 service paVro] trucks now and plan to increase our
coverage to weekends in the.future," said Rick MJt-inger of FDO'I's Traffic
Operations Office in Fort. Lauderdale.
Service patrols operate weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. in M~anfi-
Dade County and/rom 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. in Brows,rd and Palm Beach counties.
Service patrols were first used on FI)OT construction projects. A strong
and positive response/rom motorists rem~lted in the department looking at
service patrols as a permanent service.
In Brow~rd and Palm Beach count/es, FI)OT is installing automated
vehicle location (AVL) devices to track the service patro! truc]~s. Trucks
Miami-Dade have the AVL devices.
'qT/ith AVL we c_-_~ know where the trucks are at any given ~ime," said
Mitinger.
"Service patrols are useful tools in/reeway incident, management," said
Giovanni Cestari of FDOT's 1V//~m; office. ~,-Iaving patrol trucks on the free-
ways helps us to clear an inddent and reduce congestion delays by as much as
45 percent. That allows tr~c to get back to a normal flow and lessens delays
to motorists," he said
The 3,500 motorists assisted each month by the set,ice,patrols ha South
Flor/da ~ the program's biggest fA~,. Having a service patrol driver stop and
offer gasoline, water, booster cable, cell,~l-~ phones and fiat tire service as no
cost has cast the agency in a hero's role.
"People stranded on the expressways are often in a d~_ngerous situation.
Oux driver~ come to the rescue a~d we get some strong testimonials. The
main reason for having the service patrols may be to keep ts- f~c moving, but
people who get helped will tell you the service patrols make the highway~
safer as well," said Cestar/.
01/i, 0/00 M0N 16:28 FAX 954 427 2945 Karen J. Kelly ~005
FDOT kicks
The Florida De-
partment of Transpor-
tation (FDOT) and the
Traveler Inform a~ion
Radio Network (TIRN)
kick off a first-in-the-
nation statewide radio
advisory progrs_m for
Florida's highway
travelers this summer.
Radio station
WTIR 1680 ~ in
Central Florida is
scheduled to be the
5rat TLRN network
station to start opera-
tions. WTIR reaches
lis*~eners in Orange,
Osceola, Seminole and
Brevard counties, an
area dom{hated by six
theme parks, includ-
ing Disney World.
"Our talk~radio
format is designed to
off Radio
share with travelers
all the great places to
eat, sleep, and have
fun in our great state.
It ~ enhance the
travel experience for
millions of our resi-
dents and visitors
· while making their
travel safer and
easier," said TIRN~s
Joe Gettys.
Stations in
G ainesville, Lake
City, Daytona, St.
Augustine and Jack-
sonv~le will follow.
Advisory
Eventually, the
TIRN format will be
· broadcast over a
network of 18 com-
. mercia1 radio stations
throughout Florida
informing travelers
about the state while
at the some time
alerting them to
adverse tr-~c or
weather conditions.
~lnder the ~mlque
partnership between
FDOT and TIRN, the
department will
a~mlnlster the pro-
gram while TIRN will
pay for it entirely with
private sector fundsf
said FDOT spokes_mnn
Dick I~,~e. The costs
include more than $9
million for st~F~ng,
equipment and the
Program
p]acement of'Traveler
Info" signs on the
state's highways so
motorists ca~ tune to a
TIRN ,ffiliate as they
travel through
During routine
operations, FDOT will
have one minute of
each ten minute
broadcast segment to
ail' highway safety
public service an-
nouncements.
The b"unGuide newsletter is
a publication of th~ Florida
Departrmm~ of Transporta-
tion. For more gn[orrnation
abowt SunGulde co~1305-
TMCs
Com~u~ ~ front ps~e
information coming in from pavement sensors
and cameras and will distribute that informa-
tion to motorists in real-time. Law enforcement
and emergency services will be at the table and
will allow coordinated responses to freeway
incidents and rush hour congestion," said
Santana. '~l'he TMC is another piece in'the
puzzle. We want to evolve to managing traffic
rather than traffic managing us," he added.
Patterned after TMCs in Atlanta, Los Ange-
les and a number of other cities, the South
Florida TMCs will feature video walls and
computer stations connected by ]~ig]u-speed
communications links.
~Fne key to success in ITS is accessing real-
time information and delivering it to motorists
via an assortment of methods. The TMC ~e-
comes our Mission Control for that process," said
Santana.
APR 2 4 2001
FDOT/Lodestar Tower
Page 1
Lodestar Conditional Use Application - Supplemental Materials
Collier County Site 11010
Application Item 2. Disclosure of Interest Information
The subject property is 1-75 right-of-way owned by
Transportation, an agency of the State of Florida.
the Florida Department of
Application Item 8. Evaluation Criteria
ae
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 with the applicable section portions of the future land
use element:
The applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications tower on the subject site.
The primary purpose of this telecommunications tower is to provide the infrastructure
necessary for the Florida Department of Transportation to operate the Sunpass and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) programs. Attachments are provided that
provide additional details concerning these programs. The ITS includes a variety of
components such as real-time traffic data collection and variable message signs. The
variable message signs provide motorists with dynamic information regarding a
variety of roadway conditions such as congestion, detours, general guidance
information, maintenance and construction work sites, and roadway slams. The
Sunpass system, an electronic toll collection system, reduces congestion at toll
booths. The tower will also accommodate the collocation of private
telecommunication antennas.
The subject property is zoned Estate and is designated as Estate on the Collier County
land use plan map. In June of this year, the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2000-43 amending the Collier County Land
Development Code. As part of this Ordinance, Section 2.6.35 was amended to permit
a telecommunication tower at this location. See Sec 2.6.35.7.(1)(b). Therefore, this
application is consistent with the Land Development Code.
There are currently gaps in the cellular coverage along 1-75. Install.a~a"~~i~:~
cellular cover-~ge-~o ir~pro~, me 1~ ~,
proposed tower and antennas will provide additional I .--
I ;R 2 4 2001
FDOT/Lodestar Tower
Page 2
communication for essential services provided by government agencies and the
residents of Collier County. In addition tower is an integral component of the
Sunpass and ITS. These programs provide an essential service by improving the
safety and efficiency of the Interstate kighway system. The proposed facility will not
place any demands on the County infrastructure system. Therefore, the tower is
consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management
Plan.
be
Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and
proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of
fire or catastrophe:
Ce
In order to protect the public, there will be no pedestrian access to the site. This site
is proposed to be an unmanned telecommunication facility. Vehicular access to the
site will be limited to service personnel who would visit the site to perform routine
maintenance and service. Therefore, the proposed development plan does not raise
any issues regarding traffic flow or control. Access to the site is provided via asphalt
pavement that will connect to Everglades Boulevard. There are no stopping site
distance concerns for vehicles on 1-75 as measured from the site access as required
per FDOT Plans Preparation Manual.
Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in
relation to noise, glare, economic impact and odor:
The improvements proposed for this site include a telecommunication tower, antennas
and equipment buildings. The operation of this use will entail limited human and
mechanical activity on the site. Therefore, the proposed use will not create any
nuisance to the surrounding area including noise, glare or odor.
There are gaps in the telecommunication cover area along the 1-75 corridor.
Therefore, additional telecommunication towers are required in this area to provide
service to the residents and governmental agencies in Collier County. This tower will
accommodate collocation of private communication antermas. Therefore, this tower
will help to reduce the proliferation of towers in the area.
de
Describe the site's and the proposed use's compatibility with adjacent properties
and other properties in the district:
The subject site and the surrounding properties are zoned Estate. This site and those
properties immediately adjacent to the site are owned by FDOT for 1-75 right-of-way
and would only be developed with transportation related uses. The
telecommunication tower proposed on the site will improve the safety and effi ~~,~i~
APR 2 ,~ 200!
FDOT/Lodestar Tower
Page 3
of the 1-75 corridor as part of the FDOT Sunpass and ITS programs.
consistent and compatible with the 1-75 transportation corridor.
This use is
e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this
request:
Attached find the following documentation to demonstrate compliance with the
criteria in Section 2.6.35.6.26 of the Collier County Code:
· Six mile radius map reflecting the existing towers within the effective
radius.
· Correspondence from Gene Glotzbach indicating that due to public safety,
emergency and access issues, the FDOT has determined that it is
impractical to collocate its antennas on existing privately owned towers.
· Signed and sealed plans include notes on pages C1 and C2.1 regarding
compliance with applicable federal, state and local codes and ordinances
including FAA and FCC regulations.
AGENDA ITF.~
APR 2 q, 2001
C)
APR 2 4
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
Florida Department of Transportation
SO5 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
THOMAS F. BARRY. JR.
SECRETARY
May 1, 2000
Subject:
Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) position regarding co-location on
existing towers
To Whom It May Concem:
The FDOT's position has traditionally been to construct new towers as opposed to co-locating on
privately owned towers. The FDOT's communications system is used for public safety and FDOT's
towers are typically designed to withstand higher wind loads than that required by code.
In times of emergencies, such as hurricanes, the FDOT provides support in clearing roads to regain
access to areas that have been isolated due to damage caused by an extraordinary event.
Communications is vital to direct emergency crews in their effort to clear roads in order to restore tray,..
to strickened areas. The health and well being of the public in times of emergencies is dependent on the
speedy restoration of services to an area devastated by a catastrophic event. The extra strength
requirement built into the design of the FDOT's towers helps assure that communications will be
available when it is most needed.
Since the FDOT's towers helps support public safety, access to a tower site and a sites restoration
priority must be controlled by the FDOT. When/ommunications are down during an emergency, the
FDOT can not afford to be denied access to a site nor get involved in a controversy with the tower
owner regarding restoration of service at a site. Since public safety is a concern, the Department must
have the latitude to set priorities and fix problems as quickly as possible.
GG
www.dot.state.fl.us
Gene Glotzbach, P.E.
Deputy State Traffic Operatior
Og-OG-'O0
OB:3~m From-~IA~I,ClVtL/SURVE¥
LODESTAR
SITE 11010 (I75 MM 92,$)
Pur~uan! to your request, please find enclosed the geodetic coordinates and elevation for the
proposed site located a! Interstate Route 75 and Mile Marker 92.5 in Collier County, Florida. This
information was determined in accordance with the standards as set forth in Subpart C of Part
of the Federal Aviation Authority. More specifically, the geodetic coordinate is referenced to the
North American Datum of 19g3 ClqAD83), Adjustment of 1990, and has a positional uncertainty
of plu~ or minus one (l) second of arc. Geodetic coordinates (NADg3) have been conYe~ted to the
North American Datum of 192'/0qAD27) using the program NADCON. Elevations
referenced to the Iqational Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD1929) and arc accurate to the
nearesl foot.
Latitude N 26~09'12.043"
Longitude W 081°32'3$.1
Latitude lq 26°09, 10.721"
Longitode W 0~1~32
£L]~VATION (bIGVD29}.
Ground Elevation at Proposed c,~nter of tower = 13.3 feet
Furthermore, at our client's request, we are ~ating th~! the Horizontal location (Latitude and
Longitude) is within an accuracy of 50 feet and the Vertical location is within an accuracy of 20
A ~2W-~A ITE~
APR 2 4 2001