Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/10/1990 R- . Naples, Florida, April 10, 1990 'LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as been created according to law and having conducted business ..<!herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in I~HGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government.,C'omplex, East Nap/es, Florida, with the ~oll°wing members present: i>i'~ CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. :' VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Arms Goodnight James'C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance ALSO PRESENT: Director; Ellte Hoffman and Carol McClenathen, Deputy Clerks; Nell )orrill, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; ~omas Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County · ! Attorney; Brenda Wilson, Assistant County Attorney; Frank Brutt, :.[..Community Development Services Administrator; George Archibald, ~ortation Services Administrator; William Lorenz, Environmental · Services Administrator; Ken Baginski, Planning Services Manager; ~{Robert Mulhere, Ron Nino, Bryan Milk, Barbara Cacchione, and David ;Weeks,' Planners; Jeff Adair, Environmental Specialist; Sue Ftlson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, 'i~Shertff's Office. · CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES April 10, 1990 Commissioner Shanmhan movad, seconded by Commissioner Ooodntght &nd c&rrled unanimously, th&t the &gend& and coneant &gend& be &pproved with the following changes: Item 9(B)l) - Board consideration of a resolution authorizing the County to provide Interim management for the Marco Island Airport. (Added as requested by Staff). Item 8(B) - Presentation by Dudley Goodlette re: Juvenile Welfare Services - To be heard at 10:00 A.M. Items 6(C)(5) and 9(H)(2) - Sales Tax and Tourist Development Tax to be heard at 1:00 P.M., with Tourist Tax presented first. Item 12(A) - Proposed legislation on commercial vessels tn man-made canals - Continued to 4/17/90. Item 7(A)(3) - Petition A-87-5, appeal of tl,e Planning/Zoning Director's decision to refuse 'the Issuance oF an occupational license for Subway of Marco, Inc., due to non-conformance with Ordinance 82-2. - Withdrawn, as requested by County Attorney. ;;!~i:i: Coutsstoner Hasse congratulated Alle~ Madsen of Capital Projects, for 10 years of service with Collier County Government. He presented him with a Certificate and a 10 year pin. i;:.Xtem ~B1 ORDINANCE 90-26, RE PETITION PDA-89-10, BILL VINES OF VINKS & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPR~SENTIN~ MONTERA~' ASSOCIATES REQUESTING ~S TO ~ WOODBRI~E P~, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SlD~ OF O~GE BLOSS~ RO~ BE~EN GOODLETTE RO~ ~D AI~ORT ROAD - ~PTED SUBJECT TO PETITIOn'S A~~ AS MODIFIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on March 22, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 85-25, which established the "Woodbrldge" Planned Unit ....;:Devel°pment, by changing the name to "Monterey", and various other changes. !ii[ Planner Weeks explained that the petitioner is requesting amend- merits to the Woodbrldge PUD which is located on the north side of e Blossom Road, approximately 1/3 mile northeast of the Goodlette Page 2 April 10, 1990 Extension. i".'Mr. Neeks reported that there are several requested amendments, ~.?the most significant being; the addition of single family detached dwellings, public and private parks, playground, and play fields within the multi-family residential designated areas of the PUD; adding a provision within the multi-family residential area for patio homes, zero lot line housing, villas, single family detached units, and townhouses; adding a provision regarding the Subdivision Regulations (in effect) by providing for a 40' right-of-way in the cluster, villa, and patio homes within the multi-family residential area; and relocation of the emergency interconnection along the eastern property line. Mr. Weeks stated that the surrounding land use and zoning is as follows: to the north, agriculture fields and undeveloped land, A-2 and A-2ST; to the east, partially developed with infrastructure and some dwellings, and the Bridget Lake PUD; to the south, partially developed with infrastructure and some dwellings, including the Sleepy Hollow PUD; the west is undeveloped, A-2, and the Pine Ridge Sub- division. Mr. Weeks stated that in 1985, the Woodbridge PUD was approved for 907 dwelling units, and is partially built. He noted that Staff's ':calculations indicatP that this will be developed well under the maxi- ?. - mum number of units that are permitted. He advised that the gross :": density of the PUD is 4.67 units per acre which is greater than the 3 '~. ' units per acre allowed in the Growth Management Plan, however, Policy 6.1 does allow for existing Development Orders to be amended and con- ststent with the Growth Management Plan as long as the amendment yield is the same or less intensity. :,.~.~, In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks explained that Staff -3:' will be proposing that Policy 5.1 be deleted from the Growth Management Plan, but until that action occurs, that Poli.'y is still in effect, and allows for this project and others to request an amend- -'ment. er. c. ClOOO8 Page 3 April 10, 1990 ~i{,!i..-} Commissioner Saunders stated that the conce~'u that he shares with ~,;~: .. · i:Commissioner Volpe, is if this project is subject to zoning re- " evaluation, he does not want to do anything today whlch would legally ." prohibit that. He indicated that he is not asking the Petitioner to 'il.give up'any rights that he may have relative to the evaluation other ~than issues that may arise from virtue of approval of the petition .t..toda¥· '~?'" Attorney Bruce Anderson, representing the petitioner, stated that '. ' if this project is subject to zoning re-evaluation he believes that , this property may qualify as improved property or one of the exemp- ttons since his client has built and dedicated roadways. After conferring with his client, Attorney Anderson stated that the Petitioner agrees that any action that is taken today will not negatively or positively affect any claim that he may have under the ~..Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance. Mr. Jack McKenna of Agnolt, Barber and Brundage, informed Commissioner Volpe that the tract to the north contains 90 units, and ~ii[! the tract to the west contains 79 units. Mr. Bill Vines stated that this project is approved for a maximum inumber of dwelling units, .but it is not developed to the maximum. He indicated that the adjusted zoning will not have much affect on this project. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks advised that because the entire project is not yet under review, he cannot give a final number, but his calculations indicate that if the project is con- ':sistent with the density rating system at 3 units per acre, it would yield 501 units for the PUD, and the remaining ? acre tract would be allowed 100 units. Commissioner Hasse voiced concerns relative to the number of parking spaces, and noted that in many instances the residents of three bedroom units have 3 cars and there is not adequate parking. Planning Services Manager Baginskt Informed that there are provt- :: ./sions tn the Ordinance which allow a reduction in parking spaces, but Page 4 April 10, 1990 that he has directed his Staff that during their review of mUlti-family projects that they are not to enter into agreements for reserving parking spaces. He indicated that at this point in time, .,'reductions in parking spaces are not being issued. Commissioner Hasse suggested that Staff look Into the parking ~. recfutrements for individual units. ...~.: County Attorney Cuyler suggested that Staff may want to look into an amendment eliminating reserved parking. Planner Weeks reported that prior to the Collier County Planning Commission meeting, three issues of concern have been resolved. He noted the Petitioner has withdrawn his objection relative to the uti- lities, and language has been drafted regarding a 40' minimum right- of-way for the streets which will be reviewed during the Subdivision Master Plan review. He noted that there were also miuor changes made to the PUD documents. He stated that the PUD document, regarding minimum setbacks, does not list separate setbacks for accessory struc- tures, and the typical 10' rear setback has been added. Mr. Weeks stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recom- mended approval of this petition, subject to Staff's recommendation. He advised that there was no public comment nor was any correspondence received relative to this petition. Mr. Vines stated that he is in total agreement with the Staff Report, and all stipulations have been incorporated into the PUD docu- i~ ~.ment. He noted that this project is almost completely developed, is a pleasant neighborhood, and there are no parking problems. Commissioner Volpe stated that this project will be built out at approximately 3 units per acre which is consistent with the new Growth Management Plan, and questioned if the applicant would agree, as part of the approval of the amendment to the PUD, to a reduction in the density of 3 units per acre? Mr. Vines advised that the Petitioner prefers to deal with this at ?the time that the project is subjected to the Zoning Re-Evaluation !-Ordinance. Page 5 April 10, 1990 With regard to voluntarily reducing the density, Mr. Anderson (~ilnformed that his client assisted on a construction project ~or a sewer force main for the County in the North Naples Area, and the cost share was based on 907 units. He stated that if the County ts willing i- 'to give his client a refund on his costs that were contributed, he !~';wtll agree to lower the density. There were no other speakers. Co~iseloner ~oodntght ~oved, seconded by Co~tsetoner 5hanahan and carried unani~ously, that the public hearing be closed. Co~isstoner Shanahan aovsd, seconded by Couatsstoner Saunders, and carried 4/1, (Co-~isstoner Volpe opposed) that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below be adopted, subject to the Petitioner's A~ree~ent as modified, and entered Into Ordinance Boo2 No. 38; with the Zoning re-evaluation not being affected by today's action. ORDINANCE 90-28 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 85-25, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE "WOODBRIDGE" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY REVISING THE COVER PAGE TO CHANGE THE NAME TO "MONTEREY", TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE AMENDING AGENT, AND TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE REVISED PUD DOCUMENT; AMENDING THE LIST OF EXHIBITS TO REFLECT TIlE NEW PUD MASTER PLAN; AMENDING SECTION I, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION AND STANDARDS, SUBSECTION 1.O1, PURPOSE AND SHORT TITLE, BY CHANGING THE OWNERSHIP NAME AND PUD NAME; DELETING SUBSECTION 1.04, FRACTIONALIZATION OF TRACTS, AND REPLACING IT WITH NEW SUBSECTION 1.04, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 1.05, SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BY CHANGING THE TITLE AND MAKING SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE; AMENDING SUBSECTION 1.08, PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS, BY CLARIFYING THAT THIS OPTION HAS BEEN UTILIZED; AMENDING SECTION II, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL "S", SUBSECTION 2.04, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, PARAGRAPH 2.04.02, MINIMUM LOT AREAS AND DIMENSIONS, BY PROVIDING NEW STANDARDS FOR ODD-SHAPED LOTS; AMENDING SECTION III, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL "M", SUBSECTION 3.03, PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES, BY ADDING CERTAIN USES, BY DELETING OTHER USES REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND BY RELETTERING SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPH "C" TO "B"; AMENDING SUBSECTION 3.04, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE TITLE TO MULTI-FAMILY AND CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY DELETING REFERENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND BY PROVIDING FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING SUBSECTION 3.04, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, PARAGRAPH 3.04.04 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, BY DELETING REFERENCE TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL; ADDING SUBSECTION 3.05, DIVISION OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TRACT LAND INTO INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNIT SITES, PARAGRAPHS 3.O5.01, GENERAL, 3.05.02, MINIMUM INDIVIDUAL DWELLING SITE STANDARDS, 3.05.03, SIGNS AND MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING, 3.05.04, MINIMUM INTERNAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY; AMENDING SECTION VI, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, SUBSECTION 6.08, TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION, BY CHANGING OWNERSHIP NAME AND BY PROVIDING FOR A DIFFERENT EMERGENCY ROAD CONNECTION; AMENDING THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO REFLECT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DAT~,_ April 10, 1990 ORDZ]ZIk~CE 90-29, AIRPORT RULES AND R~GUL&TIONS - ADOPTED &S AM~IDED; RF~OLUTION 90-196, EST&BLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS R~ CONDUCT OF ALL I~RSONS AND ACTIVITY INVOLVING COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORTS AND STANDARD~ FOR FIXED BASED OPERATORS AND TENANTS - ADOPTED AS AMENDED; RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR COUNTY OWNED/LEASED AIRPORTS - APPROVED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on March 22, 1990. as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance establishing, approving and adopting rules and regulations relating to the conduct of all persons and any activity involving Collier County ' owned &trports. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald indicated that as a result of the efforts of Staff and the Immokalee Atrport Advisory Committee to establish some updated rules and regulations for the Immokalee Airport and the Everglades City Airport, revised rules and regulations have been prepared. He Indicated that these address pri- marily two issues: the layout plan and master plan for each airport, how the properties wtll be developed the manner tn which the leases will occur, and the manner of which the various processes of reviewing developments of different sites will be reviewed; and the proper use of the ground and air space. He noted that these rules and regula- tions are somewhat standard and make reference to the FAA requirements that provide for good direction in controlling the activities at the airport sites. Mr. Archibald advised that the ordinance sets forth the ability to adopt rules and regulations by resolution; and action is also required for the resolution and the rules and regulations. Mr. Archibald indicated that Finance Director Yonkosky has com- mented that there may be some need to broaden one of the provisions of the ordinance. He called attention to the ordinance, Page 3, Section 5, which makes reference to "County-owned airports", and suggested that this be changed to "County-owned and County leased airports". County Attorney Cuyler noted that the suggested change should be 00 0, C 0012 Page 7 April 30, 1990 [i.!i:made in various places of the ordinance and resolution. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald remarked that the rules and regulations provide very specific requirements for insurance for any future lessee, and further providers direction to Staff that lease agreements be brought back to the Commission for future con- slderat ton. ..... i.. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether there is anything in the ordinance or rules and regulations which would impact the plans for the Immokalee Airport as it relates to it being in the Enterprise .:. Zone? Mr. Archibald replied that there is no negative affect. There were no speakers. Co~iesioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unantaouely, that the public hearln~ be closed. C~tesioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and tit/ed below be adopted, ~ubJect to the a~ended language and entered into Ordinance Book No. 38; that Resolution 90-196 be adopted, as a~ended, and that the R~lee and Re~ulations for County Owned and Count~ Leased Airports ORDINANCE 90-29 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING, APPROVING AND ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF ALL PERSONS AND ANY ACTIVITY INVOLVING COLLIER COUNTY OWNED AIRPORTS. Tt~ ~ April 10, 1990 REBOLUTIOH 90-197, RE PETITION CCCL-90-1, REPRES[NTED BY JOSEPH CHRISTY, REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. OF THREE PARKING SPACE COVERINGS AT THE CHALET OF SAN MARCO CONDOMINIUMS (520 SOUTH COLLIER BOULEVARD) - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on March 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCCL 90-1, filed by the Chalet of San Marco Condominium Association, represented by Joseph Christy, requesting a variance to allow construction of vinyl coverings for three existing open parking spaces seaward of the CCCL, for the Chalet of San Marco Condominiums in Section 17 and 18, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (520 South Coilter Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida). The discussion for this petition and Item 7A2, Petition V-90-1 were held concurrently since they are companion items. Environmental Specialist Adair reported that the San Marco Condominium Association is requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for the construction of coverings for three existing parking spaces. He advised that this is a minor struc- ture and is consistent with the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985, and Policy 11.4.7 of the Growth Management Plan, and therefore, staff ts recommending approval, suh3ect to the following stipulations: 1. Construction mater/als shall consist of aluminum posts with a vinyl top. No side structures are permissible. 2. Construction shall not commence until authorized by the Florida Department of Natural ReKources, Division of Beaches and Shores. 3. Outdoor lighting associated with such construction of deve- lopment, within 300 feet of the high tide line,, shall be in compliance with Section Three of Ordinance 88-52. Planner Mulhere explained that Joseph Christy, representing The Chalet of San Marco Condominium Association, is requesting a 70 foot variance from the required 75 foot side yard setback in order to place an accessory parking structure on an existing parking area. Mr. Mulhere informed that the RT district requires all setbacks to Page 9 April 10, 1990 *:~ be calculated on the formula of 55~ of the building height. He indi- cated that the required setback for accessory parking structures is the same as the setback for the principal structure, and in this case, that translates to ?5 feet. He noted that the the principal structure is a 12 story condominium and was constructed prior to 1982, when the current ordinance was adopted. Hr. Mulhere advised that there is an 8' high opaque hedge running along the property line which would screen the proposed accessory parking structure from the adjoining property owners, and noted that similar variances have been granted in the RT district in the past. Planner Mulhere called attention to Exhibit "A" in the Executive Summary, and affirmed that the Petitioner will not be adding any addi- ti~nal parking spaces, but merely adding aluminum poles and a canvas vinyl top. Mr. Mulhere stated that staff has received one letter and one phone call in opposition to this petition, citing a concern relative to a view obstruction. He affirmed that staff does not find this to be an issue as the view from the first floor is currently obstructed by trees and the existing parking. He noted that the height of the structure will not exceed 7.5', and therefore, there will be no view i.~i[:,i, obstruction from the upper floors. He submitted photos of the pro- :! ' posed spaces to be covered. Mr. Joseph Christy stated that his Condominium Association desires to duplicate the covered parking which currently exists on one side of the driveway. He advised that when the building was originally constructed, the developer built a 90 unit building, and provided 70 parking spaces under cover, but left 20 spaces uncovered. He noted that the unit owners of the 20 uncovered spaces desire to have their spaces covered. There were no other speakers. C~e~Assioner Saunders moved, seconded h~ Co.~AseAoner ~oodni~ht mhd cL-ried ~l~81y, that the ~bltc hearln~ ~ closed. ~~ioner Sa~dero ~ved, seconded ~ Coniooloner S~ ~d OOC, CIOO 2 ,,., Pmg~ 10 Apr:t! .~ cat,Amd unmnAmoumZ¥, to approve Pmtttton CCC~.-90-1, mhd tl~mt Rmmo/ut/on 90-197 bm adoptmd mubJect to ~t&f~*~ st/pul&t/ohm. 1990 00 (10033 April I0, 1990 "' RESOLUTION 90-198, PETITION V-90-1, 30SEPH CHRISTY, REFR~SENTZNG THE ~,, ~ 0~ S~ ~C0 C0~Z~Z~ ~SOCZATZ0~, ~STZXG A V~Z~C~ FOR J~ ACCESSORT PARKZNG STRUCTURE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 SOUTH COLLIEI~ BOULEVARD~ MARCO ISLAND {COMPANION TO CCCL-90-1) - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on March 11, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-90-1, filed by Joseph Christy, requesting a 70 foot variance from the required side yard setback of 75 feet to 5 feet, to permit an accessory parking structure in an RT zone for property located at 520 South Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida, Section 17 and 18, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This Item was discussed concurrently with Companion Item CCCL-90-1, as noted above. Comm/ntoner Saunders moved, seconded by Couisstoner Shmnmhan mhd c~xrLedunamtmously, that the public hearing be closed. CoBminioner Saunders ~ovsd, seconded by Co--Iasionar Shanahan and cirrAed unanimously, to approve Petition V-90-I, and that Resolution 90-198 be adopted. Page 12 Attorney Dudley Goodlette stated that there has been a long standing commitment of the community's preservation and enhancement of the quality of life and a need for persistence tn Growth Management policies relating to the conservation and protection of natural resources. He explained that unfortunately, there is no Growth Mana- gement policy, or any other sanctioned policy of the elected leaders to preserve and protect the most precious resource, the children. He urged that the Commission exercise leadership toward the establishment of a Children's Service Council whose purpose is to plan, coordinate, fund and evaluate a wide range of services to children and families. Mr. Goodlette explained that in 1986, the Florida Legislature enacted general legislation permitting the establishment of indepen- dent districts within each county to provide for programs, i.e. health care and shelter for children in need, substance abuse prevention, family support services, and child abuse prevention programs. He Informed that F.S. Section 125.901 provides for the establishment of Children's Services Council whose governing board is composed of 10 residents of the county, two of whom will be members of the School Board and a member of the County Commission, the Superintendent of Schools, a person from HRS, and a county Judge or a Judge that Is tn charge of ~uventle activities. Attorney Goodlette Indicated that the ostabltshment of the Council in Collier County would enable the community to confirm its commitment to invest now in the young people, rather than to pay later for the adult that the neglected or abused child may become. He noted that the future of Collier County is in the hands of these children. He explained that the investment of available resources on early inter- ventton and prevention that keeps a child out of prison as teenager, saves not only society dollars, but it saves victims enormous pain. Mr. Goodlette requested that the County Attorney draft the Page April 10, 1990 appropriate enabling legislation to enable the community to establish a Children's Services Council. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Attorney Goodlette said that at the present time he Is not askinG the County for any financial respon- sibility. He advised that this Is a thr~e step process: adopt an ordinance to establish the Council; have the Council conduct a need survey to determine the exact needs, and the appropriate funding mechanism; and, if appropriate, adopt a resolution to submit this to a referendum. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether other counties that have established a Children's Council have be~n ef£ectlve In addressing the problems as they relate to children? Mr. Dudley advised that the Council has been very successful tn Plnellas County, but noted that these Councils have only been established for the past two years. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he ts In favor of the ordinance. Be advised that the consultants that presented the Collier 2000 Study indicated that in their opinion, unless something is done about the children tn this community, there is no need to worry about the 1-75 driving crime that comes Into Collier County, since It will be bred in Collier County. Commissioner Saunders commended Attorney Goodlette on his presen- tation and voiced his support of the proposition. The following persons spoke tn favor of the establishment of a Ghildren's Services Council: Mrs. Bea Harper, representing Naples Alliance for Children Mr. David Schimmel, representing David Lawrence Center Deputy Jim Hanson The speakers tn favor of the Council, cited the following: it Is the government's business to protect its citizens; the creation of the Council will reduce the crime tn Collier County by 10~-15~; 76~ of the Juvenile crimes committed in Collier County were committed by 159 children; these children can be targeted, identified, and treated. The following persons spoke In opposition to the establishment of a Children's Services Council: Page 14 Mr. John VanArsdale Mr. George Keller April 10, 1990 Those speakers in opposition to the Children's Council, cited the following: the funding of the Council will be a burden that should not be placed on the taxpayers of Collier County; it is the respon- sibility of parents to raise their children, and County government should not be involved. Tape Oe~mAseloner Saundere m~ved, seconded by Commissioner 8hanahan and carrie<l unanimously, that the County Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance to establish a Children's Services Council and the appropriate resolutions, and bring back to the Commission as quickly as possible so that the Council may be forced to define the needs and the source of revenue, and the Commission can then detsraine during the ~uiler whether this issue should be put on the ballot. see Recess 10:15 A.M. - Rsconvened 10:45 A.M. at which time Depnt-Z Clerk McClenathen replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman see Xtem~¢4 ORDXIIA]I~I NO. 90-30, CREATING A MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION p~OalA~ - ADOFr~D SUBJECT TO CHAWaZS Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on March 15, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from April 3, 1990, to con- sider a proposed ordinance relating to the Solid Waste Collection program. Assistant County Manager McLemore Indicated that this item was heard at a BCC workshop on March 20, 1990. He explained that there are several issues that have been raised and the County Attorney's Office wanted an opportunity to comment on those issues, and provide a list of minor changes that are recommended for addition to the ordi- nance. Mr. McLemore stated that one of the issues ts whether or not the program could be started prior to the 1992 service year date, which is subject to F.S. Chapter 197, Tax Ce,rttficate Sale, the enforcement Page 15 April 10, 1990 mechanism for the collection of revenues. He stated that the program may be underway in 1991, but not through the tax certificate mecha- nism. To accomplish this, he explained, a lien procedure would have to be set up identical to the procedure used to collect the water/sewer bills, indicating that this system has a 95~ or better collection rate, however, there is an element of risk in trying to collect the fees earlier, and he cautioned the Board that they must be mindful of the cost of this risk. Commissioner Volpe acknowledged Mr. McLemore's review of the billing situation and questioned if the County has received an opinion from the Attorney General's Office. Assistant County Attorney Weigel informed the Commissioners that the Attorney General's Office has informally stated that they find no problem with the collection procedure proposed. Mr. Weigel further noted that the request has not been sent due to the probability that there will be further questions from the County Commissioners, which can be added to the communication and a quicker response received on all questions. Mr. We/gel pointed out that the collection mechanism can work through the Tax Collector's office and enforcement can follow in the same manner as is in place within the ordinance at the present time, adding that if the program is instituted prior to 1992, the Tax Collector's office will not be used pursuant to Chapter 197, but pur- suant to Chapter 173 of the Florida Statues which provides for similar collection and assessment through liens. Commissioner Volpe expressed concern as to why the collection mechanism is being changed, and further asked if the County is going to request a formal opinion. Mr. Weigel indicated that there is a tremendous cost involved in going through the proposed collection procedure, and the average total collections through this procedure is only 85~, prior to enforcement. In response to Commissioner Volpe's question, Mr. McLemore indi- cated that the total collections will be very close to 95~, which 00 C1 O43 Page 16 April 10, 1990 leaves 5% outstanding, at a rate of approximately $50,000 for every 1% or $250,000 that the County will be paying to the franchisee, while being uJlable to collect that same $250,000. Mr. McLemore further noted that there are administrative fees involved in lien collections. Commissioner Volpe asked if there is a way to transfer the respon- sibility to the franchisee, and Mr. McLemore indicated that if the collection is mandatory, it must be billed through the County. Commissioner Shanahan noted that the 85% collection combined with '[. the lien procedure collection of an additional 10% ts very good, however, the uncollected portion will still remain at approximately 5% · ?~ with a cost of $50,000 for every percentage point i: Commissioner Volpe asked if a public survey was done as discussed ~.~.- during the workshop, and Mr. McLemore, indicated that this question ~,'J · was not specifically addressed tn the report, and noted that the .!. mechanism is in place for a public survey to be completed wlthln two weeks, should it be necessary. Commissioner Volpe expressed concern over tl~e public understanding the implications of Mandatory Solid Waste Collection and its effect on the average resident of Collier County and that there may be a problem with speciflc areas which should not be subject to Mandatory Solid Waste Collection, citing Marco Island, North Naples and other areas that are not experiencing problems with trash. Mr. McLemore emphasized that there is no doubt that Mandatory Solid Waste Collection works and any billing procedure has its problems as to collections. Responding to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Weigel indicated that it is not possible to add a delinquent account from the first year's billing to the 1992 tax bill. It would instead, be a lien that carries for- ward on the property, and the County would have the option of going forward with a foreclosure procedure, he said. Commissioner Shanahan Indicated that he prefers to see the Mandatory Solid Waste Collection begin in 1991, and would like to see the County come up with a'suitable alternative for collection with Page 17 April 10, 1990 risk and less cost. Reiterating that there is no Public Opinion Poll, Commissioner Volpe stated that he would like to know if the Mandatory Solid Waste Collection Ordinance will have a significantly greater impact on the private citizens of the county than a re~xllar private waste collec- tion. He also indicated that he is opposed to a private citizen . Jeopardizing the ownership of his property because of a lien or tax certificate sale due to non payment of Solid Waste Collection bills. He said if the public understands what is being proposed and agrees to this type of collection, he is willing to initiate the program. Commissioner Hasse indicated that if there is no Mandatory Solid Waste Collection, the expense to the taxpayer for cleanup is high. Agreeing that there are a number of inequities, Mr. McLemore expressed the fact that a lot of people use the neighbors service because they do not have their own. He further expressed concerns about public health and safety and the initiation of a hardship system. Questioning whether there is really a cost benefit to the pub]lc, Commissioner Volpe stated that although Waste Management has agreed to hold the line on cost to the County, they are, in return getting County business and the County is underwriting the liability for non- payment. This liability, he continued, if unpaid by the property owner, will be built into the tax liability for those that do pay. Commissioner Saunders indicated that over a ten year period of time the tax assessments will be adjusted to reflect the actual receipts and any collections that are paid by the County will be covered. Commissioner Volpe indicated that there has been no communication with his district regarding the addressing of a Mandatory Solid Waste Collection Ordinance. He indicated that he would like to see what the public opinion is before making a decision. Commissioners Shanahan and Volpe both indicated that they do not have a problem with delaying the adoption of the Ordinance for two Page 18 April 10, 1990 weeks until a Public Opinion Poll can be taken and the results aha- contract. Commissioner Hasse indicated that the problem ts not with property owners and citizens who have waste pickup at the current time, but with those who do not, noting that ths burden will rest with those citizens and property owners who are already shouldering their respon- sibility. Mr. McLemore indicated that the level of service standard has pre- 'vtously been set at twice per week pickup as a minimum for residen- tial and commercial. He noted that Waste Management has 1200 comraerctal users who only have once a week pickup, adding that it Is Staff's opinion that once a week is enough except tn those instances of the generation of putresctble waste. Responding to Commissioner Volpe's question, Mr. McLemore indi- cated that commercial accounts will continue to be billed through the waste collector on an as needed basis, through a contractual agreement, and this will not affect the County's billing, however under the Ordinance a Commercial user has to present a copy of the contract for waste collection prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. He noted that the commercial rate is established through negotiations with the waste service provider and will be a published rate. The rate charged to the private citizen will also be negotiated with the provider by the County, Mr. McLemore continued, and will also be a published rate with no Increase in charges for the period of the Page 19 Mr. McLemore addressed the issue of the homeowner's associations, and said the County Attorney's recommendation is that they be billed the same as everyone else, as single family residences. At the pre- sent time, he stated, the Tax Collector has every unit of property on the tax rolls, and if the unit is a quadruplex or less, they will receive an individual assessment. There is, he added, no advantage to the homeowners association providing this service and billing for it the Ordinance goes Into effect. April 10, 1990 In further explaining the collection process, Mr. McLemore noted that If a multi-family housing area has both single, and multi-unit housing, all single units and multi-units of four or less will be billed through the Tax Collector, and anything larger will go through a commercial account. Commissioner Volpe noted that he lives in a single family resi- dence that has bulk container service and asked what his btlltng sta- tus would be, to which Mr. McLemore indicated that he Is not aware those types of situations exist and will have to do additional research. Noting that, contrary to the Ordinance as currently written, there ts no mandatory style of trash containers, Mr. McLemore Indicated to Commissioner Volpe, that whatever is currently used by residents to dispose of trash will be acceptable. Mr. McLemore reported that the proposal allows for mandatory resi- dential curbs/de recycling, and Commissioner Saunders noted that it ts his understanding that there will be no added cost to the resident Commissioner Volpe Indicated that an earlier agreement with Waste Management, tn order to pursue mandatory collection, stated that there would be no additional cost involved in mandatory curbside recycling, however, current Indication ts that there may now be a charge for It, even though it has been established that this is the most expensive way to do recycling. In response to Commissioner Volpe's request for cost, Mr. McLemore stated that the average cost would be $1.42/per household for recyclables, and the current rate will then be $8.50/per household per month for the next three years. Mr. George Keller said that he is In favor of mandatory collec- tion, but is concerned about the cost. Noting the amount of distance between some of the home locations, he asked if the homeowners in the more densely populated areas will be paying more so that those in the less densely populated areas can maintain the same rate. He indicated Page 20 April 10, 1990 that he feels the use of the word "urban" should not remain in the ordinance because of the amount of rural area that the Ordinance encompasses. }:e noted that the major recycling problem is not dispo- sable garbage, but debris that is left sitting in the swales, on berms or vacant lots, and asked if there is going to be pickup days for this type of refuse. Commissioner Volpe indicated that there will be uniform rates county-wide, within each of the two assessment districts, with the potential of Immokalee being assessed at a different rate. Commissioner Volpe noted that the Ordinance as written states that the pickup of unlimited quantities of debris shall be included in the special assessment imposed herein, without any additional assessment, service charge, or tax to be imposed by the Board or the Contractor for such service. Mr. McLemore explained that this means that the cost will be included in the overall monthly bill and no additional bills will be sent for this service. Responding to Commissioner Goodntght's question about franchise areas, Mr. McLemore indic;ired that the current franchise areas will remain the same. Mr. McLemore indicated that when the issues related to the Ordinance are cleared up, negotiations for the cost of requested types of pickup can begin. He suggested that the Board remain in favor of unlimited collection due to its importance, and further noted that this mandatory collection would not have any bearing on the collection of hazardous waste. Speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, Mrs. Gharlotte Westman indicated that a major part of the problem in Collier County ls litter, noting that when people have to pay for a service they usually use it. She stated that the issue of garbage in this Country is a serious issue because the United States throws away more trash than any other Country in the world. Indicating that the League of Women Voters has taken telephone April :10, :1990 polls, Mrs. Westman advised the Board that the response to questions related to trash and garbage are positive; stating that garbage and trash collection in the neighborhood is as good as can be expected, however, the disposal of this garbage is a major problem in the county. Mrs. Westman voiced concern with regard to the manner of payment for waste collection, referring to attaching the charges to tax assessments on an annual basis. She noted for the Board that Rule 17.708 recf~ires the County, as of October 1, 1990, to determine and make available to every citizen in the community, the cost of handling solid waste disposal, including the cost to haul it from the pickup site to the landfill or disposal site, and any other related charges. Mr. Anthony Zetger, Vice President of Waters Edge Condominium Association on Marco Island, said that he and the other owners are unclear as to what effect the Mandatory Solid Waste Collection Ordinance will have on them. He asked if a condominium association could use its manager to haul waste in lieu of using the County's contractor under this exemption procedure. Mr. McLemore indicated that through the exemption clause in the Ordinance, assuming the condominium manager follows the procedure, he can be exempt. He explained that the manager would have to demonstrate that he personally would be hauling the waste and not hiring an outside contractor, as the county contractor has an exclu- sive franchise for the entire county. If the waste is hauled by the manager or staff of the condominiums, theze is no necessity of obtaining bulk containers and locating them on the site, he said. Mr. Willie Anthony addressed the Board regarding his concern that the billing for this waste collection is being tied to property taxes, stating that he feels that many people pay as they go and to have to pay for service that has yet to be received, is inappropriate. Commissioner Vo]pe indicated there is a mechanism in place with the Tax Collector that allows for taxes and all assessments to be paid on a quarterly basis, if the taxpayer signs up for this type of set- Page 22 April lO, 1990 ':' vice. Mr. Anthony indicated he feels an approach that would be fair would be to bill on a monthly basis, and if the bills are not paid, they could be attached to the tax bills. Mr. We/gel indicated that the billing would be in advance for the entire year, and Mr. Anthony asked what will happen to any unused tion. Commissioner Hasse indicated that this will be handled in the same manner as the taxes on the property, In the event that the pro- perty is no longer owned by the same person. Mr. Anthony emphasized that he feels there is something inherently wrong with a government that demands that a citizen pay for a service he does not receive. Mr. Dorrtll indicated that much of the waste removal will be subsidized by residents who only live in the County part of the year, and they are not exempt Commissioner Volpe indicated that mandatory collection does not operate the way the cable or the utility companies do, in that, when someone is away or does not want the service, you can have it terminated. Commissioner Goodnigh~: indicated that Collier County is not setting a precedent by instituting Mandatory Solid Waste Collection, because such procedures have already been established in Hendry, Lee, Charlotte and other counties throughout the State. Mr. McLemore indicated that no Certificate of Occupancy for any residence will be issued until the balance of the year's waste collec- tion has been paid. Mr. Weigel indicated that if the Board determines they will have mandatory pickup of recyclable materials, they will have to define what comprises the recyclable items. Commissioner Goodntght Indicated that, as of this date, she would be unable to reassure the Board that Immokalee would willingly comply with the mandatory recycling, because there are many people in that area that make a living by collecting recyclable refuse, and to enforce the ordinance will mean a loss in income for these people. Page 2 3 April ]0, ~990 Mr. McLemore indicated that when considering Commissioner Goodntght's statement, there are now three optio3s that can be con- sldered by the County; removing mandatory recyclinG from the Ordinance; leaving the mandatory portion in the ordinance; or nego- tiating a voluntary recyclinG program. Indicating that the goal is to meet the State Mandate on Solid Waste and Recyclables, Mr. McLemore said it would be difficult for the County to comply with a voluntary system. In response to Commissioner Volpe's question regardinG the inclu- sion of the definitions of hazardous, bi-hazardous, and biologica1 waste in the Ordinance, Mr. McLemore stated that this is the manner in which the County knows, by definition, what is excluded. Ms. Cynthia Sweering stated that she appreciates Commissioner Volpe looking into this matter and the fact ~that he feels more input is needed. She concurred with Mr. Willie Anthony, who indicated that the group this ordinance is aimed at are those who probably do not have waste removal at the present time. In order to Get these people to comply, she continued, the mandatory ordinance is being proposed, however, these are also the people who can only afford to pay by the month and billing them by the year prior to the service presents problems for them. Mr. Kim Egelseer, General Manager for Waste Management, Inc., addressed the Commission and stated that many of the issues presented this date are best left to the contract negotiations, and the discussion of a mandatory waste collection ordinance is more an environmental issue than anything else. Mr. Egelseer further noted that the County has hired an outside consultant who endorsed havinG a mandatory solid waste collection policy. Mr. Egelseer stated that they are currently billing 60 to ?0% of the accounts that they are collecting waste from, and that out of that billing percentage, 98.§% of the accounts are paid in full and on time. He noted that these people are the people who want the service and therefore are willing to pay, and collections are relatively easy. 00 [ 0051 Page 24 April 10, 1990 Mr. Egelseer noted that the most effective way of collecting recyclables is curbstde, because drop off service is not effective and will not meet the state mandated goal of 30~. Mr. Egelseer stated that he feels 1992 ts too long to watt and urged the Board to imple- ment the ordinance. Mr. Egelseer indicated that he does not endorse mandating twice weekly pickup for commercial accounts because there are currently 1200 customers who receive one pick up per week and they are very small businesses that do not have the need for more service. Mr. Egelseer concluded by stating that in his initial contact with Mr. Dorrill he indicated that if the current level of service is implemented, there will be no additional charge for recycle service, however, should the county add services he will not be able to main- rain the orfgtnal agreement. Those specific services he stated are: unltmlted residential service vs. a ten item limit, which is the current contract language; unlimited pickup of 3unk (white goods); and small commercial accounts who use containers such as plastic bags, which are presently billed at a higher rate than the container rate. Co--missioner Goodntght moved, seconded b~ co~atsstoner Shanmhmn and carried 5/0, that the Public Hearing be closed. Co~lssioner Shanahan aoved, seconded by Conisstoner Goodntght, that the Ordinance be adopted with the reco~nded changes. Further discussion by Commissioner Volpe and Commissioner Shanahan indicated that the intent of the motion ts that Mandatory Solid Waste Collection begin in 1991; that there is to be no Public Opinion Poll conducted; and that there be a favorable opinion from the Attorney General that the Tax Collector can be used to bill the property owners for waste collection. Mr. Cuyler advised that Commissioner Shanahan's motion include the flexlbllity to change the definition as noted In Section Q, relative to recyclables. Co, missioner Sh~n uended his motion ms referenced &hove, and Co~tealon~r Goodnight a~ended her second. Upon Call for the question, the motion carried 5/0 that the Apr// 10, 1990 u numbered and titled below be adopted and entered into Book No. 38 with the above referenced chanf;ee: ORDINANC~ 90-30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING TWO (2) MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AND REGULATING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL WITHIN THE BENEFIT UNITS: PROVIDING DEFINITIONS: PROVIDING FOR CREATION, PURPOSE, DECLARATION OF BENEFIT; GOVERNING BODY; POWERS; BUDGET ADOPTION; TRUST FUND; PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ACCUMULATION OF SOLID WASTE; ANNUAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; ANNUAL RATE RESOLUTION; CERTIFICATION OF RATE RESOLUTION; SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE CHARGE PRIOR TO INITIATION OF ANNUAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: SCOPE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; DELINQUENCY; LIENS; PAYMENTS; CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS; FAILURE TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON ANNUAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL; MANDATORY COLLECTION; PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL; RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR AND CUSTOMER FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION; TERMINATION OF SERVICE BY CONTRACTOR; EXEMPTION PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING AND REVOKING EXEMPTION PERMITS; SEVERABILITY; PENALTIES; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. e$s D~put~ Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk McClenathen at this time ',, 90-199, I~E PKTITION PU-89-25, JAM~S L. HARP~I~ OF A-'I (IAS ~PI~ENTIN(~ NAPLES FERTILIZER AND SUPPLY CO., REQUESTING FOR R~TAIL SALES OF PROPAN~ - ADOPTED ~IIBJECT TO Planner Hoover stated that the petitioner is requesting a provi- sional use In a C-4 ZoninG D/strict to allow the retail sales of pro- pane gas. He stated that currently, Naples Fertilizer and Supply Company sells gas grills, and they desire to sell propane as an accessory use from a 1,000 gal/on tank from the rear of their building. Mr. Hoover indicated that the subject property ts west of Goodlette Road, east of 14th Street North, and approximately 700' south of Solana Road. He stated that the project is within the Golden Gate Parkway/Goodlette Road overlay zoning district, but it does meet the requirements of that district. Mr. Hoover noted that the Collier County Planning Commission held their public hearinG on March 1, 1990, and recommend approval of this Page 26 ~i~'Petition, subject to one stipulations from the Fire Department. Commissioner Volpe stated that he has a concern with regard to a day care center which is located close to the proposed provisional use. He questioned whether staff ~s satisfied that there is suf- ficient buffering between the propane tan~ and the day care center? Mr. James Harper of A-! Gas Company, explained that 3" posts are buried tn concrete around the tank to stop vehicles. He noted that the property is fenced in. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether the petitioner will be pro- vidinG some type of aesthetic screen along Goodlette Road to obscure the tank from the roadway? Mr. Harper replied that this could be pro- vided. Commissioner Volpe suggested that either a slat diagonal hurricane type fence be provided or some type of vegetation. ~t~s~oner ~oodn~ght ~ov~d, seconded by Co~mi~ioner Volpe ~nd cad,led unanimously, that Petition PU-89-25 be approved, subject to the stipulation from the Fire Department, and the additional stipulation relative to providing hurricane type fencing or eo~e t~ of v~tmtion ~ the area of the tank, thereby adopting Resolution PHTITION V-9,0-5, BENJAMIN L. $O[~ER RHQUESTIN(I A VAR!ANCR FROM TH~ ~ ~EAH YARD SETBACI[ FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 403 lIN(tS W&Y, LOT 5t F~IEFIR~ UNIT 3 - DENIRD Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on March 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affldavt~ of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-90-5, flied by Benjamin L. Sommer, requesting a 10 foot variance from the required rear yard setback of 30 feet to 20 feet, for a proposed addi- tion to an existing structure, in a PUD district, for Lot §, Block G, Foxfire Unit 3, 403 King Way. Planner Milk indicated that the petitioner ts requesting a 10 foot variance tn order to construct a room addition. He affirmed that the subject property is zoned "PUD" and allows a single-family resi- dence as a permitted principal use. Ne noted that the property ts an interior lot, pie-shaped, therefore, it has two side yards, one rear yard and one front yard. He stated that the proposed room addition will replace the petitioner's existing screened-tn porch, and would be attached to the rear of the structure and serve as a family room, overlooking the lake adjacent to the rear property line. Mr. Milk advised that tn reviewing this petition, based upon the criteria contained tn Section 11 lb.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff has determined that granting this variance will not be In harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and therefore, recom- mends denial. Mr. Milk noted that the Collier County Planning Commission held their public hearing on March 1§, 1990, and recommended approval (?/1) of this petition. , Mr. Ben3amtn Sommer stated that his adjacent neighbors do not }?.~ object to his variance request. He advised that he proposes to remove 2' from his existing screened enclosure and turn it Into a family room. He noted that it will have a permanent roof rather than a tin ,i, roof. There were no other speakers. Page 28 'C~m~esioner Volpe moved, seconded by Cou~es~oner Saunde~e and carriedunanlmously, to close the publAc hearing. Commissioner Saunders stated 'that Mr. Sommer has a personal need that is in conflict of the Zonlng Ordinance, but unfortunately, there is no reason to grant this request, and noted that thls is a very d~f- ficult situation. Commissioner Volpe remarked that the Commission has recently denied similar requests since they conflicted with the Zoning Ordinance. C~tutoner Volpe moved, seconded by Co~mtsstoner Saundere and carried 4/1 (Coas~tseloner Shana%an opposed), that Petition V-90-5 be ItE~OLUTZON 90-200, PETITION PU-89-2, WZLSON, ~ZLLER, BARTON, SOLL A ~lO~ US~ "F" OF A-2 (PET C~y), L~AT~D ON ~ SO~ Planne~ N~no stated that ~n Ap~l, 1989, the Comml~$~on approved a P~ov~s~onal Use ~n an AgrJcultura~ Dlst~ct fo~ a pet cemetery located on the south side of Davis Boulevard, app~oxlmately ~,000 feet east of Santa Barbara Boulevard. 'He ~nd~cated that the PetJt~one~ ~s ~equest]ng an extension of the P~ovls~onal Use approval fo~ an addi- tional yea~. He noted that Staff ~ecommends approval of the ~equest. ~~i~ ~ght ~, ~cond~ ~ Co~ss~one~ Vol~ ~d c~ ~~ly, to mpp~e Petition PU-S9-2, extending the ~lsl~ U~ for one ye~, ~b~ect to the Pe~t~onm~,~ ~~nt, ~~ ~ti~ ~solut~on 90-200. Page 29 STAI~F TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL USES FOR THE TOURIST DEVELOPI~NT TAX, EXCLUDING MARCO, AND EVENTUALLY EXCLUDING II~OKALEE; AND PRESENT DRAFT OF ORDINANCE ON MAY 8 FOR CONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER REF'EI~DOM Assistant County Hanager McLemore stated that recommendations as they relate to the Tourist Development 3ax are being presented. Re noted that certain members of the Commission have indicated that they desire to have this item heard in conjunction with the Sales Tax. He requested direction relative to Staff developing a program for the use of the Bed Tax and that the Commission commit to the date of November 6 for the adoption of the Tax. He noted that Staff will bring back a program of expenses, projects, and a date to set the referendum. Mr. McLemore noted that the use of the Bed Tax as it relates to the continuous renourishment of beaches would do what was proposed to ,??~. be done by the Marco Taxing District, and there is substantial benefit ~ii:" to the people of Marco. Commissioner Saunders stated that he has difficulty in setting a referendum date prior to knowing the uses of the tax, and the question of whether or not to include Marco. Commissioner Hasse remarked that this came about by the Local Option 1¢ Sales Tax being on the ballot in September rather than in November, and in h~s opinion, this is part and parcel of it. Commissioner Volpe commented that he agrees that this matter should be placed on the referendum, but the Commission does not have any of the details. Commissioner Shanahan mentioned that one of the principal reasons the Tourist Development Tax was previously defeated was that there would be beach renourfshment and other purposes, without definitions, and from his view point, it is impossible to vote on it without defi- n~tion. He noted that the people on Marco have said that they have a Beach Renourishment Tax and Island Wide Tax that has collected over $500,000 for renourishment purposes, and they should be excluded since they have totally different marketing needs, and they are not interested in promoting the Philharmonic. He stated that he is Page 30 April 10, 1990 willing to vote for a Tourist Development Tax, but not for an open ended tax which includes Marco Island. Commissioner Saunders stated that the last time this Issue was brought before the Commission, there was a 2/2 vote, and he did not vote since he was advised that he should not participate in the voting. He advised that he requested a formal opinion from the Commission on Ethics, and has received a response informing him that he may vote on this issue. He suggested that discussions be held on this Tax, and then an informal vote to determine whether a majority of the Commission ts interested in pursuing the Tourist Development Tax form, and then Staff can come back with the ordinance. The following persons spoke In favor of the Tourist Development Tax: Mrs. Charlotte Westman Mr. George Keller Col. John Beebe, Jr. Mr. Dick Butthof Those persons speaking In favor of the Tax cited the following: the island-wide MSTU on Marco is pinpointed for beach access; the referendum should be County-wide; the Marco Nourishment Project ts a one time shot, and there are no monies for beach maintenance; 70~ of the people who use Marco's beaches are tourists; many of the people who rent condominiums on the Marco beach are tourists; it is unfair to place a tax on the rest of the people in Collier County and exclude Marco Island; the Bed Tax should be put on the September ballot; without the beaches tn Collier County, the hospitality industry would not exist; the Bed Tax ts well suited to maintain the beaches; the Bed Tax should be devoted entirely to maintaining the beaches; the Philharmonic should raise its own money and not be entitled to any of the money from the Bed Tax; let the voters decide if they believe a Bed Tax te appropriate in Collier County; The following persons spoke tn opposition to the Tourist Development Tax: Ms. Dawn Norgren Mr. Steve Wheeler Mrs. Barbara Mtnch Ms. Rosemarte D'Haem (>£LL OOTU Page 31 Mr. Robert Stakich Mr. Mike Watkins Mr. John Dougherty April 10, 1990 Those persons speaking tn opposition to the Tax cited the following: it is nearly impossible for the Tax Collector to collect this tax; the Bed Tax issue throughout the state is a nightmare; Marco Island should be excluded; the tax ts unfair and unnecessary; this tax ts taxation without representation; there are better ways to address beach renourtshment and cultural events; the residents of Immokalee should not be paying for the beach in Naples; overall marketing cam- patgns do not help Marco Island or Immokalee; the need should be established first, and then the tax could be created; Marco should be taxed and the rest of the County should be excluded, based on who owns beachfront properties; there has not been a clear definition of the use of the tax; this tax is double taxation for beach renourishment and maintenance on Marco Island; the tax will have a definite effect on the service people, and many will be out of jobs; the property owners on the west side of U.S. 41 should pay a maintenance tax; many of the areas that have a Bed Tax, have had a decline tn their tourist business; the County should gear its efforts toward passing the 1¢ Local Option Sales Tax, rather than the Bed Tax; Naples should renourish their own beaches; 3 Blue Ribbon Committees have recommended denial of this tax; the Bed Tax should be used for promotion of the tourist Industry and not for any other uses; tourists already pay their fair share. Commissioner Saunders stated that he Is In favor of considering the Tourist Development Tax, but he ts not prepared today to say that he ts in favor of putting this on the ballot In November since he does not know what the uses are. He suggested that if there is an indica- tion from the Commission that they are supportive of the concept of the Tourist Tax, and assuming that Staff comes back with the appropriate use, this may be considered for November. He noted that he believes that Marco Island should be excluded, since these people 00 C 0071 Page 32 April 10, 1990 already taxed themselves for their beach renourtshment project and they will be paying for a portion of the County's Beach Renourishment project if the lC Local Option Sales Tax is approved. ~t Ot~f ~ dl~t~ to co~ ~ck with ~tential ~es for this t~t ~co Iel~ ~ excluded, ~d ~~lly excl~tng $t~f to ~mt ~aft of ordtmce ~ ~ 8th, for c~t~rati~ of N~ ~fe~, if the ~e~ are a~r~. Co~tsstoner Volpe stated that he has been one of the outspoken advocates of the Bed Tax, and noted that he cannot support the motion since a signif~cant portion of the community will be excluded from the obligations of paying the Co~issloner Hasse indicated that he concurs with Co~issioner Volpe and is in support of the motion, with the exception of the exclusions. He noted that the beauty of the beaches in Collier County is primarily what brings the tourists into the area. ~ =a~l for the ~t~on, the ~tlon carried 3/2 ~W Clerk NcCl~then r~lac~ N~ty Clerk Hoffm Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on March 22, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider the adoption of an Ordinance calling for a referendum on the question of the Local Option Infrastructure Sales Tax in Collier County and to establish the recom- mended projects to be funded by the tax. Mr. Dorrlll stated that there will not be a staff presentation, and Indicated that there have been a number of changes In the original scope of the tax. As a result of these changes the recommended list of projects Is: Page 33 April 10, 1990 Schools State and local roads Jails and /aw enforcement factltti~s Beach renourlshment Mr. Dorrtll stated that this list ts considered to be the Core Projects, noting that the beach renourtsbment project will benefit the City of Naples and will be worked out with an tnterlocal agreement. Mr. Dorrtll said that failure to work out such an tnterlocal agreement means that the City will receive their statutortal share which is 13~, based on a proportionate share calculation, with the City being allowed to determine which of their projects should receive funds from the tax. Mr. Dorrill Indicated that the schools and state road needs repre- sent 60% of the sales tax, and these combined with the other needs of the county will mean a minimum ten year duration for this tax. Indicating that sales tax receipts are cyclical tn nature, Mr. Dorrlll stated that the County Manager's Office will not have a problem in recommending rescinding the tax earlier than the projected ten year period If the funds are collected at an accelerated rate. Mr. Dorrill added that he feels the Commission needs to outline the specific areas where funds will be allocated. The final change that Mr. Dorrlll recommended ts based on the capital improvement program for the School Board, explaining that the reason he is recommending a September 4, 1990, referendum is to provide the schools with an assurance of funds when the 1990-91 budget becomes effective in October. Should the referendum be deferred until +:i,~' November, Mr. Dorrtll continued, it will be beyond the point at which ~i~, · the School Board can apply the millage and there will be a capital Improvement program shortfall. Responding to Commissioner Hesse' question, Mr. Dorrtll said that the beach renourlshment funds that will be allocated to the City of Naples will also include the State roads that are tn the City. Mr. McLemore added that the City portion of the beach renourtshment program is scheduled to cost $14 million, and the U.S. 41 Improvements ~:~' Page 34 :.',~[ ,~ .: , April 10, 1990 within the City will amount to approximately $6 million. Commissioner Saunders asked Mr. Dorrtll if tkis was the original figure, or if it has been adjusted due to the reduction in revenues. He suggested that if the beach renourishment project is not endorsed by the County he will be inclined to disagree with the course of action and there will not be a unanimous vote from the Board. Commissioner Volpe stated that he feels there is some confusion with respect to beach renourishment in District #2 and it is his understanding that Pelican Bay is not part of the plan, and Wiggins State Park is not going to be renourtshed. He asked what beach within District #2 is going to be renourished? Mr. Dorrill responded that the beach scheduled for renourishment in District #2 is Vanderbilt Beach. Commissioner Volpe stated that the Sales Tax is going to be collected County-wide, including District #2, and if the only benefit that his district will get in beach renourtshment will be 15OO feet of beach, he may be in disagreement with the Core Projects. Commissioner Hasse noted that Commissioner Volpe is assuming that his constituents only use Vanderbilt Beach, and that a major portion of the road improvements scheduled to be paid for by this sales tax are in District #2, as well as Immokalee, where there are no beaches to renourish, and Marco Island, where the beaches have already been renourished. Mr. Dorrill assured the Commissioners that there is a good consti- tuency County-wide, who will endorse adequate beaches and support their renourishment. He noted that the ranourishment program has great value in storm protection for the City and the County. Referring to the discussions relative to the Bed Tax from the residents of Marco Island, Mr. Dorrill indicated that he feels the beaches in North Naples are more accessible and serve a wider range of public uses than those on Marco Island, and there is a great deal more '.,,? . parking access. Referring to the newly acquired area at Barefoot Beach, Commissioner Hasse questioned, whether it is affected by the Page 35 ~ti- . renourishment program? April 10, 1990 Mr. Dorrill responded negatively, saying that the only project in that area is Vanderbilt Beach and most of the beaches north of there are pristine beaches that have no vertical structures landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and are in better shape than the beaches to the south. Co~u~issioner Volpe indicated he would like to discuss where the excess revenue, if any, will be used. Mr. Dorrill referred to his opening statements in which he alluded to the fact that his office would have no problem in recommending rescinding the tax once the dollar goal has been met for the Core Projects. Mr. Dorrill noted commented that this Sales Tax issue would stand a better chance of passing, in his opinion, if the voters had a speci- fic idea of the project needs, the project budgets, and the amount of time that is expected to pass before the amounts necessary to fund the projects are collected. Should those funds be collected sooner, the taxpayer should understand that the tax will be eliminated, Mr. Dorrill said. Commissioner Volpe asked Mr. Dorrill if, should State money become available to fund State roads, the County can provide a mechanism to either pay down the bonds or put the County on "a pay as you go" system, to which Mr. Dorrill responded affirmatively. Pertaining to the use of the sales tax funds for use by the School i -i~.i'- Board, Commissioner Volpe indicated that legally the County is not ;'"':' permitted to allocate any funds collected in this manner for use by the schools. He noted that Representative Mary Ellen Hawkins is spon- soring a bill to resolve this problem. Commissioner Volpe asked what would happen to the $174 million collected for use by the schools. Mr. Dorrlll ascertained that other counties are using sales tax funds for school purposes, however, if Collier County is challenged and prevented from using the funds, the County would have a "windfall." He cautioned that spending this "windfall" for other than schools would, in his opinion, do a disservice to the Commission. Agreeing with Mr. Dorrill, Commissioner Volpe maintained that Page 36 · .,.[....' April 10, 1990 after Identifying the projects, if the schools are excluded from the Sales Tax, he feels the sentiment would be to decrease the time period for the tax. County Attorney Cuyler advised the Board that he feels that the County will have an answer from the State Government before the School Board has to react, however, there is no guarantee that the law will be passed in this legislative session. Commissioner Goodnight called attention to the fact that the Commissioners did not ask the local Legislative Delegation to recom- mend a Special Act for Collier County. She stated that as an Executive Member of the Board of the Florida Association of Counties, she has to oppose the bill because of the direction received by that Board. Commissioner Goodnight further ascertained that other counties that have wanted to share the sales tax revenues have gone to a spe- cial legislative act, and suggested that this should have been Collier County's means of insuring that sa]es tax revenues can be shared with the schools. As it currently stands, she pointed out, a majority of the counties in the State do not want to be mandated to share their tax revenues with the schools. Advocating Special Legislation, Commissioner Goodnight noted that this request should have been processed several months ago. She con- firmed Commissioner Hasse's statement that she could not go to Tallahassee and support the requested bill as sponsored by Representative Hawkins, however she emphasized that she would not be working against the bill. Mr. Dorrtll emphasized that he does not believe the County would be challenged, but if they were, the County Attorney recommended that the Ordinance be amended at that time to reflect that the money would not be shared with the school. Commissioner Hasse expressed concern that the rationale for putting the tax referendum on the September ballot is to be able to provide the anticipated revenue for the School Board to base their Page 37 authorizing this type of action. April 10, 1990 1990-91 Budget on, and he feels that there is now a problem with the 'legality of the proposal. County Attorney Cu¥1er told Commissioner Goodntght that the docu- ments for legislation for a Special Act have been submitted some time ago, although he has concerns that this is the appropriate form to pass. Representative Hawkins, he continued, submitted It to the attorneys and the indication is that the Legislature is split on He noted that the Board would have a response well before the September referendum. County Attorney Cuyler suggested that the Board proceed with the referendum on Its present course, and should the State Legislature decide that funds cannot be allocated to the schools by a Special Act or by adoption of a new /aw, then the Board can be commended for trying to get the schools the money they need, devote the monies set aside for other Core Projects to their specified areas, and rescind the Sales Tax when the goal, minus the $174 million, is reached. Mr. Dorrill indicated he had a particular concern because citi- ~ zens supporting either side of the issue should be allowed time to !~.~i mount a campaign, and waiting until the conclusion of the Legislative · '~ Session, does not allow the needed time. ~.. Pointing out to the Board that previous Commissions have discussed '~ . whether or not certain factual information would be prepared and made available to the general public, Mr. Dorrill advised that {~!~. taxpayer's money cannot be used to encourage the general public to · vote yes or no, but can provide information relative to key issues. Commissioner Saunders recommended that County Attor,~ey Cuyler con- !~'~'! tact Representative Hawkin~': or Senator Dudley and find out the status {'; of the Legislation. Commissioner Volpe and County Attorney Cuyler discussed the fact ~..' that the Sales Tax, if adopted, could not be used to supplant the ad valorem tax now in place, and Mr. Cuyler indicated that under the pro- posed tnterlocal agreement to be drawn up with the School, should the Special Ac~ be approved, the agreement would have to stipulate that Page 38 April 10, 1990 the Sales Tax is not a measure to reduce ad valorem t~xea. Commissioner Volpe Indicated that the other area of concern Is state roads, noting that one of the alternatives that has been discussed ts a fallback posltion of a County-wAde Special Assessment District to fund state roads, and using Finance Director Yonkosky's calculations, Commissioner Volpe determined that the Ancrease tn taxes would be $221 per capita County-wide. The following persons spoke tn favor of the Sales Tax Referendum: Mr. Dudley Goodlette Mr. Harold L. Hall Mayor Carlton Butler (Everglades City) Mr. Richard Clemmer Mr. Mike Slayton Col. John E. Beebe, Jr. Mr. Bill Barton Mr. Michael McComas Mr. Kevtn Hale Mr. Bruce Anderson Those persons speaking in favor of the tax cited the following: the Local Option Infrastructure Sales Tax Committee recommended that the Board look lnto adopting a SpecAal Act some months ago as a pre- caution; the position of the Florida Association of County's will have no lmpact on the Leglslature; the County should be prepared to deter- mine how their schools will be supported and not leave this decision up to the State Legislature; that the Board undertake to land addA- tlonal sources of revenue including a productivity analysis, the increase in impact fees, a Bed Tax referendum be held, and that the Sales Tax be brought to referendum; there has been no ma3or paving or drainage improvement for roads in the Everglades City area in 32 years; there has been no improvements to the Everglades City Public Facilities tn 30-35 years; that the Sales Tax referendum should Include a cap and the Core Projects should be publicized; that the referendum be held In September to allow the School Board to have use of the funds, and that the tax be proposed for a 10 year period, with an addttlonal five years If needed, subject to an additional vote; the Sales Tax represents a fair way for those who do not pay the ad Page 3 9 i~i/v&lorem., tax to pay their portion In support of local government needs; that the tax referendums should be held but in the years that are general election years thus saving tax dollars that are normally spent for special elections, and insuring s larger turnout; in the face of the Growth Management Plan, the funds will be necessary; that the tax will supplement impact fees because the large builders pay the tax on building supplies and materials. The following persons spoke tn opposition to Mr. Ira Evans Mr. George Keller Mrs. Emily Maggto the Sales Tax Referendum: Those persona speaking In opposition to the tax cited the following: there is no written plan to present to the voters on how the proposed revenues are to be spent; the sales tax is restricted by law to Capital Improvements; the ad valorem tax is still open ','.:, ended; that the proposed reduction in millage ad valorem taxes by the j'. School Board in return for a percentage of the sales tax is not legal i,.-. and there can be no reduction in ad valorem taxes as originally thought; ... ~.,i there is no vehicle in place to demonstrate accountability on the County's part for the taxes collected. i!:.ii.., Mr. Egon Hill and Mrs. Charlotte Westman along with the many ~ti{: .:' other speakers, endorsed placing the referendum on a ballot and allowing the public to decide on the adoption of the Sales Tax, stating that the lay voter should be able to ascertain what is being voted on in lay terms. Colonel Beebe indicated he favored the appointment of a committee to watch the spending of the Sales Tax dollars. Rev~ewing the Ordinance as proposed, Gommissioner Volpe observed that there is a provision that says the monies can be used to service new bonded indebtedness or to retire or service prior bonds issued prior to 1987. Mr. McLemore Indicated this was a statutory statement, noting that the State provides that the money can be bonded and used to retire old indebtedness. Page 40 Commissioner Volpe asked if there were outstanding bonds that the County wanted to retire by the use of this tax7 County Attorney Cuyler confirmed that the County has not iden- tified any bonds that they want to retire, but that the statement could be removed if the Board so desired, Co~selon~r Saunders ~oved, seconded by Co~a~ssioner Goodn~ght ·nd cai-tied S/O that the Public .earing be closed. Indicating that he would like further discussion on the term options, Commissioner Shanahan noted that a new term of 6 years with a 6 year renewal option has been mentioned, which would allow the referendum to coincide with general election years and save tax dollars. Mr. McLemore noted that this would not substantially help the cash flow, however Commissioner Hasse responded that the 6 year and 6 year renewal proposal would help the voting in an election year. Commissioner Shanahan clarified his statement by Indicating he was seeking the best possible chance for a successful referendum. Mr. Dorrtll advised the Commissioners that the easiest way to pass the referendum Is to go with five years and then ask for an additional five. Mr. Dorrlll atated that the problem with this type of a referendum is that the times when various roads fall belo~ level of service, the time it takes to build a road, will create concurrency problems. Mr. Dorrtll stated that the best option ts the ten year option with a cap. ''' D~puty Clerk Hoft~an replaced Deputy Clerk NcClenathen at thin tlmm ,,, Commissioner Shanahan suggested that a term be provided Indicating that when this issue comes back for a vote again, it would not be a Special Election so that an additional $I00,000-$200,000 would not be spent. County Manager Dorrtll stated that if the money comes in at a rate greater than what the economists projected, the collection of the 006[ 0080 Page .,;,<.. April 10, 1990 ~¥e ~" '" ~i'- money should be discontinued as soon as the necessary amounts are ~ received for the projects as identified. Couissioner Shanahan noted that Point 3 needs to be restructured since there have been discussions relative to adding additional pro- Jects if revenues exceed projections. He questioned whether this would be the appropriate time to consider the possibility of addinG the CREW Trust? Commissioner Saunders questioned whether the Commission would acc- ept the addition of a Regional Park to the list of projects? He noted that there ts a definitive need for this, and it is something that the County will be unable to get without this type of funding source. He noted that Public Services Administrator O'Donnell has indicated that approximately $10-$1§ million will need to be acquired to begin construction of such a park. Com~tssioner Hasse stated that he feels that the Crew project and the Regional Park are worthwhile, but questions the projections, since they will be coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Collier County. Commissioner Saunders stated that he has consistently voted against putting this issue on the ballot since he did not believe that the needs were not sufficiently identified, and there was not com- iaunit¥ support, but noted that he believes that it is time to submit this issue to the voters. He noted that there is now an agreement with the School Board, and the Blue Ribbon Committee voted to support presenting this issue on the ballot. Commissioner Hasse stated that he feels that November ks the ideal time to present this issue to the voters. Commissioner Shanahan remarked that because of the mitigating car- cumstances that have been brought to the attention of the Commission, he believes that September 4th should be considered as the date of the referendum. Commissioner Volpe noted that all along, he has been asking for Justification, specific needs that are specifically identified, and 00 £10081 Page 42 April 10, 1990 the reason as to why sales tax is the reasonable alternative. He ~'~ advised that unfortunately, he is still not satisfied. He related '~ that it is uncertain as to whether or not $174 million can be spent for schools; supportive of beach renourtshment, but uncertain whether i! the sales tax should be the funding mechanism; alternative to imposing · a moratorium has not been sufficiently identified; and insufficient ~(. Justification for including funding of the Jails. Ooemd~toner S~undera ~uv~d, seconded by Com~taeloner S~ ~t ~ t~ of t~ Local ~tton Sal~ T~ ~ plac~ ~ the ~t~ 4~ ~llot in light of the station tn~lvt~ t~ ~ch~l ~; ~t t~ Co~ ProJect~ lt~t~ tn the ~ti~ ~ ~ con- ei~ ~ proJ~te to ~ ~d~ w~th the add~tton of t~ ~dtng for ' t~ ~ 1~ ~lch total a~t $10 alllton, ~d that there also ~~ for a r~io~l ~k tn the Core ~oJects; t~t the tu ~ for ~ ~rl~ of 10 ~rs with ~ option for rental ~ refer~ only for ~r 5 ~ ~rtod; t~t there not ~ ~y projects ~d~ to the limt of ~ ~oJect~ re~rdless of the sales t~ collection rates; t~t if ~ ~ttre list of Core ~oJects tm f~ed prior to the ~tratl~ of 10 ~ars, the ~ard of C~ Co~isstoners will t~ ~ti~ to ~t the Local ~tlon ~alem T~ ~ ordl~cel ~d that a ~ of t~ C~isston, the C=~ ~Qer, or Staff ~ directed to ~ to T~ll~s~ ~ lob~ for the ~~nt to the ~eneral ~t ~11 p~l~ for the l~al ~thort~ to share the ~n~ with ~1-~. Commissioner Volpe questioned where the additional $25 million for the Crew lands and the regional park will be coming from? Commissioner Saunders replied that one of the areas on the list of projects to be funded ts $48 million for County Roads, and noted that impact fees may need to be Increased, and therefore, that not as much money will be needed. He'related that he believes that over a 10 year period, the money will be there, and he feels that the consultants took a very conservative approach as to what the potential funding Page 43 April 10, 1990 will be. County Attorney Cuyler advised that he has r,o problem with Commissioner Saunders' motion, however, he advised that several changes need to be Incorporated into the present ordinance. Re noted that he has no probleu with the Commission setting the changes as recommended, but suggested that the public hearing be kept open and continued for a week or two and he will bring back an ordinances with the changes as incorporated. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he will be in Tallahassee on April 24th, and suggested that the ordinance with changes be brought back to the Commission next week. Oos~tulon~r ~undere ~nd~d his ~otton, to include reopening the [mbltc ~lng and that It b~ continued unttl nut w~k to ~n~bla the ~t~&tto~y to ~ka the appropriate chants to the ordinance, ~nd p~s~at m to th~ Co~tsston. Commissioner Shanahan accepted the roll call, th~ ~otton carrt~d ss follo~s: ~Mt~F ~oodntght 5:25 P.N. - Reconvened 5:30 P.N. I~OI~TION 90-201, R~ P~TITION PU-89-22, TKRRANCK L. K~PPLK ~I~G ~ ~J[D CYNTHIA ZWERIN, RgQUESTING PROVISIONAL USE FOR A BO~LI~ALL~T LOCAteD ADJACENT TO ~HK SOUTH SIDK OF S.R. 92 (SAN M~RCO IIRIV~), I~RO~IN~I'~LY 200 FEET EAST OF BALI~ COURT - ADOPTED .,SUBJECT TO PETITIONER*S AGREEN~NT AS ANEND~D Planner Milk informed that the Petitioner is requesting Provisional Use "A" of the C-3 Zoning District for a bowling alley on Marco Island. He indicated that lands adjacent to the east and west are undeveloped commercial property. Land to the north Is semi- developed commercial property, and land to the south is undeveloped residential property. Mr. Milk explained that the Petitioner is proposing to construct and operate a 20 lane bowling alley with a kitchen/snack bar and ~ .:'.. Page 44 April 10, 1990 .'-'"'J~ lounge within the building. He reported that the proposed facility will be open for operation seven days per week, noting that the site is approximately 1.56 acres and is located within a designated Activity Center. Mr. Mt]k related that the Collier County Planning Commission held their public hearing on March 15, 1990, and a motion with a recommen- datlon of denial did not carry (4/4). Mr. Milk stated that based upon the character of the area, and with the recommended mitigation measures, Staff has no objection to the request and recommends approval. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Milk informed that on April 4, 1990, Planning Services Manager Baginski determined that the ext- sting commercial child care center, located within a designated Activity Center and across the street from the proposed bowling alley site ts a private, for profit commercial business, and therefore, due to the commercial integrity of the child care business the bowling alley and the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption would become exempt from Section 8.11 of Ordinance 82-2. He indicated that the child care center would not constitute a school, church, public park or playground. Mr. Milk advised that Staff is recommending approval, subject to the stipulations as contained in the Petitioner's Agreement Sheet. Commissioner Hasse questioned the number of parking spaces that will be allocated at the site? Mr. Milk replied that there will be .:'. 126 parking spaces. Commissioner Shanahan noted that he has received complaints rela- tive to the hours of operation, late night activity, flashing neon st~ns, lights, traffic, etc. He questioned whether the lounge will remain open after the bowling alley ha~ closed7 Mrs. Cynthia Zwerin, Petitioner, stated that she does not believe that there will any problems as cited by Commissioner Shanahan. She noted that the sign will be whatever the County allows, and the intent is that this facility will be a family oriented business. She advised 00 CI0084 Page 45 April 10, 1990 ?:!?ii~'~..that aha is uncertain as to whether or not the lounge will actually be a part of the facility. She noted that she does not feel that the lounge is an issue that needs to be addressed at this time, since a full aet of plans baa not yet been developed. Mr. Milk explained that permitted uses within the 0-3 District include liquor stores, restaurants and department stores. Commissioner Volpe raised concerns about the environmentally sen- sitive ]ands encompassinG the site. Mr. Terry Kepple, of Bruce Green and Associates, advised that a road has recently been constructed behind the proposed site, and has land-locked the mangroves. He noted that there is no way to preserve the mangroves. He remarked that this is part of the Deltona Settlement Agreement which allowed removal of those mangroves, and they (Deltona) in turn, deeded 15,000 acres of wetlands to the State. Ne stated that some of the native vegetation will be relocated. Mr. Jeff Zwertn stated that the proposed facility will not be a hang out for alcohol or drug abusers. He noted that the people of Marco Island will be able to enjoy the recreation of bowling without having to travel a distance of 28 miles or further. ~.: '..' · center in Naples, and back to Marco Island at night. He noted that he is currently the president of a bowling league, with 4§% of the par- tlclpants being senior citizens. He affirmed that these people are <: not in the habit of squealing their tires when leaving the bowling Mr. George Tifft, resident of Marco Island, stated that it is a life threatening situation to drive from Marco to the nearest bowling center. He indicated that he circulated a petition on Marco Island asking for support of or disapproval of a bowling alley located on SR 92 between Covewood and Balmoral Street. He noted that out of the 529 signatures, there is only 1 disapproval. Mr. Eugene Martin, resident of Marco, stated that he lives a short distance from the proposed bowling alley, and he was unaware of the aforementioned petition. He noted that he is opposed to the proposed facility for the following reasons: noise, day care center across the Page 46 April 10, 1990 :~,',. street, it will be a hang out residential abutts the commercial area, and an establishment with on-site consumption o.~ alcoholic beverages will become a magnet for every teenager and trouble maker for miles around. Mr. Guy Emerson, stated that he lives approximately 500' from the proposed site. He explained that he moved into his new home about 1-1/2 months ago, and is shocked to learn of the bowling alley. He raised concerns relative to the children at the day care center, noise, too close to residential, and disorderly intoxication. Ms. Mary Jo Byers remarked that she questions who will support the bowling facility, and noted that there have been other activities on the Island that have not been supported, i.e. the movie theater. She commented that an earlier agenda item addressed the need for a Childrens, Council, and now a bowling facility with a lounge is pro- posed at a location across the street from a day care center. She suggested that there be an architectural review to protect the neigh- borhood. Commissioner Vo/pe questioned the type of buffering that will be required between the site and the single fam/1y res/dent/al lots? Mr. Milk replied that the Petitioner shall provide a six foot high opaque sound proof fence, located within a fully landscaped ten foot buffer strip along the entire rear yard property line. Commissioner Saunders commented that he believes that it would be better if the fence was lO feet from the property line with lO feet of buffering on the outside. He stated that L' of buffering on the inside of the fence will not benefit the surroundin~; property owners. Mr. Milk affirmed that he concurs with Commissioner Saunders' suggest/on. Mrs. Zwertn advised that she has been informed that steel construction at the rear of the building will allow additional insula- tion to mitigate the noise She stated that she wants to provide the best possible center for the neighborhood. ~AuAe~ner Shanahan moved, seconded b~ Co,,~mmtoner Goodn~ht to ~ 47 April 10, 1990 ,e~qp~ev~ Petition P~-eg-22. Co~tsstoner Saunders asked whether Co~tssloner Shanahan would consider amendAn~ his motion to include that a 10 foot vegetated buffer be provided on the outside of the fence, and that the buffer will be maintained by the o~er of the bowling alley? ~t~to~r 8~ ~nd~ hts ~tion to include the ~ ~t~ ~ C~tsstoner Sanders. Co~tssioner ~t~ ~ ~t. U~n call for the ~estton, the ~tton ~t~ 4/1 (~~ioner ~ ~~). Page 48 I~PI~IITIN(1 DEL'S STORE RI~HT-OF-WAY - SHORT TERM WITH 30 DAY NOTICE TO VACATE Mr. Gary Kluckhuhn stated that his Intent ts to establish an ami- cable solution to allow the Ackerman's and Fayard's not to be singled out in the act of progress relative to the sacrificial land. County Attorney Cu¥1er indicated that this is an Item that has been through the condemnation process, and the County has taken the site and the adjoining site which iS being appealed. He suggested that the Commission listen to the discussion, but advised that no action be taken since litigation ts taking place. Mr. Kluckhuhn stated that in lieu of litigation, Mr. Ackerman ts present, in hopes of not having to close the store and Incur the obvious business Interruption losses as of April 16th, and ts willing to terminate same, based on an amicable solution. Mr. Kluckhuhn explained that tn order for the new right-of-way to be acquired for S.R. 951, it was necessary to take 83' from the east side of Mr. Ackerman's property, and the 7-11 (Lots 125 and 126). He remarked that he understands that the total condemnation is predicated upon environmental impact mitigation and safety factors not to Inter- fere with the traffic on S.R. 951. He advised that the environmental mitigation was a controversial subject. He noted that DOT has indi- cated that in the scenario of a single bustr~ess opposite a road traf- fic light controlled intersection on a State road, a collector road on the opposite side will alleviate that problem to some extent. Mr. Kluckhuhn provided copies of two proposals (not provided to the Clerk's Office). He called attention to County Proposal "A", which would move the store to the back on the existing site,' and allow the southbound traffic tn and out. He noted that DOT does not look favorably on this plan, since they believe that the Manatee Road traf- fic cannot access the site, since they will drive over the islands. Mr. Kluckhuhn stated that DOT has found Proposal "B" to be more acceptable. He remarked that there are truly viable alternatives to 00( Ce9o95 Page 49 total condemnat ton. April 10, 1990 Mr. Kluckhuhn called attention to the fact that the ?-11 site was awarded $475,000 for the property, and the Del's site was awarded $290,000. He reported that the square foot price calculates to $17.73 per square foot for the 7-11 site, and $10.50 per square foot for the Ackerman site. He noted that 10,797 square feet of the 7-11 site Is vegetated low land, leaving 16,560 square feet of useable land. Mr. Kluckhuhn Indicated that he understands that four appraisers were involved in the appraisal assignment. He remarked that Lots 125 and 126 were appraised by different appraisers, and he questions whether there Is a fair valuation, since he believes that there is a $200,000 discrepancy. Mr. Kluckhuhn proposed that from the existing fill line on the ?-11 site, east toward the new right-of-way for SR. 951, the~e is an 83' piece of land that ts hlgh and dry, and ts a butldable site. He indicated that based on the $17.73 per square foot, the total amount would be $147,129, and if the County would grant Mr. Ackerman a trade of that County surplus land, they will have 2?,000 square feet of land and they could operate their business. He reported that DOT has reviewed this plan, and view it as a viable alternative. With regard to duplicating the building, Mr. Kluckhuhn advised that the 7-11 had 2,600 square feet and Del's had 3,600 square feet; the ?-11 is a CBS structure; Del's is a steel-framed structure with wood frame Interior walls and fiberglas insulation. He Informed that by the time a steel-framed building t8 brought to a u;~eable level for occupancy, the engineering cost Indicates that there ts a fine line of replacement between the two buildings. He noted that Del's is a 2 story, 3,600 square foot building against a 2,600 square foot CBS building, and he falls to see a greater value for the 7-11 parcel. County Attorney Cuyler advised that this was an Order of Taking hearing that was an adversary process from an Impartial member of the Judiciary who made a decision and determined what was tn accor- dance with the law. He Indicated that he feels that the County has Page 50 April 10, 1990 ~'~'been as fair as possible to these people during the past two years In trytnG to work this out. ***.'~l:l~ Clerk ~'Clenath~n repl&ced D~puty Clerk ~t this ti~ Nr. Kluckhuhn stated that when the condemnation took place, ~r. Ackerman believed that the County would be building him a new struc- ture and moving him back. He explained that he did not have suf- ficient conversations with the attorneys that were hired by the County to represent him to know what he had negotiated. Mr. Kluc~uhn Informed that Mrs. Fayard, who ts Mr. Ackerman's mother-tn-law and ts also Involved, expressed that she believed that the land was worth much more but they never had the advantage of coor- dinating with the attorneys, and he believes that they were 9tven an unjust rulinG. Co~ty Attorney Cuyler advised that the County's Eminent Domain Council does no~ represent Mr. Ackerman, but rather the County and the County's interest. He Indicated that if there was some failure of co~tcatlon that somebody needed to talk to someone else and did not do this, there ts nothtn9 he can say about it. He informed that office ~d the County's Eminent Domain Council proceeded tn the manner tn which they were supposed to, and tn this case, the property was t~en. Co~tsstoner Saunders stated that he believed that there was something that could be worked out, and it appears that there ts an extreme time frame Involved. He suGGested that a lease arrangement be worked out, since the County owns the land. He questioned whether a lease could be Implemented stattn~ that Mr. Ackerman would have 60 or 90 days notice to move the building because of the need to beDtn construction on the road, and he could proceed with his appeal, and the County could proceed with Its defense of the appeal. He noted that If agreement cannot be reached between the parties then the County can proceed and pay the $290,000 Mr. Ackerman would move the , building, and It will be the County's land. Page 51 April 10, 1990 Mr. Kluckhuhn noted that Mr. Ackerman has some improvements ahead of him if he continues to stay in business, i.e. licenses, etc. He requested that a conceptual agreement be reached relating to a land trade of County surplus land in an equal amount to that which Mr. Ackerman is foregoing. Commissioner Vo]pe stated that he does not know if this can be done legally. County Attorney Cuyler ~ndlcated that he does not know if this would solve any problems for Mr. Ackerman. He advised that he understands that there is a court order for Mr. Ackerman to vacate the property, and the Commission may not have the ability to over ride it by way of the lease agreement. Mr. Ackerman reported that he ts hearing some real conflicts. He noted that Mr. Archibald has been a very big factor in helping him through this program. He advised that he has never had the oppor- tunity to address anyone in this government agency about his business. He informed that the landlord owned the land, and the attorneys dealt with her, but he and his wife were strictly the managers and the owners of the bu~iness. He related that there has not been one time that he had a meeting regarding this issue until Commissioner Saunders and Mr. Archibald made it possible to do so two weeks ago. County Attorney Cuyler indicated that because Mr. Ackerman is not the property owner, he would not be called into an eminent domain case. Transportation Services Administrator ~rchlbald noted that the only issue that the Commission may wish to address today Is whether the convenience store should continue to operate after Monday, April 16, and if so, Staff could be directed to consider a lease agreement on a short term basis, Commissioner Saunders asked Mr. Archibald when he believes the property will be needed7 Mr. Archibald replied that he feels that the property will be needed in 6 months or less, and if an agreement is considered, it should be for a short period of time. Page 52 April 10, 1990 Com~iseioner Saunders questioned how much notice would be needed for Mr. Ackerman to vacate the property if he had a lease7 Mr. Archibald indicated that from his perspective, he would want the tenant to be out in 30 days or less. Commissioner Saunders suggested that a short term lease be established, with a termination provision which states that Mr. Archibald can give Mr. Ackerman a 30 day notice. He indicated that he believes that the rental amount should be a nominal amount. · Commissioner Volpe asked Mr. Ackerman the amount of his monthly rental, to which he replied $500 per month. Commissioner Wolpe stated that he does not feel that the County should accept anything less than $500 per month. Commissioner Saunders advised that he has no problem with Commissioner Volpe's suggestion. C~UmAOeiOner Saundero moved, ~econded b~Com~isoAoner Sba·aha·, 'that · short term lease be drafted for the Chairman's 8igna~ur· pro- vidin~ for a $500 per month rental fee; providing a 30 day notice peried for vacation of the propert-F; and An the interim, the Count~ Attorney to to proceed with the appeal. Commissioner Volpe suggested that in drafting up the short term lease, that the County Attorney track the obligations in terms of the maintenance responsibilities and any other current obligations since the County should not have any responsibility with respect to main- taininG that property. ~ call for the qua~tlon, tbe ~otion carried unanlml¥. Page 53 April 10, 1990 (~smt#lon~r Sa~ndere left the ~ttn~ at this ttmm *** ~ OF ~l~A][~[ ABAT~N~IWT R~ CA~E NO. N89-1185, LOT 17, BLO~K 190, MARCO B~,&CIlf UB"IT #7 - PROPKRTY OWNKR: RK¢~INA BALCKJ~7-A~' County Manager Dorrtl] stated that this Item ts a public petition on behalf of Mrs. Balcerzak who ts appealing a lien associated with &b&ttng a public nuisance and mowing weeds on a lot on Marco Island. Mrs. Regina Balcerzak stated that she has owned this particular lot for 12 years and has checked it every year up to 1983 at which time she retired. She stated that since 1983 she has spent more time In Florida and has kept a closer watch on this lot. She indicated that In 1986 she was notified that the seawall on her property had collapsed and she had it repaired at a cost of $2,000. She Indicated that in 1987 she received a bill for $3,000 for sewer service that was brought to her lot, adding that in 1988, she patd $800 to clear pepper bushes that were growing around two palm trees on her lot. She noted that she has been a concerned, caring and responsible owner. She stated that her taxes went from $400 to over $1,000 in 1989. She Indicated that she received a letter In February, 1990, with regards to a notice that she was suppose to have received in September, 1989, which never reached her. She reported that in October, 1989, she was In Naples and checked her lot, adding that there was no problem with her lot at that time. She stated that the ad3acent neighbor told her that he has not seen anyone mowing any lot and she further indicated that she was on the lot again in December and January and the lot does not look any different now than It did in the spring of 1989. She stated that the County took this matter upon themselves to correct a nuisance without giving the owner a chance to remedy this matter, if it existed. She stated that she has come over 1,100 miles to attend this hearing because she feels that an injustice is being done. She stated that she took pictures of her lot upon arriving tn Naples the previous day and there is nothing on her lot that could be cut. She indicated that the only thing she has growing on her lot are wild April lO, 1990 impatiences, which were measured with a rule and the tallest one was 14 inches. She indicated that the only other thing on the lot that could be cut are pepper plants, adding that she has some growing around the palm trees again. She stated that before she pays any money she would like to see the bill and would also like to talk with the person that mowed the property to see what was done for the $45.00 that she ts being charged. She stated that she feels that she Is a victim of circumstances and has been dealt with unfairly and all costs ahould be abated along with the lien that has been placed on her pro- . perry. Community Development Services Administrator Brutt stated that he was provided with a copy of this letter last week and Staff put together an information packet, adding that the notice of the nuisance abatement was sent to the address according to the records of the Tax Office, but the certified letter was refused on September 8, 1989. He stated that the lot was mowed on September 25, 1989, by CM&S Contracting Company on Marco Island, and then failing to abate the nuisance, the County sent a notice out for payment and the payment was not received, therefore, the lien process was started for the $45.00 mowing charge plus the $75.00 administrative fee. He indicated that photographs were taken before and after the lot was cut showing the condition and location and when the owner visited the lot in October, she saw a well mowed lot. He reported that the final invoice of October 20, 1989, has not been paid and the lien proceedings have · moved ahead. He Indicated that as of April 3, 1990, the lot again needed cutting. Mrs. Balcerzak stated that she never received a certified letter tn September, 1989, but she did receive one tn March, 1990. Commissioner Hasse stated that if the Board ts suppose to Judge this case, they should have the before and after pictures which is a foregone conclusion. He stated that there Is no Justification for the Board to take any action on this matter. Commissioner Volpe stated that Staff made a determination that Page 55 :~.:'there was a violation and they have performed the work and the County has incurred the expenses. Mr. Brutt stated that he will stand with his Staff that went to the site and had the lot mowed and went through the lien process. Commissioner Rasse stated that he would like to have this matter continued, and County Manager Dorrill stated that he does not see a need to continue this matter, adding that he could be authorized to review the case file and if the pictures are there and prove the matter, he will take care of this. Ooe~lutoner Shanahan noved, seconded by Coaaissioner Goodntght carried 4/0, (Co~'iosioner Saunders out), that the County Manager athortze4 to review the case and m~ke a decision on Case R~m~TIOI 90-202 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO PROVIDZ INTERIM MANA6f~MENT Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that on Friday, it is very possible that the operator of the airport, Bar Harbour and possibly the Deltona Corporation may turn the keys to the airport over to the Department of Natural Resources and as a result, leave the airport unmanned. He stated that if this occurs, it is important for the Board to be apprised of that and to consider a standby position to keep the airport in operation. He stated that he has prepared a resolution as well as an overview of the activities at the Marco site. He indicated that the Maruo Island Airport has a substantial infrastructure, noting that there are five employees that are operating the airport and there is a fairly substantial fueling operation. He stated that he tried to outline an expenditure revenue picture for a 30 day period if the Board decides to operate this site. Ne indicated that the employees would have to be put on the County payroll as contract employees for a period of one month and during that time, Staff would be able to better determine the expenditures and the revenues and also to give the DNR time to make a final deci- 000, CJ3!08 Page 56 Apri} 10, 1990 ~;'.~ eton as to whether or not they want to operate the Airport or would prefer the County to operate the airport as a lessee. He stated that he is suggesting that the Board could consider the posttlon of keeping the airport in operation as of this weekend. He referred to the expenses of the employees which maybe in the realm of $6,000 for one month, noting that there are three employees that are necessary to consider on a contractual basts. He stated that the fuel cost would be about $5,000 and there would be about $9,000 for miscellaneous expenses. He indicated that one such miscellaneous expense would be to provide insurance coverage for the County for a 12 month period. He indicated that the County's worst exposure would be around $20,000 for a month, adding that the revenue could be more than $20,000 but '! could be as low as $12,000. He stated that the dilemma is that the expenditures and revenues do not match but if tile County does take over the airport for a short time, he feels that expenditures and revenues will come close to matching by selling more fuel. He stated that the fueling operation is a large revenue producer on an annual basis. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dorrill stated that the Board would need to authorize Staff to operate the facility under an agreement with the existing staff at the existing location for a period not to exceed one month. He stated that the State will have to give their consent and/or lease. He indicated that the existing lease ceases to exist on April 13, 1990, and he does not understand why the DNR has not made a decision on this matter. Mr. Archibald stated that he has sent DNR a lease to consider, adding that they are considering the lease and they know that they have to make a decision by the end of the week. He noted that the Risk Management Department has also revtewed this matter. Commissioner Shanahan stated that there is a real need to keep this airport open and this could be a real opportunity for the Board. Courts. toner Shanmhan ~v~d, seconded b~ Coca,asSorter aoodn~ght ~ ~mr~ted 3/1, (Co.missioner Volpe opposed), that Resolution 9~202 &pti1 10~ 1990 the CG~ty to p~l~, tntert~ m~nt for the ~co O0~Cl~!lO Page 58 i/? · April 10, 1990 ~I~ ~ ~IL 24~ 1990 - CO~I~D E l~IL 1~ 1990 Stan Lltstnger, Growth ~anaGement Director, stated that there an advertised public hearing set for April 24, 1990, to adopt the remedial amendments to the Growth ~anagement Plan pursuant to the County's stipulated agreement with DCA. He stated that he understands that only three Commissioners ~tll be available on April 24, 1990, and these ~endments re~tre a 5/0 vote because it ts an emergency amend- ment. He stated that the purpose of this Item ts to consider optional dates, addln9 that it appears that the first date that there will be five Co~tsstoners Is May 8, 1990. He stated that he has contacted DCA ~d they have no problem with a two week extension until May 1990. County Attorney Cuyler stated that the Zontn~ Re-Evaluation Ordt- n~ce was tied to the effective date of the ~emedial plan amendments and It was determined that April 24, ~990, would be the date o~ the ~ublic hea~tng fo~ the ~emedial plan amendments. Co~lss~one~ Volpe stated that th~s ~tem should be continued and emergency meeting and shorten the advertising requirements. ai.lar ~ss~ tnttc~ted t~t thts ~tter ~111 ~ bright ~ck ~tl l~, 1~, to actt~ ~tch ~t~ the r~t~l pl~ ~,~., Growth ManaGement Director Lttstnger stated that this Item ts a request for two additional positions In the office of Growth Management to Implement the Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities review and issuance process. He stated that he expects the revenues generated by this process to more than cover the expenses of these two positions. Ommmimmionmr Shanahan movmd, mmcondmd by Commimstonm~ aoodntght 000,£1..0112 April 10, 1990 · nd'~ted 4/0, (Com~tsetoner Saund~rs out), that the the two poet- tt~ ~ ~ Office of Gr~h ~t to t~]~t the C~rttftcate of ~te ~11c ~ctlttt~ t~ce procee~ ~ a~r~. ~t~r ~tght ~, seconded ~ Co~tsstoner 8~ ~ ~t~ 4/0, (Co~tsstoner Sanders out), t~t ~dget ~en~nts C-2 ~ ~155/154 ~ adopted. It~Jlll Co~tseloner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~atsstonar aoodntght ·nd c~t~ 4/0, (Co~/~s/oner Sanders ~t), that the Chl~ h ~lz~ to mte a letter accepting the re~nelbtlt~ as local ~~tor for local ~t a~ltcatlone. O0CClO!l Page 60 :);i 9~ mad carried 4/0 (Commissioner Sm~udmrm out) that · , :- thm follo~ing Jte~m on the Conment Agenda l~e &pprm~d mnd/or ~,~', m~opt~: *** u:'~ R~OL~TXON 90--203 AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE 0F ROAD~&y, DRAIN&GE, · ~liX~St ~ ~ X~OV~ %N VAND~RBX~T VILLAS, RELEASE OF ; MAXN~ I~'~INXT~, AMD ACCH~TING I~SPOI~XBILIT~ ~R SAID See Page, F~SA~T OF ~MXMGSTAR CAY AT PORT-OF-TI~-ISLAND~ - ~CT TO Accept the Irrevocable Letter of Credit as security to guaran- tee completion of the subdivision Improvements. Authorize the recording of the Final Plat of Evenlngstar Cay at Port-of-the-Islands. 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the construction and main- tenance agreement. 4. That no Certificate of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. See Pages Xtm~ e14&3 C~X~M~N TO SIGN A REZON~/PROVISIONAL USE APPLICATION FO~M FOR THE POLTL~I~-~ R~CYULI~ FACILITY FOR PROPH~TY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ~ %MMOI~ItLE~ AIRPORT, AND THI~ PROPOSED AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK Xta ,14A4 Xte~#lm ....... ELXCAN BAY UNIT 4, PHASES III, AND 4-A, ~~ ~FTHE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCE ANC~ o~ ~a~w~wmw~w XBILITY FOR ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS NOT MAINTAINED BY TH~ HOWE0#NERS ASSOCIATION - ADOPTED Ite~ #14A6 See Page. RESOLUTION 90-206 AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF ROADWAY, DRAINAge, MATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN MOON LAKE, UNIT TH~E~ AND ACCEPTING'THE MAINTENANCE BOND FROM THE DEVELOPER FOR A MINIMUM OF 0N~ FEA~ - ADO~ NITH STIPULATIONS Accept the Irrevocable Letter of Credit as security for main- tenance of the Infrastructure until the Board of County Com- missioners grants final acceptance of all improvements. Page 61 April 10, 1990 Authorize the Chairman to execute the Maintenance Agreement for Preliminary Acceptance and Resolution authorizing preli- minary acceptance. Preliminary acceptance of improvements will not become effec- tive until water and sewer facilities have been conveyed to Collier County Water-Sewer Dtstr~ct. See Pages &~oK /' .> APPROV~ PORT HI RICORDING OF THK FIHAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORK F~&K~, UNIT Accept the Escrow Agreement as security to guarantee comple- tion of the subdivision improvements. Authorize the recording of the Final Plat of LonGshore Lake, Unit III. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 4. That no Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required Improvements have received preliminary acceptance. See Pages ~__ GHAIRMANTO KXEt~;TI KASKMK~T A~RKKMKNT FOR RIGHT-OF-#AY FOR NORTH JIAPLI~ JKJADMAYMST~, AND STAFF TO PRKPARK VO~CHKRS AND WAHRABT~ FOR PA%~JlIrT; ~ TO PROC~HKD WITH RKLATHD REAL KSTATH CLOSING TRANSACTIONS AND RI~ORDII~3 WITH TIlE CLENX OF COURTS (LIVINGSTON ROAD PARCEL Ztem#14B2 See Pages It~ el4C1 ~HA11~IABTO KX~C~FFK APPLICATION, CO~DiITMKNT OF CASH MATCH OF 038,494, AND OT~IRU~URANCK FORM~ FOR CONTINUATION OF ~RANT FOR FUNDING OF THE FL~RXD~ ~TY CARK FOR THE KLDKRLY ACT ~OJ~ 90-207 ~RAHTING UTILITY KASKMKHT AND TKMPORARY COI~STI~2CTION '~Ji~BIIT .TO ~OF-F-IKR ~N~FTY MATKR/SKWKR DISTRICT FOR CO~FFY-OWNKD LOCATED IN ~K~TIONS 23 & 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANCH 25 ~L~ST,'OOL~]~KR ~., FLORIDA Xteu~14D2 Page 62 April 10, 1990 See Pages Irma #14D3 RESOLUTION 90-208/CW5-90-5, AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF N~CESSARY OTILITT ~ ~R ~ ~T~LE WAT~ ~ISSION ~IN BK~ It~. ~ 4D4 ",: A~~ OF ~ FACILITIES 2. The Florida Department of Environmental Re~latlon furnishes a letter approving the water distribution system for service and bacteriological testlnG has met the County's require- ments. The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been satisfied. See OR Book 1524__, Pages 195-210 'ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ~R I~IAL GOLF ~STA~S, ~ V - ~ STI~TIONS The Florida Department of Environment Regulation furnishes a letter authorizing to place the sewer system into service and approving the water distribution system for service. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements. The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been satisfied and the Fire District furnishes a letter accepting the fire hydrants for ownership and maintenance. See OR Book 1524., Pages 126-152 ?" AMEIIDM~NTIIO. I TO AGREEMENT #ZTN JOHNSON ENGIRE~EING, INC. IN THH AMOUIrT OF 88,287 FOR ADDITIONA~ WATER AND SKNKR UTILITY ENGINEERING SENV~C~ ALONG THE S.R. 951 CORRIDOR It# #14H1 ACCEPTANCE OF FIRST ANNUAL GRO~Iq~ MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING AND ~VALUATIOM REPORT FOR YHAR KNDING SKPTEMBKR 30, 1989 SeePages Item #1411 6~I~TIFICATHS FOR CORRECTION TO THE TA~ ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE 1988 (DELETE) No. 257 Dated 12/21/89 2989 (DELETE) Page 63 No. 153 No. 136 No. 152 No's 157-164 No. 256 No. 259 ~o's 112-114 April 10, 1990 Dated 12/21/89 1989 Dated 01/18/90 Dated 12/12/89 Dated 03/06/90-03/23/90 Dated 12/21/89 Dated 03/12/90 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1989 Dated 03/2?/90-03/29/90 EXTRA ~A21 Tll~ FOR IWI, UtTE ~'S 65693, 52907, 54931, 50959, 30085, 1832~ 60759~ 36913~ 19941, 24?97 The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as Indicated below: Letter dated 03/23/90 to Chairman Hasse, from Robert G. Nave, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, DCA, re DCA's participation in the 4/24/90 hearing to adopt the comprehensive plan amend- ments, xc: Nell Dorrtll, Frank Brutt, Stan Lltstnger, and filed. Notice of Public Workshop and. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting dated 3/23/90, from DER. xc: Nell Dorrlll, Mike Arnold, Bill Lorenz, and filed. Request for Public Comment dated 3/2?/90 from Tony D. McNeal, Engineer, Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation, DNR, re File #CO-239, and the Applicant: John D. Remington and Bolton S. Drackett, Co-Trustees. xc: Nell Dorrlll, Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed. 4 o 54 Letter dated 3/23/90 to Tony R. Incorvatt from Tony D. McNeal, Engineer, Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation, DNR, re Approval of Governor and Cabinet Permit: CO-243 ATF, Permittee's Name: Frank and Sally Ann Cowles. xc: Harry Huber and filed. Minutes: Collier County Planning Commission agenda for 4/5/90 and minutes of 2/23/90 and 3/1/90. Citizen Advisory Committee Of The MPg agenda for 3/30/90 and minutes of 2/23/90. C. Water Management Advisory Board agenda of 4/11/90. Notice To Owner dated 3/26/90, to Better Roads and Nicholas and Cannon from Florida Contractor Rental & Sales, Inc., for Airport Road Widening. xc: Nell Dorrtll, Skip Camp, John Yonkosky, and filed. Notice To Owner dated 3/16/90 to Board of County Commissioners from Clavelli & Co., under an order given by Gulf Constructors, Inc. re South County Regional Waste Water 9e April lC, 1990 Treatment Plant. xc: Netl Dorrill, Skip Camp, John Yonkosky, and filed. Notice To Owner dated 3/27/90 to Board of County Commissioners from Naples Lumber & Supply Co., Inc., under an order given by E. W. Cleveland, Inc., re Immokalee Stockade. xc: Neil Dorrtll, Skip Camp, John Yonkosky, and filed. Preliminary Notice to Board of County Commissioners dated 3/28/90, from Barney's Pumps, Inc., under an order given by Mllmir Construction Inc., re North Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant. xc: Neil Dorrill Skip Camp John Yonkosky and filed. ' ' lC. ll. Copy of Letter dated 3/26/90 to Hon. Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller of Florida, from Joyce Colding, Finance Officer xc: Mike McNees, and filed. ' Order #22?49, dated 3/29/90, from Public Service Commission, re Docket #900005-WS, Order F~naltztng 1990 Price Index for Water and Wast,water Utilities and Closing Docket. Filed. 12. Request For Proposals: The Governor's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Advisory Committee. Filed. 13. Tenth Judicial Ctrcutt Public Defender: Case #74,630, Petitioner, Hillsborough County's Reply Brief on Appeal from the Second District Court of Appeal from Frederick B. Karl, County Attorney,.Robert R. Warchola, Assistant County Attorney, Hl]]sborough County. Filed. 14. Twentieth Judicial Circuit: Case #88-2173-CA-01-HDH, Notice of Conflict, Tactmark, Ltd., vs. Terence L. Fitzgerald et al. xc: Ken Cuyler and filed. ' 15. Case #88-878-CIV-T-17C, Leonard W. Yank, vs. Polk County Board of Commissioners. Request for Production of Documents, First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, Notice of Conflict. xc: Ken Cuyler and filed. 16. Case #88-878-CIV-T-17C, Leonard W. Yanke. vs. Polk County Board of Commissioners. Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion in Abeyance. xc: Ken Cuyler and filed. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: ?:40 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~' mtnu~eS] approved by the Board on as Presen~e~,.,'~ or as corrected O0 C O!19